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 12:35 PM
414 online now:
14174dm, Coyote, Dr Adequate, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 407 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,824 Year: 10,430/21,208 Month: 3,517/2,674 Week: 60/873 Day: 60/76 Hour: 3/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 121 of 177 (545496)
02-03-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by marc9000
02-03-2010 7:20 PM


Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi again marc9000,

Notice that admin has requested strict focus on the topic. In Message 59 I asked for clarification on the topic and you replied in Message 65, but didn't really clarify the issue:

quote:
It seems your topic is more about whether abiogenesis is science than about the actual origins of life issue. Is that accurate?

Yes it is, but it's also about the motivation that declares abiogenesis to be science, while claiming evidence for design is not.
...
quote:
It doesn't appear that any of your subsequent posts have added clarification to the original post for what specific point you would like to discuss.

I think it has - the comparison of scientific qualifications for abiogenesis vs ID.

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

We can leave the other issues aside for now (or move them to new\alternate threads).

The basic starting point for this discussion must be an agreed on definition of science.

RAZD writes:

Bluejay writes:

Message 104: To fit the definition of "science," an idea must contain (1) valid logical reasoning, (2) evidence that supports the possibility that it is accurate, and (3) a lack of evidence contradicting the possibility that it is accurate.

This is a good relatively low bar level to start with, would you not agree?

I don’t know, there have been so many in this thread so far, yet none of them have clearly specified what I’ve seen required of ID more than any other before I came here, the “testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, useful” requirements. Let’s review all of the variety that this thread has had so far; ...

Can’t all of this be condensed into something concise, something brief and easily referable as we apply them to abiogenesis and ID? Could you do that for me, to the satisfaction of everyone posting in this thread? Do you agree that the words “falsifiable”, and “useful” are important words? How falsifiable was all that detail in Message 107?

Again, I hope you'll now average all of the above requirements of something to be "scientific" into something concise, and I'll then move forward in applying ID and abiogenesis to it. If I don't agree with what you come up with, I'll make a reasonable argument against it, based on the content of all of the above.

Many of those other definitions would fall under the category of the more restrictive definition in the wiki article, while I had suggested that we start with the broader version and compare notes on abiogenesis and intelligent design, and then work up to more restrictive definitions when both pass a given bar.

As you noted:

Message 93 So the study of abiogenesis that I'm seeing so far here falls under your one-sentence description in your message 73;

quote:
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

The question now is whether ID can fit this definition.

RAZD writes:

For intelligent design to be interdisciplinary, it first needs to show what the science of ID is -- and we are still waiting for your input on that question.


I touched on it briefly in my post #100 – it was ignored.To repeat;

Again, I don't always respond to replies to other posters. Message 100 was a reply to Briterican, so I would normally let him reply to it, so thanks for repeating it.

There’s more to ID than “goddidit” – in Dembski’s words; ... A non teleological approach to evolution has consistently led biologists to underestimate organisms. Is, for instance, junk DNA really junk? Work by John Bodnar and his associates suggests that some of it is not.”

Curiously, I don't find this an example of ID doing science, but rather another tired attack on the science of evolution (rather than abiogenesis).

  • Is there a systematic knowledge-base involved?
  • Is there a prescriptive practice involved?
  • Are they capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome?
quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prescriptive
pre⋅scrip⋅tive  /prɪˈskrɪptɪv/ –adjective
1. that prescribes; giving directions or injunctions: a prescriptive letter from an anxious father.
2. depending on or arising from effective legal prescription, as a right or title established by a long unchallenged tenure.
So a prescriptive practice would involve a set of directions or rules to follow in doing research on the subject at hand. One such system, as an example, would be the scientific process.

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, ... It appears that junk-DNA is truly going the way of the dodo, in more way than one.

First off, I find this somewhat disingenuous, as I know that not all scientists said that all "junk DNA" would not have a use. Rather this is taking a few scientists, quoting snippets from them and then applying a broad brush to apply this to all.

Second, I cannot find the ID hypothesis that this "prediction" is based on.

Can you cite the original prediction and show how it follows directly from an hypothesis on the function of DNA derived strictly from ID paradigms -- ie IF hypothesis {AID} is true, THEN some "junk DNA" will have some use.

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

Did IDologists show that some "junk DNA" sections had use?

Or did scientists responding to IDologist pressure re-evaluate their results?

Or did scientists following standard scientific proceedures within the biological sciences determine that some "junk DNA" sections had use?

If the latter, then the work was not done in response to any IDologist "prediction" nor is the correction done as a result of ID rather than due to the normal process of science.

quote:
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

This is the initial stage for comparison of ID to abiogenesis, which you already admit passes this criteria.

To continue to answer your question of what the science of ID is, here is a list of criteria that Dembski puts forward. As he admits, the nuts and bolts science of Intelligent Design is not as advanced as its cultural and political activity. His ideas to correct that;

1)To catalog fundamental facts
2)To catalog correcting misinformation
3)To network researchers and resources
4) To build a design curriculum
5)To objectively measure progress

I'll admit this is mainly a promissory note.

So this is not done yet.

I'm looking for what is DONE not what is PROMISED.

  • Is there a systematic knowledge-base involved?
  • Is there a prescriptive practice involved?
  • Are they capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome?

Once this is answered, then we can move up a notch by using Bluejay's definition:

RAZD writes:

Bluejay writes:

Re: Explanatory power (Message 104): To fit the definition of "science," an idea must contain (1) valid logical reasoning, (2) evidence that supports the possibility that it is accurate, and (3) a lack of evidence contradicting the possibility that it is accurate.

This is a good relatively low bar level to start with, would you not agree?

And compare abiogenesis and ID on that basis.

Agreed?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added quote


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 111 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:20 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2010 10:25 AM RAZD has responded

greyseal
Member (Idle past 1247 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


(1)
Message 122 of 177 (545839)
02-05-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by marc9000
02-03-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Explanatory power
What current work does ID threaten? What is the basis for your fears?

ID as I mean it is ID as creationists mean it.

Call that statement an axiom if you will.

ID is evidence from incredulity.
it's so amazing, it must be designed!

ID is evidence from ignorance.
I can't work how it could be done, so it must be designed!

ID is unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable
You must admit that it's possible that everything is the way it is because an all-powerful god made it that way...

ID isn't a process, it is an end-point. It says "god (the designer) made everything. The end. You can stop exploring now."

It means no work on curing cancer (cancer's the way things are). It means no work on diseases (you get sick when you disobey god, it's like he's spanking you). It means no investigating the natural world to explain where we've come from, where we are, or thinking about where we could be going (why bother, the answers are all in a book written two thousand years ago about a designed world less then 10000 years old that's destined to be destroyed in fire).

That's why.

