Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 1:32 AM
316 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), xongsmith (5 members, 311 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,192 Year: 28,798/21,208 Month: 864/1,847 Week: 239/475 Day: 4/82 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   The Death Knell for ID?
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1320 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 31 of 102 (650176)
01-28-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
01-28-2012 1:54 PM


Re: Research Cited by the Biologic Institute
In a word, nope!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 01-28-2012 1:54 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 01-29-2012 6:54 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16316
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 32 of 102 (650224)
01-29-2012 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Trixie
01-28-2012 3:36 PM


Re: Research Cited by the Biologic Institute
The ID research program is contradictory because it seeks evidence of the immaterial in the material. Under what circumstances do they imagine that the immaterial can have an effect on the material?

Whatever form such evidence might take, their list of research papers tells us they're convinced that evidence is well hidden. They're mostly looking at the very tiny in microbiological processes, and at the very far away in stars and exoplanets. They're apparently convinced that whatever the designer is doing, it won't be found in anything obvious like earthquakes, volcanoes, weather, comets, asteroids, medicine, politics, wars, technology, financial systems or social movements.

Since their research is notable for its exclusive focus on the material, obviously they're doing what creationists have always done: seeking the unexplained, deeming it unexplainable, then declaring, "Here be God!" Oops, I mean, "Here be the designer!"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Trixie, posted 01-28-2012 3:36 PM Trixie has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10120
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 33 of 102 (650240)
01-29-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
01-26-2012 10:52 PM


I try to follow some of the ID blogs. There's almost nothing there that would count as an attempt to do serious science. It seems clear that they are just putting on a show, to make it look to creationists as if they have something.

They have nothing.

Putting on a show is exactly the point of ID. There is no substance behind ID; no ideas that cannot be refuted in a few sentences, often with evidence but always with logic; no real research or even any hypotheses testing of any kind. ID is just apologetics wrapped around Genesis to be served to those few creationists who need any kind of psuedo-scientific explanation.

Creationists have put more work into baraminology than they have ever put into ID.

When it comes to doing any science, at all, ID's response is on par with those "the dog ate my homework" excuses that never worked even in elementary school.

More recently, we have old earth creationist Dembski switching to young earth creationism in order to keep his job.

I am having a hard time working up my usual testiness on the sham that is ID. Instead I provide a link below to RationalWiki's hilarious article on Dembski.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Dembski

quote:
The complete disregard for standard procedure, the embarrassing mission of the center and Dembski's incessant prancing and preening led the faculty at Baylor to vote 27-2 to dissolve the center. Sloan refused, continuing his one man campaign to destroy Baylor's reputation. However, he ultimately agreed to allow an outside review. That review pretty much agreed with the faculty and the center was absorbed into existing structures at Baylor and disappeared.

Dembski, however, took this loss as a victory (as IDers are prone to do) and issued a press release saying that the committee had given an "unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design", that its report "marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry" and that "dogmatic opponents of design who demanded that the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression.


Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 01-26-2012 10:52 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 01-29-2012 10:11 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29772
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 34 of 102 (650246)
01-29-2012 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
01-29-2012 9:33 AM


Show the GOOD show
They are very good though at putting on a show with an audience trained to value "Testify" over evidence.

This is not a Death Knell but "only a flesh wound"; ID is the Black Knight in reality.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 01-29-2012 9:33 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1982 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 35 of 102 (650420)
01-31-2012 1:26 AM


ID and YEC are going and growing strong and stronger every second.
In fact ID has become the talk of modern ideas on origins.
Anybody who's anybody in "science " today that deals with origins or otherwise must comment on ID and creationism generally.
It has become the most important and interesting threatening ideas ever.

ID and YEC are founded on the beliefs of historic and modern mankind that God(for some Genesis) is clearly the origin for nature and fingerprints are obvious and measurable.

Id and YEC are the future and opposition and evolutionism will be sent to the dustbin of history of wrong and incompetent ideas.

DEATHKNELL???????????????!!!!!!!!!

Well for someone.
Stay tuned folks.


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by saab93f, posted 01-31-2012 3:00 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 01-31-2012 3:48 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Trixie, posted 01-31-2012 7:08 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 01-31-2012 7:20 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Drosophilla, posted 02-03-2012 8:15 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
saab93f
Member (Idle past 326 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 36 of 102 (650422)
01-31-2012 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Robert Byers
01-31-2012 1:26 AM


"ID and YEC are going and growing strong and stronger every second.
In fact ID has become the talk of modern ideas on origins.
Anybody who's anybody in "science " today that deals with origins or otherwise must comment on ID and creationism generally.
It has become the most important and interesting threatening ideas ever.
ID and YEC are founded on the beliefs of historic and modern mankind that God(for some Genesis) is clearly the origin for nature and fingerprints are obvious and measurable.

