Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dishonesty and ID
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 1 of 37 (7848)
03-26-2002 12:24 AM


ID'ists get caught
very interesting!!
Cheers
Joe Meert

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Cravingjava, posted 03-26-2002 1:09 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 6239 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 37 (7849)
03-26-2002 1:01 AM


They say that they aren't creationists. But you wouldn't know it by their ethics.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Cravingjava, posted 03-26-2002 1:21 AM The Barbarian has not replied

  
Cravingjava
Guest


Message 3 of 37 (7851)
03-26-2002 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Joe Meert
03-26-2002 12:24 AM


Yes,it is interesting. Makes ya wonder why evolutionists are so afraid to have the "controversy" taught in school.
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1128

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Joe Meert, posted 03-26-2002 12:24 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 03-29-2002 7:49 AM You have not replied
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 04-14-2002 11:24 AM You have not replied

     
Cravingjava
Guest


Message 4 of 37 (7853)
03-26-2002 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by The Barbarian
03-26-2002 1:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by The Barbarian:
They say that they aren't creationists. But you wouldn't know it by their ethics.
I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"?
Since you are on the topic of ethics...
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1106

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by The Barbarian, posted 03-26-2002 1:01 AM The Barbarian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Joe Meert, posted 03-26-2002 1:26 AM You replied
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 03-26-2002 8:31 AM You have not replied

     
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 5 of 37 (7854)
03-26-2002 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Cravingjava
03-26-2002 1:21 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cravingjava:
[B] I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"? [/QUOTE]
JM: Actually, they are not all that different at all. This was part of the point of my original post. ID is simply an old creationist idea dressed up in new (albeit see-through) clothes. There is no good science behind the argument insofaras biology is concerned. The whole point of ID is to get religion back into the classroom disguised as science.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Cravingjava, posted 03-26-2002 1:21 AM Cravingjava has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Cravingjava, posted 03-26-2002 1:39 AM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 03-29-2002 2:49 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Cravingjava
Guest


Message 6 of 37 (7855)
03-26-2002 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joe Meert
03-26-2002 1:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Actually, they are not all that different at all. This was part of the point of my original post. ID is simply an old creationist idea dressed up in new (albeit see-through) clothes. There is no good science behind the argument insofaras biology is concerned. The whole point of ID is to get religion back into the classroom disguised as science.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-26-2002]

Joe,
Thanks for confirming that it is true that most evolutionists don't even understand the platform they so diligently oppose. Hehe.
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=121

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joe Meert, posted 03-26-2002 1:26 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Peter, posted 03-26-2002 5:17 AM You have not replied
 Message 11 by Caerbannog, posted 03-29-2002 12:17 AM You have not replied

     
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 37 (7857)
03-26-2002 3:41 AM


Its not that ID is hard to understand, it simply isn't good science. It makes no testable predictions. If and when the hypothesis puts forth a hypothesis explaining current data, making predicition based on that theory, and testing those predicitions, then it will fall under the category of science. If it is repeatable, passes critisms of peer review (all science, including evolution, must repeatadly and constantly do this), and over time proves itself to be a reliable hypothesis, it may well become a scientific theory. However, tentitive hypothesis shouldn't be taught in schools. ID is not even tentive yet, since it has yet to reach a level of testable hypothesis. That is why it is mocked by scientists and educators.
As much as it must gall most creationists, evolution is a heavily supported theory that has been tested numerous times and been found reliable. It has led to our modern understanding of genetics, which further corraberates its mechanics. It has been revised to reflect new data over time (even the most solid theories are revised to reflect new discoveries and data), and is simply the best scientific theory for biological diversity at this time. Who know, perhaps a hundred years from now it will be tossed out in favor of a better and more accurate theory? Till then, it is the most reliable and accurate theory we have for biodiversity and will be taught as such.