If it doesn't mean that - for example if it means the toothless gumming of RAZD's designer that can never be seen - then it's fine, but (and here's the point) if it's not scientific then it should not be taught in a science classroom. If it is religious it should not be taught by the state.

Really short answer? It's not ID that I'm worried about, it's the agenda of the people wedging it in.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

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


Message 123 of 177 (545918)
02-06-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
02-03-2010 9:54 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hello RAZD,

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

We can leave the other issues aside for now (or move them to new\alternate threads).

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.

The basic starting point for this discussion must be an agreed on definition of science.

Yes, but it’s also about the usage of science as it has been practiced, it’s history and philosophy. More below.

RAZD writes:

quote:Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

The question now is whether ID can fit this definition.

I think we’re already beyond that, not necessarily in this thread, but throughout discussions on these forums, throughout the scientific community, and in the courts (Dover) that ID doesn’t fit. Let’s look again at the last paragraph of my opening post;

quote:
It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science. The criteria has to be evenly applied, or there is a serious problem with non-scientific bias. Since there is evidence that abiogenesis is referred to and noted in most, if not all, science textbooks at the high school and college level, it appears to me that it’s a fact that we have a serious problem with atheist bias in the scientific community in the U.S.

We now need to apply the CURRENT, most common, most aggressive challenges that are directed at ID and apply them to abiogenesis. A good start would be to simply look at some of the basics of the Dover trial, and apply them to abiogeneis. We need to redirect the focus off of ID for now, and take a detailed look at abiogenesis.

Can you cite the original prediction and show how it follows directly from an hypothesis on the function of DNA derived strictly from ID paradigms -- ie IF hypothesis {AID} is true, THEN some "junk DNA" will have some use.

If I, or anyone, attempted to do that, it won’t do this thread any good – it would make it like so many other ID threads, and it would keep it from going to new places that I think it could go. I can’t singlehandedly overturn the conclusion that the Dover court came to, and all of the subsequent reinforcement of it by thousands and thousands of people over a period of years, any better than anyone else. Also, I don’t have access to inside research and activity that’s going on within the Intelligent Design community. Clearly, they have good reason to carefully measure the political consequences of any careless release of work and progress they may be making.

I’d like to put forward my opening post claim by looking at the history and philosophy of abiogenesis in a way that the layman can understand. Not by plunging into a lot of deep scientific jargon like message #107 contains, or by citing a huge number of scientific papers/ approvals that it has, but by applying how useful it is to society, how falsifiable it is, etc. The philosophical things that are/have been recently applied to ID.

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

To continue to answer your question of what the science of ID is, here is a list of criteria that Dembski puts forward. As he admits, the nuts and bolts science of Intelligent Design is not as advanced as its cultural and political activity. His ideas to correct that;

1)To catalog fundamental facts
2)To catalog correcting misinformation
3)To network researchers and resources
4) To build a design curriculum
5)To objectively measure progress

I'll admit this is mainly a promissory note.

So this is not done yet.

I'm looking for what is DONE not what is PROMISED.

* Is there a systematic knowledge-base involved?
* Is there a prescriptive practice involved?
* Are they capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome?

Once this is answered, then we can move up a notch by using Bluejay's definition:

Looking at what is done, not what is promised isn't fair concerning the historical, actual applications of science, because it requires far more of ID than was ever required for abiogenesis. Should abiogenesis be ‘grandfathered’ in, because of different, less political requirements of the science of yesteryear? Since day one, it has always been considered science, whether that was 1870, when Huxley coined the term, or 1953, when the Miller/Urey experiment was done, or any other time. In either case, or any case, abiogenesis started with NOTHING done, whatever has been done was done after abiogenesis was assumed/declared to be science, not before, like you’re requiring of ID. Suppose, in 1870, there was a court case questioning the scientific status of abiogenesis, similar to the recent Dover one for ID, judge Jones presiding. When the judge asked if abiogenesis has been “published in peer-reviewed journals, engaged in research and testing, and gained acceptance in the scientific community”, or if there is a systematic knowledge-base involved, or a prescriptive practice involved, or if there were predictions or predictable types of outcomes, he would have gotten a “no” on all counts. He then could have asked “didn’t one Louis Pastuer show, only 11 years ago, that life doesn’t spontaneously arise from non-life”? What do you think his ruling would have been on the scientific status of abiogenesis?

When we require ID to be published in scientific journals, fully engaged in research and testing, and fully accepted by the scientific community before it is accepted as science, aren’t we doing the same thing as requiring an entry level worker to have experience before we allow him to have a job? How can he get experience if he can’t get a start? How can the scientific community accept ID if they refuse to evaluate it because it’s not science? I don’t see evidence that they even get started looking at it before they declare it religion and throw it out.

When we evaluate the definitions of science, we need to include questions about why the details in qualifications for what is science have been changed over the past 50 or 100 years, and why they’ve changed, and why older subjects don’t have to adapt to new requirements.

So....... your three things you listed just above, and my [Dembski's] five "promisory notes" that I listed, are what I’d like to find out about studies of abiogenesis. Just brief starting points; do they exist COMPLETELY separately from evolution studies? As we network researchers and resources, can we scrutinize their personal beliefs and goals to the same extent that the beliefs and goals of ID proponents are scrutinized? Since evolution and abiogenesis are claimed to be completely separate issues, is it a philosophical problem if we find that the same people are uniting them as they study them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2010 9:54 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 02-06-2010 2:29 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2010 7:41 PM marc9000 has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 15563
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 124 of 177 (545944)
02-06-2010 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by marc9000
02-06-2010 10:25 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi marc9000,

This appears to be the crux of your whole untenable position:

marc9000 writes:

Looking at what is done, not what is promised, isn't fair concerning the historical, actual applications of science, because it requires far more of ID than was ever required for abiogenesis.

Science doesn't reject ID because of a lack of evidence, though the lack of evidence is certainly a severe handicap. Science rejects ID because it stipulates entities and processes for which there is no evidence. It isn't the lack of evidence for these things that is the problem. It's that despite the lack of evidence, ID stipulates them anyway.

What ID has is an interesting hypothesis, that because life is so intricate it might have been designed and constructed by an intelligence. If they started with that hypothesis, stopped disparaging methodological naturalism, and began conducting serious research then they would at least fare no worse than ESP researchers.

But ID doesn't do that. Instead of saying that life is so intricate that it might have been designed, they're insisting that life is so intricate that it *must* have been designed. Some like Dembski and Behe even claim they've demonstrated this to be fact, and say it with a straight face even though they only present their ID arguments in popular press books and never in scientific journals.

Abiogenesis stipulates that life originated through the same physical laws with which we're already familiar. A theory of abiogenesis that imitated ID by stipulating something equally without evidence, like a life force or some such, would be rejected just like ID.

