Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 1:03 AM
375 online now:
Coyote, Dredge, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Rrhain (6 members, 369 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,773 Year: 10,379/21,208 Month: 3,466/2,674 Week: 9/873 Day: 9/76 Hour: 0/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 151 of 177 (548620)
02-28-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2010 4:21 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hey, Dr A.

Yes, I remember reading this at the time. It seems to me the most damning thing of all.

Yes. I also remember reading about the Discovery Institute creating a research branch, but it was all hush-hush top-secret have-to-shoot-you about what they were actually doing.

Then there's the Rate Group conclusion that radioactive ages cannot be dismissed without some unknown god-did-it explanation. (Coyote has the links I believe). They tried a scientific approach and could not reach any conclusion but the one already reached by scientists.

So far the evidence is that ID is not science becaue ID doesn't do science that supports ID.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2010 4:21 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 152 of 177 (548628)
02-28-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2010 4:21 PM


The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
Found it, thanks to google site and Theodoric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic_Institute

quote:
The Biologic Institute is a tax-exempt organization with offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington.[1] It is funded by the Discovery Institute[2][3] with the stated purpose of doing biological research. The main goal of the Biologic Institute is to produce experimental evidence of intelligent design.

The original Discovery Institute plan laid out in the Wedge Document, leaked in 1999, called for Douglas Axe, the current Biologic Institute director, senior researcher and spokesman, to head up a research effort in support of intelligent design. However, the Discovery Institute did not begin executing this part of the Wedge Strategy plan until 2005.[4]

The Biologic Institute was announced in mid-2005, and incorporated in Washington in October 2005 as a charitable organization working on research on birth defects and genetic diseases.[2][3][5] Axe told New Scientist magazine that the purpose of the Biologic Institute "is to show that the design perspective can lead to better science", and stated that the Biologic Institute will "contribute substantially to the scientific case for intelligent design".[4] In spite of the Discovery Institute funding, Axe and Discovery spokesperson Rob Crowther are adamant that the Biologic Institute is a "separate entity".[4]

New Scientist magazine sent a reporter to the Biologic Institute facilities in late 2006 to investigate. The reporter, Celeste Biever, was given a fairly chilly reception and found few willing to speak to her about their research.[4] Although the New Scientist article was somewhat negative, the Discovery Institute touted it as unequivocal evidence that the Biologic Institute is engaging in scientific research.[16]

The only one of the four Biologic Institute directors willing to speak to New Scientist reporter Biever was George Weber, a retired member of the business faculty at Whitworth University, a private Christian college associated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) in Spokane, Washington. Weber belongs to the Spokane chapter of Reasons to Believe, a fundamentalist evangelical Christian creationist organization.[17] Weber stated that, "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design" and "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism."[4] After speaking to New Scientist, Weber left the board of the Biologic Institute. Axe explained in an email to Biever that this was because Weber "was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it."[4]

The Discovery Institute stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community.[18][19] Nevertheless, Biever was able to discover that The Biologic Institute is working on "examining the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds" and computational biology.[4]


So there ya go, research underway, but it appears they have no results to publish yet.

Contrast this with the number of papers that the same authors have put out about abiogenesis in the same time ...

I predict that, like the RATE Group, any conclusions they reach will not be any kind of challenge to prevailing science: they will either discard science in favor of a priori beliefs or reach similar conclusions already reached in science.

Enjoy.

ps - I know Bill Gates supports the DI with substantial cash, and wonder if maybe he asked them to do some science ...?

http://www.discovery.org/a/1537

quote:
Institute Hails $9.3 Million Grant from Gates Foundation

The grant will fund research, development, promotion and implementation of a long-term transportation plan for the Puget Sound region.

The Discovery Institute is a national and regional research center for varied public policy issues, including transportation, science and culture, technology, law, economics and the environment. Its mission is “to make a positive vision of the future practical.”


Curiously, it has nothing at all to do with ID ...

Edited by RAZD, : ps


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2010 4:21 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2010 10:13 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 166 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 153 of 177 (548630)
02-28-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
02-28-2010 6:10 AM


what's the topic?
Hi Percy, just a note

Of course you can, but in threads where it would be on-topic. This thread's about abiogenesis.