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 8 of 37 (7860)
03-26-2002 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Cravingjava
03-26-2002 1:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cravingjava:

Joe,
Thanks for confirming that it is true that most evolutionists don't even understand the platform they so diligently oppose. Hehe.
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=121

Interesting choice of 'support' for ID ....
quote:
William A.Dembski
According to Darwinism, undirected natural causes are solely responsible for the origin and development of life. In particular, Darwinism rules out the possibility of God or any guiding intelligence playing a role in life's origin and development. Within western culture Darwinism's ascent has been truly meteoric. And yet throughout its ascent there have always been dissenters who regarded as inadequate the Darwinian vision that undirected natural causes could produce the full diversity and complexity of life. "
Darwinism (as I understand it) is evolutionary theory stemming
from Darwin's Origin of Species. Perhaps I am wrong about that ?
As such it has nothing to do with the 'Origin of Life'.
Evolutionary theory does NOT rule out the possibility of God.
Evolution is not concerned with UNDIRECTED natural causes.
Natural selection is a NATURALLY DIRECTED cause for diversity.
Perhaps before attacking evolutionists for not understanding
what they are arguing about, you should check that your sources
know what THEY are arguing about.
quote:
William A. Dembski
What then is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things which undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the pieces as meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design arguments of past centuries.
ID starts from an ASSUMPTION not an observation. There is no
foundation for this assumption. The second sentence above
is the CONCLUSION that is being sought by ID, and so cannot
be the BASE starting point of the theory.
Randomly place enough scrabble pieces on a board, enough
times, and you WILL at some stage get meaningful phrases
come out. That's what random means ... any outcome is as
likely as any other.
The reason for this is that MEANING comes from the OBSERVER
not the OBSERVED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Cravingjava, posted 03-26-2002 1:39 AM Cravingjava has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 9 of 37 (7861)
03-26-2002 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Cravingjava
03-26-2002 1:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cravingjava:
I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"?

Let's look at a quote from Moonie Wells
quote:
My Question: DARWIN’S TREE OF LIFE. Why don’t textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor--thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
JM:This makes me think that Wells has not bothered to study the Cambrian 'slow burn' in any detail.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Cravingjava, posted 03-26-2002 1:21 AM Cravingjava has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-28-2002 10:45 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 37 (7954)
03-28-2002 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Joe Meert
03-26-2002 8:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM:This makes me think that Wells has not bothered to study the Cambrian 'slow burn' in any detail.

Actually, I find the fallacious and generally pathetic response by the NCSE most interesting.
Could you please (in simple terms- remember that I'm a creationist!
) describe the "slow burn" hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 03-26-2002 8:31 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Caerbannog
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 37 (7956)
03-29-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Cravingjava
03-26-2002 1:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cravingjava:

Joe,
Thanks for confirming that it is true that most evolutionists don't even understand the platform they so diligently oppose. Hehe.
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=121

Oh, we understand it perfectly. ID theory is nothing more than a vehicle used by Dembski and Co. to sell books and tapes to the credulous. In that respect, it's just like those easy weight-loss "diet plans" and "no money down" get-rich-quick real-estate schemes that you see being hawked on those late-night TV infomercials.
The most you can say for ID "research" is that it beats working for a living.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Cravingjava, posted 03-26-2002 1:39 AM Cravingjava has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 37 (7974)
03-29-2002 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Cravingjava
03-26-2002 1:09 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cravingjava:
[B]Yes,it is interesting. Makes ya wonder why evolutionists are so afraid to have the "controversy" taught in school. [/QUOTE]
It's not "fear", because I would LOVE to have the entire history of Creation Science and it's pseudoscience taught in a comparative RELIGION class in all schools, along with all the other religions and how they interfere with education in favor of indoctrination.
It just doesn't belong in a science classroom because it isn't science.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Cravingjava, posted 03-26-2002 1:09 AM Cravingjava has not replied

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 6239 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 37 (7981)
03-29-2002 10:13 AM