Because abiogenesis is a process requiring nothing more than the universe being just what it already is, we're confident that if we could somehow replicate in the laboratory the conditions on the early Earth that gave birth to life that we could produce new life. But ID requires something beyond the known universe, an intelligence for which there is no scientific evidence and who prominent IDists like Behe and Dembski openly admit they think is God.

At one point you mention falsifiability. I don't think I'd be very far off the mark saying that very little has been established with certainty about abiogenesis. To the extent that there's a theory of abiogenesis, all it says is that life originated through natural means. How are you going to falsify that, since the same assumption underlies all scientific study?

You think that ID is burdened with requirements with which abiogenesis is unencumbered, but on the contrary they are being held to identical standards. If you think that's not the case then be specific instead of hiding behind generalities.

Touching now on a few other unrelated errors:

He [Judge Jones of Dover trial fame] then could have asked “didn’t one Louis Pastuer show, only 11 years ago, that life doesn’t spontaneously arise from non-life”?

Not sure how you went so wrong here. Pasteur (not 'Pastuer') died over a hundred years ago, and his work was completely unrelated to abiogenesis. What he showed was that the life observed arising on decaying organic matter (e.g., maggots on rotting meat) was not new life, but merely life that was deposited there later (e.g., flies lay eggs in the rotting meat) or was already there (e.g., bacteria). He did no work at all on de novo life on the early Earth.

When we require ID to be published in scientific journals, fully engaged in research and testing, and fully accepted by the scientific community before it is accepted as science, aren’t we doing the same thing as requiring an entry level worker to have experience before we allow him to have a job? How can he get experience if he can’t get a start? How can the scientific community accept ID if they refuse to evaluate it because it’s not science? I don’t see evidence that they even get started looking at it before they declare it religion and throw it out.

What other scientific theory has ever received special treatment like this? You mentioned Pasteur. Was his rejection of spontaneous generation accepted before he did his experiments? Was relativity accepted before Sir Author Eddington measured the predicted effects of the general theory? Was continental drift accepted before the evidence of sea floor spreading and directionally magnetized rocks were discovered?

But ID isn't being rejected just because it has no evidence. It's being rejected as inherently unscientific because of its unevidenced assumptions that are so obviously religious in nature. Drop the unscientific religious assumptions and it might have at least a prayer of the scientific community taking it seriously.

When we evaluate the definitions of science, we need to include questions about why the details in qualifications for what is science have been changed over the past 50 or 100 years, and why they’ve changed, and why older subjects don’t have to adapt to new requirements.

Prove you're not making this up and detail the changes.

As we network researchers and resources, can we scrutinize their personal beliefs and goals to the same extent that the beliefs and goals of ID proponents are scrutinized? Since evolution and abiogenesis are claimed to be completely separate issues, is it a philosophical problem if we find that the same people are uniting them as they study them?

If you scrutinize the beliefs of evolutionists and abiogenesists you'll find that they come from a variety of cultures, countries, backgrounds and religions. If you scrutinize the beliefs of IDIsts you'll find that they're predominantly evangelical Christians. Comparing the religious beliefs of the two sides in the creation/evolution debate is not a good idea for the creationist IDist side. Of course, you can always fall back on the old lie of, "Evolutionists are all atheists who are trying to destroy religion."

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2010 10:25 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 5:16 PM Percy has responded

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


Message 125 of 177 (546040)
02-07-2010 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by marc9000
02-06-2010 10:25 AM


Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID no
Hi marc9000,

RAZD writes:

quote:Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

The question now is whether ID can fit this definition.

So do we have any evidence that ID can fit this definition?

Looking at what is done, not what is promised isn't fair concerning the historical, actual applications of science, because it requires far more of ID than was ever required for abiogenesis. ...
When we require ID to be published in scientific journals, fully engaged in research and testing, and fully accepted by the scientific community before it is accepted as science, ...

At this point I'll take that as a "no" - so ID does not meet that very general definition of science.

Let me recap:

For (natural) abiogenesis: the hypothesis is that life can begin from chemicals by natural processes. From this hypothesis several predictions can be, and were, made:

  1. amino acids should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup"
  2. self-replicating molecules should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup" that includes amino acids,
  3. proto-cells should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup" ...
... if the conditions of the original earth could be replicated.

We see that these predictions have been validated by many scientific experiments and studies, starting with the Miller-Urey experiment and continuing to today, including refinements of what we believe the original conditions of the early earth were. See Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part II for some modern research results.

For ID: the hypothesis is that a designer could be the cause behind life on earth. From this hypothesis the following predictions can be made:

  1. oops sorry, not done yet, may next week, stay tuned ... don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain ...

So far it is no contest, with abiogenesis exceeding the requirements of the given definition and ID not meeting it.

... what I’d like to find out about studies of abiogenesis. Just brief starting points; do they exist COMPLETELY separately from evolution studies?

Yes. Look up the references in Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part II and read them.

We now need to apply the CURRENT, most common, most aggressive challenges that are directed at ID and apply them to abiogenesis. A good start would be to simply look at some of the basics of the Dover trial, and apply them to abiogeneis. We need to redirect the focus off of ID for now, and take a detailed look at abiogenesis.

Go ahead. The above link would be a good starting point to show that actual science has been done based on predictions from the hypothesis of (natural) abiogenesis.

When we require ID to be published in scientific journals, fully engaged in research and testing, and fully accepted by the scientific community before it is accepted as science, ...? How can the scientific community accept ID if they refuse to evaluate it because it’s not science?

The average high school science fairs are filled with experiments that students have done by the scientific method without needing any approval of the scientific journals.

You don't need approval of scientific journals to actually do scientific experiments and studies, make predictions and test them.

When we evaluate the definitions of science, we need to include questions about why the details in qualifications for what is science have been changed over the past 50 or 100 years, and why they’ve changed, and why older subjects don’t have to adapt to new requirements.

Curiously, I've seen no evidence that the definition of science has changed at all since the ID movement formally began in 1998 (per wedge document history).

Here is what I found for an old definition of science (my bold for emphasis):

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...

quote:
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Sci"ence (?), n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p.pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.]

1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.

If we conceive God's or science, before the creation, to be extended to all and every part of the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity on anything to come to pass. Hammond.

Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental philosophy. Coleridge.

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

All this new science that men lere [teach]. Chaucer.

Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the character of logical perfection, and in point of matter, the character of real truth. Sir W. Hamilton.

3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and function of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

Voltaire hardly left a single corner of the field entirely unexplored in science, poetry, history, philosophy. J. Morley.

4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind. &hand; The ancients reckoned seven sciences, namely, grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy; -- the first three being included in the Trivium, the remaining four in the Quadrivium.

Good sense, which only is the gift of Heaven, And though no science, fairly worth the seven. Pope.