Id and YEC are the future and opposition and evolutionism will be sent to the dustbin of history of wrong and incompetent ideas.

DEATHKNELL???????????????!!!!!!!!!

Well for someone.
Stay tuned folks."

Sorry Robert, no. The scientific community is not talking about ID anymore than it is about astrology or alchemy. ID is creationism in fancier (terylene) suit but it is still religious hogwash with zero content.

The fact that you and your ilk have to keep on claiming falsehoods tells a lot about the integrity of the ID -movement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Robert Byers, posted 01-31-2012 1:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5243
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 37 of 102 (650425)
01-31-2012 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Robert Byers
01-31-2012 1:26 AM


Stay tuned folks

Science is always tuned; when will you be providing your evidence for something, anything?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Robert Byers, posted 01-31-2012 1:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1320 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(4)
Message 38 of 102 (650430)
01-31-2012 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Robert Byers
01-31-2012 1:26 AM


Substance, please
This thread is about the implications of the recent publication which I mentioned in the opening post. If you don't wish to discuss these implications, or show where the paper is in error, then don't post, simples. Rhetoric doesn't cut it.

Why don't you give me some of the "fingerprints" which are "obvious and measurable" and the measurements of them which refute the paper in question? Tell us who measured them and by what means. After all, if they're measurable then someone must have measured them to try to show evidence for ID.

So can you provide this data, like the authors of the paper in question do? They don't just assert that they've done an experiment which gave results which gel with the ToE. They give their Materials and Methods, chapter and verse, their Results, chapter and verse and their Discussion of the results, chapter and verse and they do all this in public so everyone can see what they did and what they found. They're opening up their work to scrutiny, they have nothing to hide and anyone is free to comment on the substance of their work. What work has ID done this with?

If all you have are soundbites, rhetoric and unfounded assertions then your position is intellectually bankrupt and deserves the ridicule and criticism which has been heaped upon it, both in academia and the courts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Robert Byers, posted 01-31-2012 1:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 39 of 102 (650432)
01-31-2012 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Robert Byers
01-31-2012 1:26 AM


Hi Robert,

We've been over this before. If you're not going to contribute evidence-based discussion focused on the topic then please do not post.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Robert Byers, posted 01-31-2012 1:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 40 of 102 (650813)
02-03-2012 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Robert Byers
01-31-2012 1:26 AM


Sigh....

ID and YEC are going and growing strong and stronger every second.
In fact ID has become the talk of modern ideas on origins.
Anybody who's anybody in "science " today that deals with origins or otherwise must comment on ID and creationism generally.
It has become the most important and interesting threatening ideas ever.

Anyone that believes in YEC (and ID) who is an English-speaking (presumably Western-educated) individual has to be either:

1. Educationally grossly ignorant
2. Incredibly gullible
3. Mentally challeged

Take your pick - non of the options are appealing!

ID and YEC are founded on the beliefs of historic and modern mankind that God(for some Genesis) is clearly the origin for nature and fingerprints are obvious and measurable.

Founded on BELIEF you admit ....not EVIDENCE then as science is!!! And you want this shit taught in SCIENCE classes???

Id and YEC are the future and opposition and evolutionism will be sent to the dustbin of history of wrong and incompetent ideas.

Only if science is subverted by mindless morons.......

Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Robert Byers, posted 01-31-2012 1:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10120
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 41 of 102 (650978)
02-03-2012 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Theodoric
01-28-2012 9:13 AM


Re: Biologic Institute
My favorite excerpts from the wikipedia article on Biologic Institute (with my comments interspersed):

quote:
The Discovery Institute stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community.

In my opinion the only thing that will kill off ID as a concern is a thorough scientific spanking of ID research. This won't really happen as long as ID remains the subject of popular books and hidden research. The creation of the Biologic Institute might well be the beginning of the end for ID as a scientific concern, unless they keep their research secret. Oh wait. That's what they are doing.

I don't much care what happens to the rotting carcass of ID once it is proven to be biological numerology, because after such a debacle there will never be any rational reason to include ID in a K-12 curriculum; at least not in a curriculum that doesn't ridicule ID along with alchemy and astrology.

quote:
The scientific community remains skeptical and commentators note that no publications containing results which support intelligent design have yet appeared.[3][26][27] Reason magazine compared the research efforts at the Biologic Institute to those of "Big Tobacco"[28] and the 2006 New Scientist editorial noted that this sort of research is similar to the agenda-driven research of the tobacco and oil industries.

