|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design == Human Design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Truth is Truth. quote: From a CalTech website. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What are it's follies? Start with "cdesign proponentsists" as a classic example. The story is here.
quote: Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: LOL Well we know how science goes. New information comes in all the time. Time will tell. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024