5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of knowledge of laws and principles.

His science, coolness, and great strength. G. A. Lawrence.


We put (2) and (3) together and we get:

science: Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and function of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

Curiously, I do not find that significantly different from Message 73:

quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
quote:
Science ... in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. ...

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.]

1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.

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 ongenerally 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.

A principle in science is a rule in art.

3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.

Science perfects genius.

4. Any art or species of knowledge.

No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.

5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.

[Note - Authors have not always been careful to use the terms art and science with due discrimination and precision. Music is an art as well as a science. In general, an art is that which depends on practice or performance, and science that which depends on abstract or speculative principles. The theory of music is a science; the practice of it an art.]


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.

So far we haven't found an old definition that would fit the current status of ID, so the claim that the definition has been changed to keep ID out is spurious assertion without merit.

When we look at the modern Webster definition we see (bold mine again for emphasis):

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

quote:
sci·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed
Date: 14th century

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5 capitalized : christian science


The only real difference between this and the 1828 definition above is the substitution of the scientific method for experiment and observation, and the replacement of natural philosophy with natural science.

You will note that the 1828 definition pre-dates Darwin, so we could legitimately claim that the definition of science has been changed to make it more difficult for evolution to meet the requirements. What we do see is that the definition of science has changed, but there is no evidence that this change is not applied across the board to all existing sciences: there is no evidence that a single science has been "grandfathered" in any way.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : naturally

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : philosophy\science


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 123 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2010 10:25 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 7:51 PM RAZD has responded

Stephen5
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 6
From: USA
Joined: 02-14-2010


Message 126 of 177 (546873)
02-14-2010 4:33 PM


Please, no replies to this message. It is a cut-n-paste of http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=23789&.... --Admin

Does the Bible answer questions related to the existence of the earth, its creation, its purpose, its place in the material universe, its past, and future ?

Yes it does, but it takes time and effort on the part of the believer to study, ponder, and understand a wide range of the scriptures and their correct applications in order to grasp what the Lord is telling us.

The most advanced students of His Word realize that He has not revealed everything to them and that acceptance of this truth will produce a more accurate understanding of some subjects.

He tells us that in the beginning He created the heavens and the earth. We are not told when or exactly how this was done. We know by observation that these things exist because we can detect them with our senses.

There has been much controversy about when and how He created the material universe and observable life forms, particularly humans of our kind who have been created in His image.

This is primarily because of the credibility factor and questions arising from the apparent inconsistencies of what the Bible says and what humans think they observe by discoveries and evaluations of the material world.

Several positions have developed over time for the purpose of either proving or disproving the validity of the Bible as an accurate record of the past, present, and future in regard to the material universe and related life forms.

The positions range from a total rejection of the Bible as truth choosing to rely upon scientific discovery and observation to total reliance on the Bible as the Word of God and authority on creation.

I will address the apparent disparity between the Biblical account of creation, genealogical time inconsistencies, and related observations of the material world.

There are a number of approaches that deal with these issues and at least three significant ones.

The first is that the heavens and earth are very old and the Lord has used an evolutionary process of creation which has taken a very long time to reach the level of human kind.

The attempt here is to extend the six creation days in Genesis into long immeasurable lengths of time.

Creation and evolution continue during each of the six periods. Human evolution then becomes the end result which occurred about 6,000 years ago.

Proponents blend evolutionary processes to account for a very old earth and the recent appearance of humans of our kind to fit the biblical genealogical time frame of about 6,000 years for human existence.

A second theory proposes that the heavens and the earth are in fact very young and only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Much is done to refute modern scientific methods and evaluations in order to prove this.

If true, then there is no need to make reconciliation for the time differences between the observed apparent age of the universe and the human genealogical record in the Bible.

I would suggest that neither of these theories give adequate understanding of the Biblical account of creation and related observations made through discovery and analysis.

They are both self limiting and do not provide the best presentations for supporting the Genesis record of creation.

The first theory ignores the literal 24 hour day indicated by the rotation of the earth and the life form "kind after kind" process.

There is also a tendency to support or compromise with the pure theory of evolution which does not include a creator.

There is no need for compromise on this issue in order to support the Bible's picture of creation. Genesis clearly tells us that the Lord used six 24 hour days to do His work.

There is also clear explanation that distinct life forms were created separately and that they reproduce in kind, not by evolution from one species to another.

The second theory limits His creative time frame to only a few thousand years with no indication of any previous knowledge of His existence or actions.

Attempts are also made to prove scientifically that the earth and universe are very young and this is an exercise in futility.

What was the Lord doing before 6,000 years ago ? Did He sit around for billions of years doing nothing and then start His process of creating the universe ?

In the beginning He created the heavens and the earth "together".... at the same time. Genesis 1:1 states this fact.

Our solar system's components were created in the beginning and were not later additions to the universe. Neither was the earth created first with the other components like our sun and moon added later.

We know today that the earth's orbit is dependent upon the existence of the sun's gravitational attraction, not the other way around.

The earth was obviously present in Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. To say that the Lord then created and added the sun and moon next is absurd.

One must use common sense and allow for guidance of His Holy Spirit in the process of interpreting His Word.

Those who manipulate scriptures in order to support their unique interpretations of the Bible cause one to question their credibility.

The heavens and earth are in fact very old by observation and by evaluation through at least a few proven physical laws like the speed of light. Even our own solar system has the visible markings of age, degeneration, and judgment.

We have evidence today that planets close to the earth once had environments like the earth. Now they are desolate and uninhabitable. What happened to them and when ?

There is a third view of these issues which I consider to be much more correct and convincing with no need to compromise, twist, or deceive. The Lord's Word is totally true, complete, and reliable when understood properly.

There is not a great deal of scriptural information addressing this subject, but there is enough to grasp an understanding that makes sense.

Not everything in the Bible can be proven by human intellect and observation and must be accepted on faith.

Genesis chapter 1:1 indicates that the Lord created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. This opening statement tells us that He exists and that He created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.

There is a summary of His creating and forming activities in Genesis that includes the beginning, reconditioning of the earth, creation of replacement life forms, and creation of humans in His own image. [Genesis 2:1-8]

This summary is a recap of how the heavens and the earth came into existence and the generations or phases of His actions.

The "day" (time) in which the Lord "created" is not just one day, but the times and generations of His creative and forming acts. [Genesis 2:4]

These included those in the beginning and those about 6,000 years ago. Humans were His final act of creation for this present generation.

He will renovate and create again after this present age of man's rule of the earth comes to an end. [2Peter 3:10; Revelation 20, 21]

We are not told when the beginning of His creative acts took place. There is substantial evidence in scripture that satan and the fallen angels rebelled against Him sometime between the beginning of creation and Genesis 1:2.

