Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-23-2017 2:46 PM
387 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK (8 members, 379 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,938 Year: 16,544/21,208 Month: 2,433/3,593 Week: 546/882 Day: 64/103 Hour: 1/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1629 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 151 of 204 (449279)
01-17-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Beretta
01-17-2008 9:52 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
The thought of evolutionists having total say over what we should believe about origins scares the crap out of me!

The thought of creationists & IDers having total say over what we should believe about origins scares the crap out of me! What does it take to bring you guys out of the dark ages. What next flat earth, sun revolves around the earth, vapor canopy, etc.

Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 9:52 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 3:11 PM bluescat48 has responded
 Message 160 by Beretta, posted 01-18-2008 5:40 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 627 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 152 of 204 (449293)
01-17-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by bluescat48
01-17-2008 2:22 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
A lot of them still believe in the vapor canopy.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by bluescat48, posted 01-17-2008 2:22 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by bluescat48, posted 01-17-2008 9:12 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
faust 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3348 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 01-16-2008


Message 153 of 204 (449297)
01-17-2008 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Beretta
01-17-2008 9:52 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
quote:
Wrong -ID claims that the evidence does not support that concept as well as it supports special creation by an intelligence that acts beyond natural laws inherent in our system.

And where is the original research for those suppositions. For people wishing to pass their mythology off as science, they damn sure aren't concerned about making any actual contributions.

quote:
The fact that creatures appear fully formed in the geological strata,

As opposed to 3/8's formed? You are not making a point with that statement except to show us you do not know what transitional forms are. Every fossil can be considered a transitional form. Sometimes those transitions went nowhere, sometimes they were passed on with success. Indeed, if you want to see a living transitional animal, look no further than the nearest animal as we are all transitional forms between our ape ancestors and whatever the future of our genepool produces.

quote:
remain essentially unchanged (ie. exhibit stasis) for the duration of their appearance and then disappear abruptly

I refuse to believe you honestly believe that because it pains me to imagine anyone could be that dense on purpose. Allow me to give you an active example of changes and how quickly they can occur.

Morton's Toe, which is having one's second toe be larger than the hallux, was present in less than 5% of caucasians during the 1950's. It is now over double that and within some caucasian populations as much as five times that. And this is just one genetic trait over the course of half a century(thanks bluegenes). Imagine, then, the sum total of our traits and how quickly they can morph us. Slow by our own reckoning, but not by geological time. A longer toe here, an increase of rubidism there, it all adds up.

Beers, C. V.; Clark, L. A. :
Tumors and short-toe--a dihybrid pedigree: a family history showing the inheritance of hemangioma and metatarsus atavicus. J. Hered. 33: 366-368, 1942.

Kaplan, A. R. :
Genetics of relative toe lengths. Acta Genet. Med. Gemellol. 13: 295-304, 1964.
PubMed ID : 14198926

Romanus, T. :
Heredity of a long second toe. Hereditas 35: 651-652, 1949.

Orthopaedic Nursing. 21(6):35-39, November/December 2002.
Childs, Sharon G.

quote:
or (in other cases) are essentially the same as those now living,

The fact that you must resort to the weasel word "essentially" is very telling. With that one word you have conceded to knowing that there is in fact change to an animal but in order to prove your point you must refer to it over a shorter timeframe.

quote:
is better explained by special creation rather than by gradualism

The moment you used the word "essentially" you have made concession to gradualism. Gradualism shows that things will always be "essentially" the same as their nearest ancestors and predecessors in terms of evolution. But those small changes that make them "essentially" the same add up as one moves through the time scale. Think of light. One band of light is "essentially" the same as the bands above and below it. But those small changes add up giving us a vast and varying scale. All because of small changes.

quote:
which is badly supported by the available evidence.

Are you simply uninformed or are you being deliberately obtuse. Gradualism is excellently supported in multiple biological fields. What is not supported is special creation. One need look no further than the embarassingly small-for all intents and purposes- peer reviewed documentation put out by the ID community.

quote:
Id also claims that wonderful stories of gradual evolution of,say the eye,are badly supported since all different kinds of fully developed eyes appear, not piece by piece, but complete in the geological record. Where are all the inbetween partly functional eyes? What would their purpose be that natural selection would retain them if they didn't work to begin with. Where are all the inbetween partly functional eyes?

