Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design == Human Design?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 196 (560258)
05-14-2010 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by tesla
05-14-2010 12:01 AM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
...at LEAST start examining your science (If you are a scientist): And add " For what purpose" to your scientific method. And see what you find.
Perhaps you should let scientists determine for what purpose they are doing science, and leave your particular approach--which is the antithesis of science--where it belongs, in the realm of theology, scripture, "divine" revelation and other squishy subjects.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by tesla, posted 05-14-2010 12:01 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by tesla, posted 05-14-2010 12:22 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 196 (560266)
05-14-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by tesla
05-14-2010 12:22 AM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
I certainly hope your not a scientist. Or that if you are, your a mathmatician. It would explain why you didn't understand a word i said. let others read and decide. Possition, or truth. Your life. Your science. As you wish.
I am a scientist, and (thankfully) not a mathematician.
I don't appreciate those who wish only to see science destroyed because it doesn't confirm their "divine" revelations and scriptures.
That is what I see in your posts.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by tesla, posted 05-14-2010 12:22 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 50 of 196 (560464)
05-15-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by tesla
05-15-2010 9:53 AM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
But he is human and trusts his own intelligence too far.
As opposed to what?
"Divine" revelation or some such? 3,000 year old scripture?
If revelation and scripture and the like were empirical evidence from which reliable conclusions could be drawn we wouldn't have some 4,000 world religions and 40,000 different denominations and flavors of Christianity all claiming to have the TRVTH.
So I ask again, as opposed to what?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by tesla, posted 05-15-2010 9:53 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by tesla, posted 05-15-2010 10:46 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 76 of 196 (561126)
05-19-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by tesla
05-19-2010 12:20 AM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
you can go through scientific methods and then biology then chemistry then astronomy and tell all the details of the tools science uses. but bottom line: science is observation.
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.
Robert A. Heinlein, 1980

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by tesla, posted 05-19-2010 12:20 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 196 (561932)
05-24-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by tesla
05-24-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Truth
Truth is Truth.
quote:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
From a CalTech website.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by tesla, posted 05-24-2010 1:25 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by tesla, posted 05-24-2010 1:36 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 112 of 196 (562530)
05-29-2010 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by tesla
05-29-2010 10:04 PM


Re: ID
...ID is a variable and not a completly new science.
ID is actually a religious belief seeking to masquerade as science.
Look at it's history. What we know as ID was formulated in the late 1980s after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. That decision found that creation "science" was actually religion in disguise, and banned it from public schools.
Something had to be found to try to continue the charade, and so ID was concocted. Look what it did to the Pandas book--as was shown in the Dover trial. They did a massive cut and paste replacing "creationists" with "design proponents" and got the classic cdesign proponentsists -- which they will never live down. It gave the whole sorry scheme away in such a dramatic fashion that ID simply can't try to hide its origins.
Further, ID is anti-science: it does not use the scientific method to arrive at it's conclusions. It uses scripture, dogma, divine revelation, etc. Don't believe it? Have you ever seen ID come up with a conclusion that goes against scripture, dogma, and divine revelation? That would defeat it's entire purpose!
Another point: ID starts with a conclusion and seeks evidence to support it, ignoring or distorting any evidence to the contrary. This also was brought out at the Dover trial -- under cross examination Behe showed he was doing religion, not science.
No, ID is not a science. It is the most recent iteration in the creationism, creation "science,' ID progression. As it is failing, surely the religious apologists will come up with something to replace it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by tesla, posted 05-29-2010 10:04 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by tesla, posted 05-31-2010 10:04 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 126 of 196 (562616)
05-31-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by tesla
05-31-2010 1:01 PM


Re: topic
What are it's follies?
Start with "cdesign proponentsists" as a classic example.
The story is here.
quote:
For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down.
The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by tesla, posted 05-31-2010 1:01 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by tesla, posted 05-31-2010 3:25 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 177 of 196 (563654)
06-06-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by tesla
06-06-2010 10:17 AM


Re: ID
It was a documentary on channel 8. they stacked alot of books on the advocate for ID who had made a comment that nothing was written about blah blah forget what but it was something about irreducible complexity.
That was Behe, testifying at the Dover trial. The documentary was a recreation, as Dover was not taped. And Behe, after making that comment about no evidence had to watch as the books were stacked higher and higher showing just how incomplete his research was.
So i guess someone slipped a camera somewhere. its been years ago. its kinda irrelevant tho. the Dover trial was a failure.
The Dover trial was a success. It determined ID is religion, and prevented a school board from peddling it in the public schools. (Can't get much better than that!)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 10:17 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 10:35 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 179 of 196 (563657)
06-06-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by tesla
06-06-2010 10:35 AM


Re: ID
quote:
The Dover trial was a success. It determined ID is religion
LOL Well we know how science goes. New information comes in all the time. Time will tell.
ID is not only religion, it is the exact opposite of science.
It starts with a conclusion and seeks out only evidence that supports that conclusion, ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting any evidence to the contrary.
And it operates counter to the scientific method.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 10:35 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024