This thread was started by marc9000 to discuss the relative merits of ID versus abiogenesis on a scientific basis. I got some further clarification on what marc9000 wanted to discuss with Message 123:

quote:
From these messages and your OP I glean the basic topic to be:

1. whether abiogenesis can properly be considered science,
2. whether ID can properly be considered science, and
3. whether abiogenesis is more scientific than ID or vice versa


Yes, you’ve clarified it well, I believe your A,B, and C should be the focus of this thread, and I agree about leaving the other issues.

As such the title should probably be changed to

Abiogenesis vs ID -- which is more scientific?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 02-28-2010 6:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 154 of 177 (548798)
03-01-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by marc9000
02-27-2010 7:50 PM


Update on the bogus ID "prediction"
Hi again, marc9000, just came across some additional information.

From thread is the advancement of macro evolution without hick up? Message 28:

This letter to Nature describes an experiment involving the deletion of over 2,300 non-coding intervals from mice DNA with no apparent effect on the mice.

Going to the article abstract we see:

quote:
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined(1). Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts(2, 3, 4) can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.


Note two things:

(1) the function of non-coding DNA is still unknown for 98% of the mammalian genomes, and

(2) large segments can be deleted with no apparent effect on the viability of the organisms or their descendants.

Now remember your one single prediction that you offered to support ID was:

Message 111: To go further with the “junk DNA” thing, we find this link, including this paragraph;

quote:
Even if some rogue biologists suspected function for "junk" DNA, this does nothing to change the fact that the false "junk"-DNA paradigm was born, bred, and sustained far beyond its reasonable lifetime under the Neo-Darwinian mindset. Some Darwinists do not want to admit this fact of history. Given the behavior of Darwinists regarding the film Flock of Dodos, where they have denied that Haeckel's faked embryo drawings have been misused in modern textbooks, it is not surprising that some Darwinists are now trying to rewrite history to claim their paradigm never called non-coding DNA "junk." It appears that junk-DNA is truly going the way of the dodo, in more way than one.

Intelligent design really can sometimes correct mistakes of the Neo-Darwinian mindset.

As I noted in Message 136:

Four, I've done a little investigating of the background on your "prediction" ...

From your link:

quote:
As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science[1] against assuming that 'junk' DNA was 'useless.'" Science wouldn't print Mims' letter, but soon thereafter, in 1998, leading ID theorist William Dembski repeated this sentiment in First Things:
[Intelligent] design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.

(William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998))


Now let's review that "prediction" by Dembski again ...

quote:
... If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. ...

So that "prediction" has still not been fulfilled, unless you consider the small amount of all DNA having a known use today meeting the criteria of "as much as possible, to exhibit function." So what is predicted for the remaining DNA today? If we are still less than 50% known use then that prediction has not been met. What is the use? What is the function? Without that essential little detail there is no prediction of the use of such DNA. When I design something it is 100% functional parts.

So to update my previous comments with the information given above:

(1) If the use of 98% of mammalian genomes is still not known, then the amount of non-coding DNA that has been determined to have some use is indeed very very small, to the point where Dembski's "prediction" of finding use -- "If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function" -- cannot be deemed to be anywhere near being touched by any stretch of a willing but rational imagination.

(2) The deletion of such large sections of non-coding DNA without discernible effect on the individual or its descendants is a strong argument for invalidation of Dembski's prediction: if DNA, as much as possible, should exhibit function for ID to be valid, then any large scale deletion of DNA should have noticeable effect on the organism or its descendants.

Leaving aside the fact that his "prediction" of some use for non-coding DNA being found was due to reading about it in a science journal rather than to some hypothesis based on ID, we see that this has nowhere near come close to beginning to hint at validation, while there is evidence that strongly speaks to invalidating it.

Notice that in abiogenesis, when it became apparent that the early environment was not as reducing as was assumed with Miller-Urey, that the scientists discarded the previous assumptions and proceeded to (successfully) repeat the experiments with updated environmental conditions.