We can only speculate as to what was going on during the time from the beginning and Genesis 1:2.

The Lord created the angels first and then the material universe and other life forms. We know this because all things were created by Him and the angels observed His creative acts. [Job 38:4-7]

One third of the angels followed satan in rebellion against the Lord sometime between the beginning of creation and 6,000 years ago. Satan and his angels will be cast and confined to the earth at the end of this present age. [Revelation 12:4-9]

Satan's rebellion, sin, and the presence of evil were all operative before the reconditioning of the earth and subsequent creation of humans.

Sin entered the human race through Adam as a result of the choice to disobey the Lord's advice and that we must reject the idea of separating from His providence, direction, and trusting relationship. [Genesis 2:6-17]

There are significant references available to us in scripture and the physical observation of the material world regarding these issues which can enhance our understanding of Biblical truths about creation.

The earth is the only inhabitable planet in our solar system for life forms that we know of from recent observation. Environments for life support do not exist on any of the other planets.

We find that there is much evidence of death, decay, and destruction of very old life forms buried beneath the earth's surface.

Large reptilian creatures have been found that existed before humans of our kind were created. There is no record of the existence of these creatures in scripture.

Their huge size and the impact they would have had on humanity would be there for sure. One should conclude that these creatures existed before Genesis 1:2.

We can also observe an apparent long term decadent entropic decline of life forms from the fossil remains of these creatures and many others.

This decline was part of their life cycle and this is different than what one would expect of the Lord's original creation. Something motivated Him to cause this process of entropy and death to operate in His universe.

There is also an apparent desire by the Lord to create new heavens and an earth in the future which will be eternally perfect. This change will involve a return to the conditions of His original and perfect creation. [Romans 8:18-22; Revelation 21]

The original creation was balanced, stable, and perfected. For example we are told that satan was created perfect in every way. [Ezekiel 28:12-19]

One can then conclude from this that the rebellion of satan and one third of the angels resulted in the Lord's judgment and subsequent decline of the original creation.

It does appear to us that the other planets and moons in our solar system had environments similar to the earth in the distant past.

If the earth is the same age as the others and all were created in the beginning before Genesis 1:2, then one could speculate that satan's fall resulted in the Lord's widespread judgment of the material universe.

This would bring us to Genesis 1:2 and the following reconditioning of the earth for the habitation of living life forms, with no similar adjustments to any of the other planets and moons.

Genesis 1:2 opens with an earth that is void of all living life forms and has experienced significant upheaval and destruction. One should ponder this and view the Lord's actions from the perspective of being located on the earth.

We could speculate that the Lord's initial phase of the judgment process was to freeze the earth and cover it with ice. This would explain the "ice age" that we have observed. All life forms on the earth were destroyed in the process.

A warming of the earth would then produce the water cover [waters below] and the water vapor [waters above] as described in Genesis. The earth is described as being desolated and totally covered with surface waters.

The space immediately above the waters is saturated with thick water vapors (dense clouds). There is no visibility, everything was in total darkness on the earth.

The sun, moon, earth's solar system, and universe were present, but these could not be seen from the earth. They were created in the beginning long before Genesis 1:2 and were made visible again from the earth by the Lord's reconditioning actions.

The time is about 6,000 years ago and He moved rapidly to prepare the desolated earth for the habitation of life forms including the initial introduction of humans of our kind. [Genesis 1:2]

His actions begin in Genesis 1:3. He dissipates enough of the cloud mass (waters above) above the surface waters so that a faint glow of light coming from the sun can be seen.

The statement "let there be light" is not a creative act, but the result of the dissipation process.

Light was created in the beginning when He created the heavens and the earth, but obscured by the conditions of judgment.

The dissipation process allowed for one to observe day and night because of the rotation of the earth and enough light from the sun.

He then separated the waters above from the waters below and formed the atmosphere between them. This was necessary for the support of the new life forms that were to come.

Next He caused the surface waters on the earth to recede to the extent that dry land appeared in various areas.

Natural vegetation seed that already existed in the earth began to grow and reproduce at an accelerated rate.

Further dissipation of the atmospheric cloud mass allowed for observation of the sun, moon, and stars from the earth. He made these to be lights appearing in the atmosphere by observation from the earth's surface and for distinct purposes.

He created them in the beginning long before 6,000 years ago, but made them appear and function for the reconditioned earth.

Next He created new life forms to replace those destroyed by His former judgment of the earth. These were distinctly different creatures who multiply only in kind and in distinct habitations. They are very much like the ones living on the earth today.

Earlier life forms that existed prior to the Lord's judgment of the earth were similar but also included creatures that He did not replace.

Edited by Admin, : Add note.


  
Stephen5
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 6
From: USA
Joined: 02-14-2010


Message 127 of 177 (546875)
02-14-2010 4:39 PM


Please, no replies to this message. It is a cut-n-paste of http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=23789&.... --Admin

Continued .....

Evidence of these extinct life forms are found in the fossil discoveries today like large reptilian creatures.

Dinosaurs existed before Genesis 1:2 and they were not replaced by the Lord when He created the new life forms recorded in Genesis 1:20-26.

Claims have been made in modern times that some of these still exist, but they are not convincing.

There has been speculation that two creatures described in the book of Job are dinosaurs which coexisted with humans and lived in Job's day.

Careful analysis of behemoth and leviathan as they are described leads to a very different conclusion. [Job 40:15-24, 41:1-34]

The first one is the manatee, or dugong, and the second one is the legendary crocodile. Neither of these should be confused with the dinosaurs of the pre-Adamite earth.

Manatees are aquatic air breathing mammals who spend much of their time eating marsh and under water grasses. The Biblical description says that behemoth eats grass like the ox.

The manatee has a very large unique tail which can rotate in any direction and is used to propel it through the water.

The design of the tail, very strong diaphragm muscles, and sensitive snout feelers used for detection in searching for food are described in scripture.

The creature's rear appendages are merged together internally to form its multi-directional tail. This provides the power and flexibility for the large manatee to move through the water at amazing speed.

Movement of the tail is much like the movement of a large tree swaying in the wind. The statement "it moves its tail like a cedar" is used to describe this action.

They have large thick tails. The largest manatee on record in modern times is about 3,500 pounds.

This creature also has the densest bones of any other known animal. The bones have no marrow and are exceptionally strong.

The bones are so dense and thick that when the manatee expounds enough air from its lungs, it sinks immediately to the bottom of the water like a submarine. This bone structure is described in Scripture.

The Manatee has a very humble spirit and is described in contrast to leviathan who is mean spirited and aggressive.

Behemoth's temperament is described as the "chief ways of the Lord", or primary and receptive behavior. Leviathan displays the opposite trait of His latent wrath.