I have to admit that the above is what I expect when a US based scientific research organization calls itself "Institute." There are actually laws in the UK that govern the use of the term "institute", and restrict its use to organizations conducting scientific research of the highest order. There is little likelihood that any of the US organizations mentioned in the above quote would qualify for their names under UK standards.

quote:
University of Warwick sociologist Steve Fuller, who testified in support of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, opines that research at the Biologic Institute will reduce tensions between scientists and the religious community. Fuller states that "Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab.

Right, Steve. As if...

As if religiously motivated people currently have no interest in contributing to technology or science. As if 'religious person' means 'creationist'. And finally, as if a true and honorable purpose for true Christian scientist is faux-science apologetics.

I suppose I'm ranting again. I haven't had much sleep this week.

Edited by NoNukes, : Fix silly grammatical errors, and I'm sure I've missed worse ones.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2012 9:13 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
amp1022
Junior Member (Idle past 2047 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-05-2012


Message 42 of 102 (651413)
02-07-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2012 10:19 PM


Possible IDiot responses:

I did not bother to read what you posted. Why would I? That has to be one of the single most childish things I have seen on any forum anywhere. I did laugh a little, but in the same way I laugh every once in a while when my kids are watching Spongebob Squarepants. Honestly though, if you want to be taken seriously, don't ever use that ridiculous play on words again. I for one will dismiss any of your posts out of hand from here on out.


Common sense will answer most questions that science struggles with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2012 10:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2012 12:33 PM amp1022 has responded
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2012 7:14 PM amp1022 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 43 of 102 (651418)
02-07-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by amp1022
02-07-2012 12:16 PM


Honestly though, if you want to be taken seriously, don't ever use that ridiculous play on words again.

If creationists could restrain themselves from referring to evolution as "stupid", or calling it "evilution", or suggesting that its responsible for genocide, slavery, the Holocaust etc., terms such as "IDiot" probably wouldn't be a feature of evolutionist discourse.

But I don't see any particular reason for evolutionists to hold themselves to a higher standard of civility than their opponents. I took a look at your previous posts, here, and it's true that aside from the way you relentlessly and dishonestly misrepresent the evolutionary science, you've been relatively polite. That, sadly, isn't true of your peers. I doubt it'll remain true of you, in fact.

I for one will dismiss any of your posts out of hand from here on out.

You'd be doing yourself a disservice, I think, and it's hard to understand why someone who is interested in learning would allow themselves to be distracted by language they don't appreciate. Of course, it's far more likely that you're just looking for excuses to dismiss arguments you can't reply to. That's usually why people object to language instead of to content - an "inability to refute", as one of our old creationists used to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by amp1022, posted 02-07-2012 12:16 PM amp1022 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by amp1022, posted 02-07-2012 7:08 PM crashfrog has responded

  
amp1022
Junior Member (Idle past 2047 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-05-2012


Message 44 of 102 (651505)
02-07-2012 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
02-07-2012 12:33 PM


I actually love a good challenging debate, that is why I come to this site. I can not stand childishness though.

and it's true that aside from the way you relentlessly and dishonestly misrepresent the evolutionary science,

dishonestly? so you honestly believe that I found this forum and started spewing lies even though I had absolutely nothing to gain by deceiving the people on this forum? Why would I do that? Anything I said on any of my posts, whether I was right or wrong, I at the very least BELIEVED what I was saying.

Of course, it's far more likely that you're just looking for excuses to dismiss arguments you can't reply to

Even if that were true (and it is not) Why give people an excuse by behaving like a child? It is foolishness.


Common sense will answer most questions that science struggles with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2012 12:33 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 02-08-2012 5:39 AM amp1022 has not yet responded
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2012 10:08 AM amp1022 has not yet responded
 Message 50 by dwise1, posted 02-09-2012 1:15 AM amp1022 has not yet responded
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2012 6:48 PM amp1022 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 45 of 102 (651507)
02-07-2012 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by amp1022
02-07-2012 12:16 PM


I did not bother to read what you posted. Why would I? That has to be one of the single most childish things I have seen on any forum anywhere. I did laugh a little, but in the same way I laugh every once in a while when my kids are watching Spongebob Squarepants. Honestly though, if you want to be taken seriously, don't ever use that ridiculous play on words again. I for one will dismiss any of your posts out of hand from here on out.

This would remove any possibility of you offering any substantive critique of my posts --- if such a possibility existed in the first place. But if you feel that you have nothing to lose, then who am I to argue?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by amp1022, posted 02-07-2012 12:16 PM amp1022 has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017