Science discards invalidated concepts.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2010 7:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 155 of 177 (548802)
03-01-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
02-28-2010 6:30 PM


Re: The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
I hadn't looked at the Biologic Institute for a while. I just Binged them. (Due to the CEO of Google not having any respect for privacy, I am transitioning away from using google, need to start using my hotmail addy more. Kind of sad when your best choice is Microsoft.)

Google CEO

Been a while since I have been here and I totally forget how to add a youtube video so click the link if you want to see it.

Now back to The Biologic Institute.
This is from the first line on their research page.

Everyone agrees that life is full of systems and structures that have an appearance of intelligent design.

Biologic Institute-Research

Hmmm, no. Not everyone agrees. Maybe everyone they know, but I 'don't and I know a lot of other people don't.

The also list of lot of scientific articles on the page. I have l;looked at a few and they all seem to be legit, but they don't seem to have anything to do with ID. Not sure what the relation is. Maybe the more technical, science types here can give us a clue. Most of my hard science I seem to have learned here, but history and poli sci I can give as good as I get.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2010 6:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15800
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 156 of 177 (548809)
03-01-2010 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by marc9000
02-03-2010 7:20 PM


Re: Explanatory power
To go further with the “junk DNA” thing, we find this link, including this paragraph;

quote:
Even if some rogue biologists suspected function for "junk" DNA, this does nothing to change the fact that the false "junk"-DNA paradigm was born, bred, and sustained far beyond its reasonable lifetime under the Neo-Darwinian mindset. Some Darwinists do not want to admit this fact of history. Given the behavior of Darwinists regarding the film Flock of Dodos, where they have denied that Haeckel's faked embryo drawings have been misused in modern textbooks, it is not surprising that some Darwinists are now trying to rewrite history to claim their paradigm never called non-coding DNA "junk." It appears that junk-DNA is truly going the way of the dodo, in more way than one.

Intelligent design really can sometimes correct mistakes of the Neo-Darwinian mindset.

But, of course, it didn't. How naive are you? Do you really suppose that the discovery that some non-coding DNA was functional was prompted by the ravings of a bunch of creationist halfwits --- ravings which only started after evolutionists discovered that non-coding DNA had function and told them about it?

Here, let me quote you some more from your link:

quote:
As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science[1] against assuming that 'junk' DNA was 'useless.'"

Wow, as far back as 1994, eh?

So, that would be only three decades after real scientists described the structure of tRNA, right? And only two decades after the discovery of introns and alternative gene splicing? And ... I can't even find out how long ago scientists discovered promoter regions. If I google on "discovery of the promoter region", I get such hits as this paper from 1981, but they're talking about the discovery of a particular promoter region for a particular gene, not the discovery of promoter regions in general. That seems to be lost in the mists of time ... can anyone tell me whe the concept was discovered?

But, hooray!, "as far back as 1994", creationist nutters started lecturing scientists on how it was possible that one day scientists might make the discoveries that they had already made, and when these discoveries had, presumably via the medium of popular science articles, been spoon-fed to the creationists.

Now, how is that "Intelligent design correcting mistakes of the Neo-Darwinists"? And how does it constitute predictive power of creationist mumbo-jumbo for creationists to start talking about what real scientists had discovered decades earlier as though creationists had thought of it and had to drag scientists kicking and screaming towards the truth.

You know, a thread was recently started specially for me to defend the proposition that creationists are sincere. Well, you poor dupes who lap up this nonsense may be sincere, but right now I'm thinking that your masters who feed you these lies are just lying lumps of crap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 839
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 157 of 177 (549789)
03-10-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by hooah212002
02-27-2010 8:09 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Do you have any idea how new scientific studies work? You seem to be under the impression that ANYTHING can be labeled science and be awarded funding. NO!

Not necessarily “awarded funding”, but “labeled science”, yes. Maybe not in this day and age, but in past decades/centuries. When looking at the SETI institute’s website, we see that it was founded in late 1984, and “began operations” in early 1985. On its education page, we find this;

quote:
Curiosity motivates both exploration and learning in schools, science centers, colleges and universities. In a less formal venue, several million people per year tap into the Institute's website and podcast radio show for cutting edge science, technology and opinion. Others learn about our astrobiology and SETI research through print and broadcast media via our SETI Thursday column, popular articles, and science-based television.