Would you call photoreceptive cells on simple organisms, depth perceptive light awareness in mollusks, and other such simple forms of vision that follow the evidenciary chain of evolution anything other than building blocks to more advanced forms of eyes?

I am beginning to suspect you are making an attempt to be deliberately ignorant. Your argument may have worked one hundred years ago. But fortunately, science grows and learns as opposed to falling back on the lazy person's cop-out of "goddidit".

quote:
What would their purpose be that natural selection would retain them if they didn't work to begin with. Considering the many many parts that have to work together with nerves and brain co-ordination included in order to be of any use at all, it remains, to our thinking, inconceivable that no intelligence nor plan was involved.

Early eyes, which still exist in some creatures, were no more than photoreceptive cells. With our own degree of visual involvement that mus seem useless to you. But to a simple organism it is all that is needed to kickstart circadian cycles or even find an adequate foodsource. From there it slowly becomes more complicated. A little here, a little there. Our own eyes are not much more than useful combinations of those photoreceptive cells. We have cells to detect color, cells to detect light amputure. Two eyes proved beneficial for depth perception and thus remained in the varying species.

I myself find it slightly ironic that the best example off design that IDists can come up with is an organ which is in some way faulty in nearly half the creatures possessing it. Too bad the intelligent designer did not think to design bifocals early on. We had to wait for Franklin to get them

quote:
I realize that this is a hard concept for an evolutioist's mind to get around but nonetheless,

Of course it is, we being reasonable people have a hard time understanding how people such as yourself can piss away that reason which has brought us medicine, transportation, and communication.

quote:
it is a reasonable alternative to the evolutionary model of gradualism and just because you find it hard to believe, that does not make it necessarily untrue nor inconceivable.

There is nothing reasonable about it. Falling back on a magick sky pixie because you do not wish to accept the evidence is as far from reason as one can get. Perhaps I should take my disputes with gravitational theory and just claim gravity does not exist. We are all held to the ground by an intelligent faller.

quote:
In the absence of pure proof either way,

Plugging one's ears and proclaiming, "not listening" loudly does not make it any less so. You can claim there is no evidence till blue in the face. All it shows is you really have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:
lets climb out of the evolutionary box and consider the alternatives.

Alright, find us an alternative supported with evidence and I am sure every last person here will be more than happy to hear it.

quote:
you don't like the idea so you misrepresent it in order to make it look stupid.

We do not make it look stupid. It *is* stupid. How anyone can still hold to ID when Behe admitted under oath that astrology would have to be a science for ID to be science is beyond me.

quote:
Most branches of science were started by people that believed that God was responsible for creation and that we therefore live in a rational universe with working laws

These same people were also alchemists who thought they could transform lead to gold and through simple acid/base extraction techniques could become immortal. Medicine was founded by men who believed the starts effected chemicals in your blood and that the kidneys were the seat of intelligence. The difference between them and you is they were willing to grow and accept new information as opposed to holding onto an idea simply because a great mind before them had it.

quote:
And in the same vein who needs to know that we must have evolved in order to investigate what we see around us?

I don't know. I guess only doctors, environmentalists, engineers, computer scientists, and pretty much anyone else with a vested interest in the future of our animal and our planet.

quote:
please proceed to investigate the issue without your preconceptions

You mean without our brains as that is the only way anyone can accept ID.

Edited by faust, : Fixing stupidity error I made.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 9:52 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by bluegenes, posted 01-17-2008 5:17 PM faust has not yet responded
 Message 166 by Beretta, posted 01-19-2008 6:38 AM faust has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 154 of 204 (449316)
01-17-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by faust
01-17-2008 3:33 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
faust writes:

Morton's Toe, which is having one's second toe be larger than the hallux, was present in less than 5% of caucasians during the 1950's. It is now over double that and within some caucasian populations as much as five times that. And this is just one genetic trait over the course of half a decade.

Presumably you meant half a century there, or let's say two generations. For a characteristic to double in a population group over two generations would require the reproductive rate of those individuals with it to be significantly higher than those without it, surely. Something like three kids for those with it to two for those without. Either that or a massively higher youth mortality rate amongst those without compared to those with.

I don't doubt that such characteristics are constantly increasing and decreasing in population groups, I just find the rate of change you're describing impossible to explain. Especially as caucasians have had very low infant mortality rates during the period, and toe size wouldn't seem to effect fertility, or to be a major factor in sexual selection! So this seems like impossibly rapid genetic drift.