Manatees inhabited costal waters of the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and associated river systems like the Jordan in Job's day. This is the Biblical description of the manatee (dugong, sea cow).

The description of leviathan is a dead ringer for the crocodile. This creature has both a larger pre-Adamite fossil record and a more recent smaller version which is described in the book of Job.

Even the smaller version of this obnoxious reptilian is extremely dangerous and highly implacable.

They are at the top of the food chain and known for their fearless aggressive behavior. The Bible's description is accurate and appropriate.

The sparks, fire, and smoke that proceed from his mouth are symbolic of his great wrath when he is in attack mode. He does not actually produce the sparks, fire, and smoke, but one might think so if ever confronted by this killing machine.

The crocodile's angry, relentless, and sudden attack is very much like the Lord's wrath in judgment which is often described with symbolic fire and brimstone.

The Lord's final act associated with the reconditioning of the earth about 6,000 years ago was the creation of human kind. We are distinctly different from all of the other living creatures including the angelic beings.

We are spirits with physical bodies created in His own image. No other beings of his creation have this distinction.

His extend plans and purposes for the human are eternal and future from the present. We are creatures with independent wills and must choose our ultimate destiny.

The first humans of our kind were Adam and Eve, and the Lord placed them in a special place on earth called the garden of Eden where they enjoyed the His presence.

There is also another garden of Eden associated with mountain of the Lord [the symbol of His government], and the garden is His perfect universe

Adam and Eve knew that he created them and at first they obeyed His perfect direction and providence for living in harmony with His creation and associated environment.

It is not known today exactly where the garden of Eden on the earth was located, but there is a convergence of four rivers recorded in Genesis that apparently flowed from the area.

They are the Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel [Tigris], and Euphrates. The last two of these rivers flow south and east from northeastern Turkey, and northern Iraq. [Genesis 10:2-14]

It is believed that the Pison flowed southward toward Arabia and the Gihon flowed northward toward the original Asian branch of the land of Cush [northern Iraq].

There is possible identification of these other two rivers today, although there are more than four rivers in the area and Noah's flood may have adjusted their courses.

This area is also close to Noah's landing on the mountains of Ararat after the Lord's judgment of the flood approximately 1,000 years later.

The Euphrates is the river that will dry up at the time of the end of this present age to make way for the armies of the kings of the east headed for the battle of Armageddon. [Revelation 16:12]

It is significant to note that the focus of the Bible prophecies just prior to the second advent of the Lord is in the area where human existence began and continued just after the flood. [Genesis 10:1-11; 11:1-9]

I believe that this same area today is well worth watching by the student of Bible prophecy as related to the coming time of the end of this present age. [Psalms 83; Isaiah 11; Jeremiah 30; Ezekiel 36,37,38,39; Daniel 2:31-45; 7:7-27; 8:9; 11:36-45; 12:1-7; Micah4; 5; Zechariah 14; Luke 21]

Much of the far distant history of the earth, our solar system, and Lord's endless universe is not revealed in scripture. There are only a few direct insights given and the rest has to be contemplated by the reader.

One can formulate a broader picture by deductive reason and indirect application of scriptural texts under the guidance of His Holy Spirit. We must also realize that there is much the Lord has not and does not reveal to us at this time.

If one considers that His original creation was perfect and complete in every way, then one must ponder why it is not so now. What would have caused Him to set His creation on a course of entropy, decay, and death ?

Edited by Admin, : Add note.


Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Admin, posted 02-14-2010 6:05 PM Stephen5 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12439
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 128 of 177 (546889)
02-14-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Stephen5
02-14-2010 4:39 PM


Hi Stephen,

You're not participating in the discussion. You're posting a cut-n-paste of this message you posted three years ago:

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=23789&...

If you wish to participate in the discussion in this thread then please post replies to what other participants have already posted.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Stephen5, posted 02-14-2010 4:39 PM Stephen5 has not yet responded

  
Stephen5
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 6
From: USA
Joined: 02-14-2010


Message 129 of 177 (546894)
02-14-2010 6:18 PM


This is my own writing and from my own website .... under the subject "The Big Picture"

http://www.prophecy1.blogspot.com/

I see no reason to re-write what I have already composed after years of study .... I would say the same thing again

I do see others who have their own extensive writings on your forum, but apparently you are biased toward certain posters

I thought your forum was one for public expression and freedom to speak as one is committed

Apparently it is not

If this is your selected rule for me, then I will no longer post on your forum

Thank you

Stephen


Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Admin, posted 02-14-2010 6:36 PM Stephen5 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12439
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 130 of 177 (546900)
02-14-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Stephen5
02-14-2010 6:18 PM


Hi Stephen,

Please post on-topic replies that fit into the current flow of discussion. Even if your posts had been something you had written for the first time today, they were neither on-topic nor a response to anything anyone had said in this thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Stephen5, posted 02-14-2010 6:18 PM Stephen5 has not yet responded

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


Message 131 of 177 (547682)
02-21-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
02-06-2010 2:29 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hello Percy, apologies for my long absence, all the snow in my area has been quite exciting.

Percy writes:

Science doesn't reject ID because of a lack of evidence, though the lack of evidence is certainly a severe handicap. Science rejects ID because it stipulates entities and processes for which there is no evidence. It isn't the lack of evidence for these things that is the problem. It's that despite the lack of evidence, ID stipulates them anyway.

That’s only your opinion, there can be scientific evidence for design. There can be evidence, study, and usefulness, of studying for design without addressing further workings (entities and processes) that are beyond human understanding. If imperfect human processes cause speculation of it happening anyway (as the scientific community fears) it’s no different than current atheistic speculation that science indicates that there is no God.

What ID has is an interesting hypothesis, that because life is so intricate it might have been designed and constructed by an intelligence. If they started with that hypothesis, stopped disparaging methodological naturalism, and began conducting serious research then they would at least fare no worse than ESP researchers.

But ID doesn't do that. Instead of saying that life is so intricate that it might have been designed, they're insisting that life is so intricate that it *must* have been designed. Some like Dembski and Behe even claim they've demonstrated this to be fact, and say it with a straight face even though they only present their ID arguments in popular press books and never in scientific journals.

That’s the same thing that those who study abiogenesis often do with it. (See post #107) It can, and is easily then taken to exactly the same place you claim ID is taken – the claim that the abiogenesis hypothesis is so elegant and sound that life *can’t* have been designed. Some like Dawkins and Stenger even claim they’ve demonstrated this to be a fact, and say it with a straight face even though they only present their atheistic arguments in popular press books and never with evidence in scientific journals. But throughout those scientific journals the opportunity to praise Dawkins and Stenger as fine scientists is seldom allowed to slip by.

Abiogenesis stipulates that life originated through the same physical laws with which we're already familiar. A theory of abiogenesis that imitated ID by stipulating something equally without evidence, like a life force or some such, would be rejected just like ID.