We're in classrooms across the nation. Institute scientists are co-authors of college-level textbooks: Life in the Universe, a national best-seller for introductory astrobiology, and Perspectives on Astronomy, a widely adopted text for introductory astronomy.


All new ideas must first have some preliminary research that is done pro-bono by whatever person/group is doing the research. They then must present their findings to another group whom will provide money (normally a grant) to do extensive research. The research is conducted, findings are found, data is presented to a group of peers. The peers see that it is legitimate. IT"S SCIENCE!

I’ve no doubt it’s been done that way since the concept of ID was first proposed, but not so much before that. I don’t believe it was ever done with abiogenesis 50 or more years ago, and I don’t believe it was done with the SETI institute. Can you show that the process you described above was carried out for abiogenesis? Or for the SETI institute – that might be easier for you to document since it’s much more confined and identifiable than the broad subject of abiogenesis. Can you show (with links) some information on just who the SETI institute provided its findings to, what research has been conducted, what findings have been found, who the group of peers were who accepted it, and who accepted their work for publication in science textbooks? (not a lot of detail, just some specific names, dates) If you can, I’ll concede the point, but it has to be more than just your opinionated, general statement.

Here's what ID wants: There is a hypothesis that life is too complex to occur naturally. Any study (ONE has been done....ONE) to substantiate the hypothesis is refuted and shown to be in errror. This is not a valid hypothesis. Start over, do more research. (hint: science seeks to prove itself WRONG. Not prove other shit wrong).

Today’s scientific community does not seek to prove Darwinism wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 8:09 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 9:02 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 839
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 158 of 177 (549792)
03-10-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Blue Jay
02-27-2010 11:08 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements
Okay, let’s get this straight: you don’t know when abiogenesis was first taught in education curricula; and you don’t know when it “became science,” so you really don’t have anything authoritative to say on the chronology.

I don’t think anybody really does, and that in itself could be “authoritative”. I think it’s like the SETI institute – it just effortlessly blended into science. It wasn’t a challenge to godless naturalism, so it got an automatic pass. All the while not having to meet criteria that ID is constantly challenged to meet. (falsifiability, uselfulness, repeatability) If I'm wrong, show me. I can't prove that something doesn't exist - you can show I'm wrong by proving that it does exist.

I am skeptical that abiogenesis was widely taught in science classes before the 1950’s, and I am skeptical that it was accepted in science as an authoritatively demonstrated reality before then.

I agree that it probably wasn’t, but the reason wasn’t because it’s more tenable today, it’s because the morality filter of those past generations didn’t allow it. The 1947 Supreme Court decision that separated church and state for the first time probably had bearing on it.

I request that you support this claim of yours by showing us a mainstream textbook, curriculum, statement from a relevant scientific society or some other evidence that abiogenesis indeed “became science” before it was supported with experimental results.

How is it supported with experimental results today? It’s not even a theory yet. To show you that evidence, I’d have to know the exact date when abiogenesis became science. Does anybody really know that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2010 11:08 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 839
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 159 of 177 (549794)
03-10-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by bluescat48
02-27-2010 11:19 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Nothing is treated as absolute truth in science.

The scientific community claims many things as “scientific facts”. Evolution is called a “fact”. I suppose in some cases it can be claimed that nothing is treated as absolute truth in science, but my point is/was that nothing else comes close to being able to challenge scientific claims, in making social decisions.

Things like tradition and morals (religion) were able to do it in the past, but not so much today, and in some cases it has a price. (financial and political)

If there was anything that was considered absolute truth, then the research into that study would cease, and would then be as religion that is dogma.

Public research involving a disproof of Darwinism HAS CEASED. ALL scientific study of it today only seeks to support/strengthen it, nothing more. It is dogma.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by bluescat48, posted 02-27-2010 11:19 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 289 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 160 of 177 (549796)
03-10-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by marc9000
03-10-2010 8:45 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Do you think SETI is it's own scientific classification? you seem to be putting SETI (research institute) in the same category as Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy etc. SETI is a group that hopes to find life in the cosmos. You, too, can download and install SETI on your home PC in order to help in the effort.