I suspect that the 1950's surveys must've been inexact.

As this is off topic, I'll answer the O.P. question.

quote:
Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?

That's an easy "yes", with the added comment that it's very poorly disguised. I.D. is about an interventionist designer, rather than a God who merely creates the universe and lets things roll, so it's not only religion, but very much in the creationist tradition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by faust, posted 01-17-2008 3:33 PM faust has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2082 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 155 of 204 (449373)
01-17-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Beretta
01-17-2008 5:47 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
quote:
Well label your photo and lets see what other possibilities can be derived from the pure facts.

How about you explain to me how that photo can be "interpreted" to reflect somone's preconceptions?

Either the DNA markers match or they don't, right?

Do you accept that DNA paternity tests are accurate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 5:47 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18653
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 156 of 204 (449380)
01-17-2008 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Beretta
01-17-2008 7:21 AM


Re: Turn on the lights and let the truth shine in ...
I don't know that there's a contradiction but if there is -what specifically is the contradiction?
One can be a YEC and an ID proponent at the same time.

Only if you corrupt ID to compromise it to fit YEC.

Possibly you don't see this because you are comparing your corrupted version of ID to YEC and not considering the pure ID approach.

For pure ID: the earth is 4.55 billion years old, that is what the evidence of objective reality shows.

For YEC: the earth is 6,000 years old (and evidence doesn't matter).

There is no way to reconcile these views without corrupting one.

I disagree. The individual's specific religious beliefs are not needed or wanted in science, the science behind intelligent design is what is important in ID.

You can't have it both ways. If they are truly independent, then your previous statement that "One can be a YEC and an ID proponent at the same time" is false.

This is the basic contradiction.

In order to fully commit to this independence you have to be willing to accept evidence based on science that invalidates YEC concepts but that have no impact on ID. Like the age of the earth.

If you don't make this commitment then you are corrupting ID to conform to YEC.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 7:21 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2301
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 157 of 204 (449382)
01-17-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Beretta
01-17-2008 5:31 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Here's where you get to the point, Beretta;

Beretta writes:

those that don't like the idea of there being a God can opt for the material and those that know God can continue to believe in the light of supporting scientific evidence. Where's the threat?

So ID is science and it belongs in science class, but you clearly think that opinions will divide along solely religious grounds. The atheists will believe in a material universe, and the religious crowd will believe ID. So by your own admission, ID is religious.
You seem to have misunderstood what ID is for. There is no point in you supporting ID, when you openly admit that you are an out-and-out creationist. The whole point of ID is to keep the bible stuff quiet, so creationism can be smuggled into science class.
You have once again proved that ID is religious, and thus has no place in schools.


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 5:31 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18653
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 158 of 204 (449383)
01-17-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Beretta
01-17-2008 5:58 AM


recanting again?
So when we can cross human DNA with the DNA of bacteria and have bacteria produce proteins\etc. that can be transfered back into humans without autoimmune rejection symptoms (ie - it is human), this proves that bacteria and humans are the same kind?

No perhaps it proves a common intelligent creator

In other words you were not being honest when you said (Message 104):

So, does that mean that my housecats and Siberian Tigers are not the same kind?

Well can you, with human intervention, cross them? Lets face it, their disparate sizes size will be the limiting factor in the wild.
Well again, do the experiment.

The experiment has been done: we have, with human intervention, crossed humans with bacteria, mice, pigs and cows, just to name a few. The products are fully formed living organisms too.

By your previous argument this makes us all the same kind.

Or you are not being honest (with us, with yourself, doesn't matter).

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 5:58 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1629 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 159 of 204 (449408)
01-17-2008 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Rahvin
01-17-2008 3:11 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
A lot of them still believe in the vapor canopy

And some believe in the other 2 I stated,too.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 3:11 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 160 of 204 (449497)
01-18-2008 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by bluescat48
01-17-2008 2:22 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
What does it take to bring you guys out of the dark ages

Actually Darwinism is what really belongs to the dark ages -it's old, it's tired and it does not line up with reality.New paradigm coming up -you are going to have to throw off the 150 year-old shackles or be left behind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by bluescat48, posted 01-17-2008 2:22 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 01-18-2008 5:53 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 162 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2008 6:21 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 01-18-2008 7:19 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 01-18-2008 7:35 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 165 by FliesOnly, posted 01-18-2008 10:20 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 161 of 204 (449500)
01-18-2008 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Beretta
01-18-2008 5:40 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta writes:

quote:
Actually Darwinism is what really belongs to the dark ages -it's old, it's tired and it does not line up with reality.New paradigm coming up -you are going to have to throw off the 150 year-old shackles or be left behind.

