Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2018 2:57 PM
281 online now:
caffeine, Diomedes, Meddle, PaulK, ringo, Stile (6 members, 275 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,711 Year: 13,534/29,783 Month: 980/1,576 Week: 192/303 Day: 16/36 Hour: 2/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Christian takes on ID
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14346
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1 of 6 (725070)
04-24-2014 1:38 AM


My Debate With an 'Intelligent Design' Theorist

A couple of quotes:


West’s claim is politically expedient. ID has to be secular to succeed. Indeed, ID emerged from the wreckage of creationism when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the latter formally religious and thus forever banned from science classes in the public schools. But ID is not, of course, secular, and would immediately disappear if not for evangelical Christians who underwrite it in the hopes of bringing America back to what they see as its Biblical roots.


I went on to argue that the explanatory deficiencies of ID are overwhelming, extending far beyond bad and sinister design. ID, in fact, has no “theory,” despite its proponents’ claim to the contrary and their propensity to call themselves “theorists.” ....

Anyone familiar with ID should, of course, already know both of these.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by saab93f, posted 04-24-2014 7:55 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
saab93f
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 2 of 6 (725076)
04-24-2014 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
04-24-2014 1:38 AM


What this article once again shows is the utter emptiness of ID and the incredible deceitfulness of its proponents. What really made my blood boil was this:
quote:
I mentioned in the debate that I thought this difficulty—acknowledged as it was by other ID theorists—was the deepest and most interesting challenge facing ID. But Meyer assured me that this is no longer an issue and that they now had a theory, although whatever it is appears to remain a well-kept secret. I objected that, as a physicist with a Ph.D who had studied some real theories—quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, electromagnetism—ID did not remotely resemble any other theory in the natural sciences and was thus hard to see how it might work. The response was that ID was under no obligation to satisfy the expectations of the scientific community for what a theory should look like.

There is not an ounce of honesty or integrity in IDiots - they are on a mission to have their beliefs spread and they do not care about the collateral damage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2014 1:38 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 9:41 AM saab93f has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 10:33 AM saab93f has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 6 (725081)
04-24-2014 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by saab93f
04-24-2014 7:55 AM


The response was that ID was under no obligation to satisfy the expectations of the scientific community for what a theory should look like.

I see this as just an admission that ID is not science. When we say the word theory, we mean implicitly scientific theory.

In short, there is no theory and Meyer admits that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by saab93f, posted 04-24-2014 7:55 AM saab93f has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Diomedes, posted 04-24-2014 1:30 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 4 of 6 (725097)
04-24-2014 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by saab93f
04-24-2014 7:55 AM


The response was that ID was under no obligation to satisfy the expectations of the scientific community for what a theory should look like.

"I have a pet elephant."

"Show me ... oh, that's not an elephant."

"Why do you say that?"

"Because it's small and furry with long ears and and a cottontail and looks like a rabbit."

"My elephant doesn't have to satisfy your expectations of what an elephant looks like!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by saab93f, posted 04-24-2014 7:55 AM saab93f has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by saab93f, posted 04-24-2014 11:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 5 of 6 (725124)
04-24-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2014 10:33 AM


"My elephant doesn't have to satisfy your expectations of what an elephant looks like!"

What a lovely cop-out. As long as the ID-folks get to define the terminology their way...
Horoscopes are more scientific than ID.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 10:33 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 714
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 6 of 6 (725144)
04-24-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NoNukes
04-24-2014 9:41 AM


The response was that ID was under no obligation to satisfy the expectations of the scientific community for what a theory should look like.

I see this as just an admission that ID is not science. When we say the word theory, we mean implicitly scientific theory.

In short, there is no theory and Meyer admits that.

This was one of the main points in the Dover trial from a few years back, when Behe was trying to provide his advocacy for the ID side of the fence. In the end, he had to admit that his notion of science did not meet the standard definition and when pressed, also had to admit that if one used his definition, then concepts like Pyramid Power, Astrology and Magic Crystals would also have to be acknowledged as being 'science'.

Science is science and the scientific method has already been defined. If one has a concept that cannot reconcile against these established notions, then it is simply not science. No matter how they want to spin it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2014 9:41 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018