What are you two on about with SETI? What is your gripe with it? Are you afraid we just might not be alone? Will that make us not-so-special?

Can you show (with links) some information on just who the SETI institute provided its findings to, what research has been conducted, what findings have been found, who the group of peers were who accepted it,

Did you bother looking? Here is a start: Peer Reviewed Journal Publications
and Other Recent Articles on The Society for Planetary SETI Researchp

who accepted their work for publication in science textbooks?

First, show me a science textbook that "teaches" SETI. Again, you astoundedly have no clue as to what SETI is, apparently.

Today’s scientific community does not seek to prove Darwinism wrong.

That's because "Darwinism" is a buzz word for creo-tards. You will not find anyone trying to prove "Newtonism" wrong either, or "Einsteinism".


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 8:45 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:11 PM hooah212002 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 839
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 161 of 177 (549798)
03-10-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Coyote
02-28-2010 1:22 AM


Re: Theistic science?
From the Wedge Document:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

And just how can you justify calling this nonsense science? It would seem to be the exact opposite of science.

It’s a reaction to the science (nonsense) of Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Daniel Dennett, William Provine, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, many others. I borrowed a biology textbook from the 15 year old son of a friend of mine, (author, Kenneth Miller, a Christian, har) Science that disregards religion completely is what students are being taught. Miller writes it exactly the same way an atheist would. He doesn’t avoid religion as he should, he makes positive assertions about nature (including abiogenesis) that contradict it.

And how would you plan to enforce this "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions?" A theocracy? The Inquisition? Censorship of all sciences that do not conform to some shaman's ideas?

There is no proposal to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview by “enforcement”, the proposal is to reverse it by “open inquiry”. You won't find a proposal for "force" anywhere in ID, including even the Wedge Document. If church and state are separated, atheism and state also should be separated.

Sorry, not going to happen. For your enlightenment look up...The Enlightenment. It means that we no longer have to kowtow to the shamans. After thousands of years we are finally free to tell them to go jump.

The time has come to tell Dawkins, Miller, and countless others to go jump.

Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2010 1:22 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2010 10:10 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 839
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 162 of 177 (549800)
03-10-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by hooah212002
02-28-2010 1:29 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
What, exactly, are Atheists beliefs? You do know that atheists are called as such because they don't believe in god, right? The term "atheists beliefs" is somewhat oxymoronic.

For atheists to have an absence of beliefs, they sure do write a lot of books about that absence. It’s a political worldview, often with specific political beliefs. It’s relevant to the first amendment, as I showed in message # 131. The right to practice religion is protected, and the right to establish religion is prohibited. Courts have traditionally held that the right to practice atheism is equally as protected as is the right to practice religion, so it follows that a prohibition of an establishment of atheism is equally as important as the prohibition of the establishment of religion. Public educational establishment of abiogenesis is a public establishment of atheism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by hooah212002, posted 02-28-2010 1:29 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 10:06 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 839
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 163 of 177 (549802)
03-10-2010 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by PaulK
02-28-2010 4:40 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
ID researchers have the same access to grants as anyone else. All they have to do is to demonstrate the merit and the value of their work to the same standards.

ID research doesn’t have the same establishment in public universities as does naturalism. The political “separation of church and state” diminishes its access to public grants.

It can't easily demonstrate its merit while simultaneously warding off powerful, emotional claims that it's nothing but religion.

Acceptance in the scientific community is earned, not just given. In fact it is earned by producing worthwhile research so on this count you are clearly putting the cart before the horse.

I’d like to know the date, and research established on that date, when abiogenesis was first accepted as science by the scientific community. I don’t think you’ll be able to produce it, because no one really has that information. Its acceptance was automatic, and no one knows when that was.

The ID movement has the same means of getting exposure to students as any other idea in the same situation. If it wants to be treated like mainstream science it has to earn that place. Which again comes down to actually doing the research.

Again, it's hard to forward the talk of research while defending against the screams of religious accusations.

Abiogenesis research has no "free pass" from legal challenges. So I don't know what you are talking about there.