Because abiogenesis is a process requiring nothing more than the universe being just what it already is, we're confident that if we could somehow replicate in the laboratory the conditions on the early Earth that gave birth to life that we could produce new life. But ID requires something beyond the known universe, an intelligence for which there is no scientific evidence and who prominent IDists like Behe and Dembski openly admit they think is God.

ID doesn’t actually require anything more. The intelligence behind the design it studies has no more, or no less social implications than does the godlessness of the universe being “just what it already is” – something that we can’t possibly have all the answers for.

Why does science have to be atheistic, why does it have to RULE OUT what it doesn’t/can’t understand? This ruling out violates U.S. founding principles to a comparable extent that ID establishes religion.

It is constantly declared that ID cannot be taught in public schools in the U.S. because the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting religion in any way. What goes unsaid is that the first amendment equally prohibits public schools teaching or promotion of atheism. The proof of this is the fact that courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If someone gets fired from a government job because they’re an atheist, their first amendment rights have been violated, exactly the same as if they get fired for being a Christian. If the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers should not be able to speculate on the atheism that’s involved in abiogenesis, no matter how legitimate or masked those speculations are made to look. No matter how much they resemble all the technical jargon of post 107, the fact remains that abiogenesis has still not reached “theory” status yet.

At one point you mention falsifiability. I don't think I'd be very far off the mark saying that very little has been established with certainty about abiogenesis.

Well Hallelujah! Here's an important question for you - do you think a middle school student would come to that conclusion after reading post #107?

To the extent that there's a theory of abiogenesis, all it says is that life originated through natural means. How are you going to falsify that, since the same assumption underlies all scientific study?

If falsification does not apply to all scientific study, the scientific community has no business requiring falsifiability of ID. Why is ID subjected to this kind of dishonesty?

You think that ID is burdened with requirements with which abiogenesis is unencumbered, but on the contrary they are being held to identical standards. If you think that's not the case then be specific instead of hiding behind generalities.

I’ve been specific enough. My arguments come from a general, common sense look at the controversy, not from current political power that dictates measurable amounts of practiced nuts-and-bolts science.

Not sure how you went so wrong here. Pasteur (not 'Pastuer') died over a hundred years ago, and his work was completely unrelated to abiogenesis. What he showed was that the life observed arising on decaying organic matter (e.g., maggots on rotting meat) was not new life, but merely life that was deposited there later (e.g., flies lay eggs in the rotting meat) or was already there (e.g., bacteria). He did no work at all on de novo life on the early Earth.

If you’d have read what I wrote more carefully, you’d have noticed that I hypothetically placed Judge Jones in an 1870 case, hence the 11 years reference. Pasteur’s work was not “completely unrelated” to abiogenesis, because they both involve NEW life – life from non-life. That’s what a comparison between abiogenesis vs ID is mainly about.

What other scientific theory has ever received special treatment like this? You mentioned Pasteur. Was his rejection of spontaneous generation accepted before he did his experiments? Was relativity accepted before Sir Author Eddington measured the predicted effects of the general theory? Was continental drift accepted before the evidence of sea floor spreading and directionally magnetized rocks were discovered?

Is abiogenesis accepted before it has evidence that life spontaneously arose from non-life? YES. It has received, and continues to receive, that special treatment.

But ID isn't being rejected just because it has no evidence. It's being rejected as inherently unscientific because of its unevidenced assumptions that are so obviously religious in nature. Drop the unscientific religious assumptions and it might have at least a prayer of the scientific community taking it seriously.

I doubt it – the scientific community is far too fascinated with unscientific ATHEISTIC assumptions to notice much of anything else.

Percy writes:

marc9000 writes:

When we evaluate the definitions of science, we need to include questions about why the details in qualifications for what is science have been changed over the past 50 or 100 years, and why they’ve changed, and why older subjects don’t have to adapt to new requirements.


Prove you're not making this up and detail the changes.

Requirements for falsifiability of ID and nothing else would be one. The rarity of several current scientific disciplines facing court challenges would be another.

If you scrutinize the beliefs of evolutionists and abiogenesists you'll find that they come from a variety of cultures, countries, backgrounds and religions.

But they always have one thing in common – God does not exist/God is irrelevant.

If you scrutinize the beliefs of IDIsts you'll find that they're predominantly evangelical Christians. Comparing the religious beliefs of the two sides in the creation/evolution debate is not a good idea for the creationist IDist side. Of course, you can always fall back on the old lie of, "Evolutionists are all atheists who are trying to destroy religion."

It’s almost as bad as the old lie of “ID proponents are all fundamentalists who are out to destroy science. Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson writes in his widely-assigned book On Human Nature: "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species."

Biologist Stephen Jay Gould writes in his essay in the book Darwin's Legacy: "No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature...whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature."

Douglas Futuyma asserts in his textbook Evolutionary Biology: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

Biologist William Provine writes, "Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws...We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us." Evolution, Provine has also said, is the "greatest engine of atheism."

In his essay on "Darwin's Revolution" in the book Creative Evolution, Francisco Ayala credits Darwin with proving that life is "the result of a natural process...without any need to resort to a Creator."

This is only a very brief example of how I can back up "my old lie" with a WIDE variety of sources. Can you back up your old lie with ANYTHING but one Wedge Document? Anything at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 02-06-2010 2:29 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 02-21-2010 6:11 PM marc9000 has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 15563
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 132 of 177 (547688)
02-21-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by marc9000
02-21-2010 5:16 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi Marc,

The requirements of science are the same for all fields. ID is being held to the same requirements asany other field within science. If you think this isn't true then tell us what additional requirements you think ID is being asked for.

Science is not atheistic. It just doesn't comment on phenomena for which there is no evidence. Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. Anything we can detect through our senses is natural and can be part of science. If ID is about things that we can actually observe, such as the modification of genes and the creation of new species, then it is definitely part of science and all IDists need do is find the evidence.

Does it bother you that science doesn't include supernatural explanations for gravity or radio? Of course not (I assume). Then why does it bother you that science doesn't include supernatural explanations for abiogenesis. Could it be because abiogenesis somehow bears upon your religious beliefs, while gravity and radio do not?

The detail of Message 107 enumerating what we do know about abiogenesis shouldn't be something that bothers you. When I said that there's no real theory of abiogenesis other than that it came about through natural causes (an assumption that underlies all of science) I only meant that we don't know the specifics of how it happened. We don't even know if it happened in the air, on the ground, beneath the ground or underwater. But I certainly didn't mean to imply we don't know anything. We obviously know a great deal, and Message 107 provided a very high level outline of what we know. But there's no real theory of abiogenesis beyond that it came about through natural causes, again, an assumption that underlies all of science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 5:16 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 8:06 PM Percy has responded

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


Message 133 of 177 (547697)
02-21-2010 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
02-07-2010 7:41 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID no
Hello RAZD, sorry for my long absence.