You've been saying that for the past 150 years and you have yet to come up with this "new paradigm." Where is it? Where's the evidence?

Again, let's try it this way: Every year, we'll do a survey of the biological journals to see how many articles are written in support of evolution and how many are written in support of ID. We'll split our teaching time between the two so that if 70% support evolution and 30% ID, then we'll spend 70% of our time on evolution when discussing the diversification of life and the other 30% on ID.

Is that good? Would that be "fair"? Would that "acknowledge the controversy"?

So where are the journal articles supporting ID? We can't find any.

Are you about to say that the peer review process is biased? But you just said that the "new paradigm is coming up," so that must mean you actually have the evidence and that it has made it past peer review. It can't be both.

Where is it? Where is your evidence? We've been waiting for over 150 years. When are you going to show it?

It's time to put up or shut up.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Beretta, posted 01-18-2008 5:40 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 162 of 204 (449503)
01-18-2008 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Beretta
01-18-2008 5:40 AM


History lesson
Beretta writes:

Actually Darwinism is what really belongs to the dark ages -it's old, it's tired and it does not line up with reality.New paradigm coming up -you are going to have to throw off the 150 year-old shackles or be left behind.

Actually, it's the other way around. The William Paley expression of I.D., set out in 1802, was widely accepted at the time, and the majority of European scientists and philosophers of that time could be regarded as "I.D.ers" of one kind or another. The young Darwin, before he started to observe life forms closely, thought that Paley's comparison of organisms to a designed watch made sense.

Ever since Darwin and Wallace, the drift has been going the other way, and the modern American I.D. movement represents the final rump of (invariably superstitious) conservative scientists who are clinging rather desperately to an old idea that once prevailed.

Like those who cling to the steady state theory of the universe, and the recently extinct minority of geologists who insisted that continents do not move laterally, their views don't fit the evidence at all. The I.D. people are of more interest to psychologists than anyone else, as illustrations of the disabling effect that religion can have on the human mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Beretta, posted 01-18-2008 5:40 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2301
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 163 of 204 (449508)
01-18-2008 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Beretta
01-18-2008 5:40 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta,
If you are so convinced that Darwinism "does not line up with reality" then why don't you head back on over to RAZD's lovely Dogs will be Dogs will be... thread. You have ample opportunity to demonstrate there, how the evolutionary model doesn't fit the facts. Take a look at the evidence presented there and tell us all how it demonstrates that evolution is false. If you are unable to do this, then why not stop making unsubstantiated claims as though they were fact?
As long as you keep refusing to engage with the evidence, you will be the one wearing "mind-forg'd manacles" my friend.


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Beretta, posted 01-18-2008 5:40 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 164 of 204 (449509)
01-18-2008 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Beretta
01-18-2008 5:40 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta writes:

Actually Darwinism is what really belongs to the dark ages -it's old, it's tired and it does not line up with reality. New paradigm coming up -you are going to have to throw off the 150 year-old shackles or be left behind.

Others have already pointed out the fallacies in this statement, so I'll just add that this doesn't address the topic. The premise of this thread is that ID is just another fundamentalist attempt to portray inherently religious concepts as scientific in order to counter evolution's perceived threat to faith.

There's only one way ID can prove this premise wrong, and that's by actually doing science. The best way would be to outdo science by producing results that depend upon ID and are superior to existing science. Scientists are convinced by results, not by political efforts aimed at school boards, legislatures and scientifically naive laypeople.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Beretta, posted 01-18-2008 5:40 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 165 of 204 (449540)
01-18-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Beretta
01-18-2008 5:40 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Hey, look...Beretta...before you get all excited about this new paradigm shift, what say you first provide us with that pesky, hard to find hypothesis you so conveniently keep forgetting about. I mean, hell bells, if I'm gonna have to start tossing out all these wonderful science books I have, I'd at least like to first see what must surely be the mother of all hypotheses!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Beretta, posted 01-18-2008 5:40 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017