So you can give me examples of when abiogenesis status as science was challenged in court?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2010 4:40 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2010 2:45 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 839
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 164 of 177 (549804)
03-10-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
02-28-2010 6:10 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Your problem isn't with abiogenesis but with science. You can't single out abiogenesis for being naturalistic because all of science is naturalistic, and abiogenesis is held to the same requirements of falsifiability as all the rest of science.

Maybe we’re getting somewhere, you’re right, my problem IS with science, because it’s controlled by atheists! They don’t even seem to bother to separate the vast differences between atheistic speculation of billions of years ago vs the here-and-now applications of scientific material processes. If any here-and-now scientific applications had the gaps that abiogenesis has, it wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything – it certainly couldn’t be considered science.

If you want to discuss naturalism and falsifiability in science, and/or its supposed air of superiority, then I suggest you take the discussion to one of the Is It Science? threads, or propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

Why is the exact location of a discussion within forums all that important?

Of course you can, but in threads where it would be on-topic. This thread's about abiogenesis.

This thread was started by me, and its location is where the administration put it. My posts have followed my opening post, combined with the responses to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 02-28-2010 6:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 03-11-2010 6:42 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 839
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 165 of 177 (549806)
03-10-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by RAZD
02-28-2010 11:06 AM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
The difference here is that we had an agreed definition to work by, you noted that abiogenesis fit that definition as science, but have failed to demonstrate that ID can fit it.

“I noted that abiogenesis fit a definition as science”? Where did I do that?

I've also showed that this definition was used prior to Darwin and his theory of descent with modification, and that the definition has not changed to make ID unacceptable. ID doesn't meet the 1828 definition of science as noted in Message 125:
The above site also provides the 1828 definition of science (my bold for emphasis):

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...
quote:
________________________________________
SCI''ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]
...
2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.
...
________________________________________

Here we see that the term science is applied to subjects founded on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy at this time meaning the study of the natural world.
Abiogenesis would fit that definition, ID would not.

If we can include natural philosophy that forcefully excludes the supernatural (atheism) art, agriculture, navigation, arts, painting, sculpture, why can’t we include mathematical challenges to Darwinism? Why is it religious to challenge Darwinism to the concept of irreducible complexity?

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

You largely disregarded an entire link I provided earlier about the gaps and faith in abiogenesis simply because the author didn’t define evolution in an exact way that you agreed with. Why would you blame me, or any creationist/ID proponent for disregarding most of what you (or any evolutionist/naturalist) say concerning science if you refuse to concede proven points about double standards in entrance requirements in the scientific community?

I disregarded it because it was full of misinformation, beginning at the start. My experience has been that starting with misinformation does not lead to valid conclusions. It's a logic thing.

I agree, that’s why the misinformation that life can spontaneously spring from non life could very well not lead to valid conclusions.

If your point was really valid, you would not need a website with misinformation to demonstrate it.

People using a source to make a point about something often disregard what others may perceive as misinformation. What do you think about ID opponents constantly associating it with Biblical events? I haven’t necessarily seen you do it, but I’ve never noticed you criticizing anyone for doing it.

If you think it has something relevant to say then pick out the point you think is relevant and present it.

It had plenty of points that were relevant, but it’s easy to see that the godless scientific community can oppose anything it wants, simply by going down a different path, and loading it with complexities that nothing outside the publicly established realm can hope to compete with, especially while it's defending itself against something else, something political.

Don't you find it rather dishonest for ID to claim this as a prediction when it is based on repeating what was published in a scientific journal by actual scientists doing actual science?

No, not at all. Without the presence of at least a few non-atheist scientists, maybe it wouldn’t have appeared in a scientific journal at all, or maybe it wouldn’t have been noted as prominently as it should have.

Curious how abiogenesis became a science by doing science, but ID has failed to do so.

I’d like to see some documentation on that. I’d like to see the date when abiogenesis was declared to be science, and what science it had “done” to gain that status.

Your curiousity should diminish when you add up the instances when abiogenesis was on the receiving end of an ACLU lawsuit, vs that of the ID community.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2010 11:06 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017