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

The question now is whether ID can fit this definition.

So do we have any evidence that ID can fit this definition?

It depends on the worldview of who is asked.

At this point I'll take that as a "no" - so ID does not meet that very general definition of science.

I would expect one with your worldview to do that, while (without saying at this point) holding abiogenesis to a lesser standard.

Let me recap:
For (natural) abiogenesis: the hypothesis is that life can begin from chemicals by natural processes. From this hypothesis several predictions can be, and were, made:
1. amino acids should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup"
2. self-replicating molecules should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup" that includes amino acids,
3. proto-cells should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup" ...
... if the conditions of the original earth could be replicated.

We see that these predictions have been validated by many scientific experiments and studies, starting with the Miller-Urey experiment and continuing to today, including refinements of what we believe the original conditions of the early earth were. See Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part II for some modern research results.

But since we can’t go back in time billions of years to check on the conditions of the early earth, that validation is very weak – JUST AS WEAK as ID proponents being unable to make specific discoveries about a supernatural intelligent being.

For ID: the hypothesis is that a designer could be the cause behind life on earth. From this hypothesis the following predictions can be made:
1. oops sorry, not done yet, may next week, stay tuned ... don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain ...

And don’t pay any attention to my previous post #111, where I showed that ID predicted that junk DNA may not be as junky as the godless scientific community wants it to be. We see that that prediction was validated. Not thorough enough for you? Do the goal posts keep getting moved further and further, demanding more and more predictions, more and more research required of a subject that receives no admittance to the scientific realm, that gets politically and emotionally opposed everytime it writes or speaks one word?

So far it is no contest, with abiogenesis exceeding the requirements of the given definition and ID not meeting it.

No contest according to the godless worldview – a minority in the U.S. when it comes to sources for funding of science.

Go ahead. The above link would be a good starting point to show that actual science has been done based on predictions from the hypothesis of (natural) abiogenesis.

But these things were accomplished AFTER abiogenesis was considered to be science, not before, as is required of ID.

The average high school science fairs are filled with experiments that students have done by the scientific method without needing any approval of the scientific journals.

How can high school students be prompted to do anything concerning Intelligent Design, when any reference to it is blocked from their science classes? How can they be comfortable in thinking about an experiment that may violate 'separation of church and state"?

You don't need approval of scientific journals to actually do scientific experiments and studies, make predictions and test them.

But you may need their approval if you want them to see the light of day, not easy to obtain when those experiments are rejected as religion before even receiving a glance from the scientific community.

We put (2) and (3) together and we get:

science: Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and function of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

Curiously, I do not find that significantly different from Message 73:

It isn't, therefore my point remains as strong as ever. The atheism that’s in science today, from abiogenesis to the SETI institute, attained compliance to scientific standards long AFTER it was declared science, not before, as is required of ID. They would have never been able to accomplish those things if they would have been politically blocked and opposed from the public scientific realm to the extent that ID is.

So far we haven't found an old definition that would fit the current status of ID, so the claim that the definition has been changed to keep ID out is spurious assertion without merit.

ID doesn’t fit “abstract or speculative” principles? My point is being proven very nicely - that all these definitions of science that abiogenesis and ID are held to, is done in the subjective, that is, according to the worldview of the one doing the applying. Over 90% of the scientific community is godless, so it's no surprise where we are. But as I pointed out to Percy above, (and he didn't address) it's too close for comfort to a Constitutional violation.

You will note that the 1828 definition pre-dates Darwin, so we could legitimately claim that the definition of science has been changed to make it more difficult for evolution to meet the requirements. What we do see is that the definition of science has changed, but there is no evidence that this change is not applied across the board to all existing sciences: there is no evidence that a single science has been "grandfathered" in any way.

Here’s the evidence – that ID is the only thing ever proposed as science to be hauled into court by a heavily funded special interest and politically defeated. The grandfathering in this regard (the lack of legal prosecution), has been so common with so many other “sciences” that it goes unnoticed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2010 7:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Coyote, posted 02-21-2010 8:35 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2010 11:35 PM marc9000 has responded

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


Message 134 of 177 (547699)
02-21-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Percy
02-21-2010 6:11 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi Marc,

The requirements of science are the same for all fields. ID is being held to the same requirements asany other field within science. If you think this isn't true then tell us what additional requirements you think ID is being asked for.

I've already done that - requirements for falsifiability not required of other sciences, political action in courts, and the biased subjectivity applied when ID vs other sciences are held to standards of science definitions.

Science is not atheistic. It just doesn't comment on phenomena for which there is no evidence. Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. Anything we can detect through our senses is natural and can be part of science. If ID is about things that we can actually observe, such as the modification of genes and the creation of new species, then it is definitely part of science and all IDists need do is find the evidence.

Science assumes a level above human power when it rules out (attempts to trump) possible processes that it can't deal with/understand.

Does it bother you that science doesn't include supernatural explanations for gravity or radio? Of course not (I assume).

It doesn't bother me, because the natural explanations for those things doesn't weaken the existance/power of God.

Then why does it bother you that science doesn't include supernatural explanations for abiogenesis. Could it be because abiogenesis somehow bears upon your religious beliefs, while gravity and radio do not?

Yes, not only my religious beliefs, but the beliefs of future generations, and their parents who are currently paying the bills in todays scientific study.

The detail of Message 107 enumerating what we do know about abiogenesis shouldn't be something that bothers you. When I said that there's no real theory of abiogenesis other than that it came about through natural causes (an assumption that underlies all of science) I only meant that we don't know the specifics of how it happened. We don't even know if it happened in the air, on the ground, beneath the ground or underwater. But I certainly didn't mean to imply we don't know anything. We obviously know a great deal, and Message 107 provided a very high level outline of what we know. But there's no real theory of abiogenesis beyond that it came about through natural causes, again, an assumption that underlies all of science.

--Percy

If it stopped short of guesses and philosophy that ID is constantly accused of, and was publicly challenged by other ways of thinking, then I would have no problem with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 02-21-2010 6:11 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2010 2:52 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 02-22-2010 8:48 AM marc9000 has responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 5673
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 135 of 177 (547702)
02-21-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by marc9000
02-21-2010 7:51 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID no
Here’s the evidence – that ID is the only thing ever proposed as science to be hauled into court by a heavily funded special interest and politically defeated.

Don't forget creation "science" before that. It too was legally (not politically) defeated as religion falsely masquerading as science.

Why don't you folks just keep your preaching in your churches, and leave the public schools alone, eh? Quit trying to find newer and more devious ways of prosthelytizing when you get caught.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 7:51 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017