I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"?
Fact is, they lied. Blatently lied about something very obvious. This is the kind of thing we have learned to expect from the professional creationists. It is, apparently something ID has borrowed from creationism, in the same way they borrowed their religious notions.
If it offends you to have people notice this, it would be much more productive for you to encourage ID people to be more honest.
Ironically, you linked me to a page in which an IDer attempts to refute science using the same old creationist arguments. You've made my case for me.
Let's look at an example from the link you cited:
Jonathan Wells:
[blockquote]My Question: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds--even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?[/blockquote]
NCSE’s Answer: The notion of a missing link is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells’s claim that supposed ancestors are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!
Well's evasion:
(a) If the notion of a missing link is out of date, why do biology textbooks continue to use it? When the NCSE launches its long-overdue campaign against misconceptions in biology textbooks (such as calling the origin of life part of evolution, or using homology as evidence for common ancestry), it can add missing link to its list.
I get to review biology textbooks; I'm on a committee that checks them out. I haven't yet seen one that even uses the term "missing link", except as a caution about unscientific thinking. If you could find one for me, I'd be pleased to write a nasty note to the publisher. I emailed Wells once, but he must have been too busy to give me an answer. Could you give me one?
(b) If Darwin’s theory is true, there must have been organisms in the past that were transitional links between ancestors and descendants--yet most of them are missing from the fossil record. So the notion of missing link is no more out-of-date than evolutionary theory itself.
Wells admits that transitional links would be evidence for Darwin's theory. He then admits that there are some found in the fossil record. Then he concludes that this must validate the "missing link" notion. I can only conclude that he imagines that unless we have a fossil of every organism that ever existed, something is wrong with evolution. It appears he has admitted what he wanted to refute.
(c) Archaeopteryx is not preceded by fossils showing how reptiles gradually acquired bird-like features. Furthermore, without fossils of the appropriate age, the NCSE has no grounds for saying Wells’s claim that ‘supposed ancestors’ are younger than Archaeopteryx is false.
(d) Bird-like dinosaurs are not just younger than their supposed relative, but millions of generations younger, so it makes no sense to call them uncles of Archaeopteryx.
It is true that we do have quite a number of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds, showing different stages in the process. Even though birds don't fossilize well, there apparently were a lot of them, and few are preserved.
And it's just as looney to say that a species can't live on for millions of years after a different species evolved from it, as it is to say your uncle can't be younger than you. This is Wells with his back to the wall, making evasions and excuses. Flimsy ones.
The others are just as bad and further evidence of the lack of moral fiber on the part of the IDers. I would be pleased to discuss them further here, if someone wants to hear about them.
I suppose you are aware that Wells has admitted that before he ever got his degree, that he had a religious mission to "destroy evolution". Or maybe you aren't. Wells doesn't mention that these days. That's an important bit of evidence for the ethical standards of IDers also.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 2:50 AM The Barbarian has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 14 of 37 (7995)
03-29-2002 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joe Meert
03-26-2002 1:26 AM


J, can you say, in say NUMBER's history of the Creationist exactly WHAT old creationist idea it is origin of. I could not figure that out on reading MERE CREATION. This is not a private hook. I want to know. I take the ICR position with respect to ID a little closer to heart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joe Meert, posted 03-26-2002 1:26 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 37 (8497)
04-14-2002 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by The Barbarian
03-29-2002 10:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by The Barbarian:
The others are just as bad and further evidence of the lack of moral fiber on the part of the IDers. I would be pleased to discuss them further here, if someone wants to hear about them.
"Lack of moral fiber"? Actually, nothing you stated showed that Wells lacked "moral fiber", at most you could accuse him of scientific incompetence. However, the outright lie of the NCSE that fish were not present in the Cambrian seems to be a good indicator of the lack of such "fiber".
"I suppose you are aware that Wells has admitted that before he ever got his degree, that he had a religious mission to "destroy evolution". Or maybe you aren't. Wells doesn't mention that these days. That's an important bit of evidence for the ethical standards of IDers also."
First of all, this statement constitutes a logical fallacy, that is, trying to discredit information by it's source. Secondly, I don't see how a statement that you wish to "destroy evolution" is an indicator of a lack of moral integrity. Perhaps you could inform me?
Thirdly, I think you might find this interesting:
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=607

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by The Barbarian, posted 03-29-2002 10:13 AM The Barbarian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 04-14-2002 10:53 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024