Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 9 of 230 (653708)
02-23-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


To emotionally load their case, atheists routinely blend I.D. with Creationism.
In the first place, the opponents of ID are not all atheists.
In the second place, they're right. With very few exceptions, ID is creationism dressed up in a white lab coat and a T-shirt saying: "THIS IS NOT CREATIONISM, TRUST ME ON THIS".
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.
Well, you know, one side is right and the other is wrong. Yes, you "deserve" to believe whatever you like. If you wish, you can believe that you're a giant purple anteater called Gerald. Fine. But then you want me not to disagree. Well I "deserve" to do that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jchardy, posted 02-23-2012 2:44 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 230 (653929)
02-25-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:44 PM


Well sir. Unless you can prove to me that --- in this case --- one side is right and the other is wrong; I am entitled to my belief, and you to yours. Neither of us should demand the other relent other than to not interfere with the other's right to those beliefs,---- giant purple anteaters included. They are, after all, the most benign and useful of the insectivores.
No, no, giant green anteaters are benign and useful. The purple ones are bastards.
As to the main point of your post, I'm not sure that I see what it is. Is it a plea that we should simply stop having the argument? To agree not only to disagree, but not even to actually do that? Then I'm not sure that people will oblige you; and I'm not sure that they should. Every other question has only been resolved after debate; and I like it when people resolve questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:44 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 230 (653931)
02-25-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jchardy
02-25-2012 12:16 AM


Purpose in evolution --- like all such endeavors of nature and man --- is cluttered with vestigial components. "Shavings from the work bench" as it were — which some tails, appendices etc. most likely are. Cluttering of the evolutionary pathway are like breadcrumbs and (pardon my leap) — sort of messages from God. But they are also structures which can be accessed again in the future should they be needed. Perhaps we should be more reverent to vestigia. They likely have provided us and all animalia with latitude for survival through the eons. JCH
This is an interesting idea, but I can't think of a case where it's actually happened; where a vestige has come out of retirement to play a starring role. Can you think of any examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:16 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 230 (653956)
02-25-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by lbm111
02-25-2012 4:11 PM


Re: purpose in science
to say Humans build tools for certain purposes is an assumption.
No, we can watch them doing it.
but an IDist could use the same logical form:
No. There's a difference between inferring something we can observe as a cause and inferring something that we never see as a cause. Namely that the second one would be silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:11 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:30 PM Dr Adequate has 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