|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does intelligent design have creationist roots? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The point here is that ID is purely the result of xian creationists.
The validity of creationism (any version of creationism) is not the point here. What you seem to be doing is the mysterious Yoda Dance: that gets old really quick, here. ABE: I'm sure Huntard cares that you may consider his post puerile. Edited by Larni, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
The point here is that ID is purely the result of xian creationists.
[b]That is probably true. However, this by itself does not render I.D. irrelevant as metascience. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given. Edited by traderdrew, : I'm experimenting with html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Welcome traderdrew
[qs] Howdy [/qs] will get you Howdy That's the important one. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
However, this by itself does not render I.D. irrelevant as metascience True, but metascience is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Science is not science if it has a spiritual component. The spiritual would effect the results and therefore void it of any significance. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
What the hell's 'metascience'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
What the hell's 'metascience'? Best I can tell it is pseudoscience BS and malarky.
Here is one guys take on it. He thinks we should conflate religion and science. He seems to think they both are equally valid worldviews and we should combine them. Gee, sounds just like ID doesnt it. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Gee, sounds just like ID doesnt it. No doubt. I beats me how any one can claim ID is anything else other than creationism. Turning the word science into some neologism to redefine it seems an equally pointless pass time. Edited by Larni, : Added 'pointless'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I got the term from Robin Collins.
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Robins Collins writes: One cost that goes along with this claim is that if the hypothesis of a transcendent designer is excluded as a matter of methodology, then one cannot claim that science (at least when it theorizes about origins) purports to tell us the truth about the world, but only that science gives us the best naturalistic story. Here is the problem: the reason for science not answering questions about a hypothetical designer is that there is no evidence of the designer that science can study. It's a bit like me going to a doctor and asking her to tell me what's wrong with me when I steadfastly refuse to tell her my symptoms; and then tell her she not doing 'doctoring'. Calling science 'metascience' is simply an attempt to redefine science a la Wedge Document.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
the reason for science not answering questions about a hypothetical designer is that there is no evidence of the designer that science can study.
I know that. However, I.D. has given me some possible insights into the intentions of our creator. I'm not sure if my creator wants me to tell the world about some of these things. I do believe in science because it has its uses. I don't trust the people who disseminate science to the public.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
However, I.D. has given me some possible insights into the intentions of our creator. I'm not sure if my creator wants me to tell the world about some of these things. I do believe in science because it has its uses. I don't trust the people who disseminate science to the public.
Fundamentalism and its illegitimate stepchild, ID, are anti-science. They both start out with the "answers" and bend, ignore, or misrepresent scientific data until they make it all fit. This is the exact opposite of science and the scientific method. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
traderdrew writes: However, I.D. has given me some possible insights into the intentions of our creator. The problem here is that you assume that there is a designer to have intentions. This is putting the cart before the pony. Rather than say "my hypothesis is that there is a designer; now I shall attempt to falsify my hypothesis" you appear to be saying "I assume my hypothesis of a designer existing is correct and now I go on to hypothesise as to it's intentions". That is not a rational way to gather information. It's like assuming someone is guilty and then assigning the motivations she must have had to commit the crime. In the words of the late 20th century poet philosopher Neil Tennet "Think about it seriously; you know it makes sense".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Except , of course, ID is not science. It does not make any testable predictions, nor does it actually explain anything.
You get a large number of unsupported claims, and invalid attempts at trying to criticize evolution (mainly through logical fallacies), but nothing else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I.D. doesn't necessarily start out with the answers. At least I haven't looked at it only from this perspective. It looks at the evidence such as biochemistry and the Cambrian explosion and the fine-tuned nature of our solar system and the rest of the universe.
We can debate the epistemological obligations of science but I can't see how science can explain everything when it MUST dismiss any and all supernatural possibilities. Neo-Darwinism is the epitemy of that sort of thought process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Except , of course, ID is not science. It does not make any testable predictions, nor does it actually explain anything.
I think it explains the evidence. I agree that this could be considered to be lame but it makes me think when I engage the evidence. Remember, science requires creativity and imagination. You get a large number of unsupported claims, and invalid attempts at trying to criticize evolution (mainly through logical fallacies), but nothing else. I am not criticizing evolution. I just don't believe in neo-Darwinism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024