Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 31 of 292 (194211)
03-24-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:42 PM


Are you Ever going to head towards the science forums and present any of this evidence? Or do you just plan to whine all night?
Are you like to present any evidence in the science forums within 200 posts or so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:42 PM commike37 has not replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 32 of 292 (194214)
03-24-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:30 PM


Re: Let's get back to abuse
it's a debate tactic showing how the the assumption is abusive.
Ummmm, noooooo, the assumption in this case is not abusive it's true. So far ID is not science. If you can provide scientifically peer review papers that provide a falsifiable ID hypothesis with supporting data and if other scientists can replicate the results, then I will back down and agree that there may be some scientific validity to ID. But as yet no-one anywhere has done so. So, for the time being ID is unscientific, period! That is not abusive that is just science, deal with it. Maybe if you goto a major university and start doing science this will all make sense to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:30 PM commike37 has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 33 of 292 (194216)
03-24-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:25 PM


Hi Mike,
This board is a science minded board designed with the intent to showcase how creationism is not science. I believe Percy started the board as a way to discuss the evolution v creationism debate that has been creeping into school board meetings all over the country.
The board is a science board, any claims of alternative methods, or the scientific validity of creationism or ID need to use the scientific method to make their case. We host many atheist, agnostic, theistic, and deistic members. We have YEC, OEC, evolution, and ID supporters.
Yes, I agree that name calling is a pretty childish way of stating your feelings about someone. Calling an idea fringe science, non-science, stupidity and such is not quite the same as calling any particular poster names.
As far as your assertions about the viability of ID, well I'm sorry but you will just have to accept that here you will be asked... repeatedly... for evidence. Not claims of evidence but the actual evidence.
Your last sentence doesn't really make much sense to me. Is this suppose to be a negative? TalkOrigins is a HIGHLY respected SCIENCE site. It has never once claimed to be anything else. I also think Percy will be tickled pink to find out that we are coming a step closer to such a prestigious site.
I suggest that if you really want to argue for ID than you thicken your skin and do so. Just remember that evidence will be expected, and any circling around the issue will be called as such.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:25 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 03-24-2005 9:08 PM AdminAsgara has not replied
 Message 38 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 10:47 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 34 of 292 (194222)
03-24-2005 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:28 PM


This is more of a complaint than a new topic.
Absolute garbage!
You wanted to have a moan about bias without having to comform to the constraints of scientific examination. You've stated your position: that it is abusive to dismiss ID off hand. I (and many others) have stated that it is fair to dismiss ID as 'scientific nothing' as long as it has never been shown to be scientific!!!
Time to step up to the plate and defend ID in the scientific forums.
And I thought I mentioned this earlier at "FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?"
No! You did not address the issue at all. You quoted something that claimed that ID was testable. State the hypothesis. State the predictions! Produce the tests! More importantly: produce this in a scientific forum so the claims can be examined like any other scientific claim
You continue the mocking attituted with the "LOL, ROTF, LMAO etc."
OK! Here's the deal: Accept that you have to produce evidence of scientific method if you want to have something accepted as scientific and I'll stop taking the mickey. If you want to stop the 'insulting' attitude to ID then show us why we are wrong to dismiss it as pseudo-scientific clap-trap. I'll ask you again - put your money where your mouth is!
What you have presented is NOT evidence!!!
Please present how ID is a proper scientific theory. Which specific theory within ID has
a) Proposed a testable hypothesis
b) Make an untested prediction
c) Tested that prediction
I don't like you think you can simply claim that all of this evidence is invalid with a blanket statement.
It's not a blanket statement, it is the way that science works. Don't agree with that? There are forums within this site to discuss it. Feel free to participate!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:28 PM commike37 has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 35 of 292 (194226)
03-24-2005 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:39 PM


be civil. I have.
The long answer [if you follow the link I gave you] will give a more in-depth explanation.
You posted a very long link that on first scan appears to justify the lack of peer-reviewed ID science by crying prejudice.
In any case, I didn't ask for a long treatise on the lack of ID science.
I asked for a single piece of ID science.
And even without the long explanation, it's their words vs your words. And I believe that it would be reasonable to trust IDEA more than I trust a random user on a random board.
Why would you trust either of us without examining the evidence? The evidence matters, not the authority - you evidently have much to learn about science.
And even with everything you mentioned, you're still turning this into an evidence debate, more specifically an example debate.
No, I'm not. You've claimed that "ID is not science" is an "abusive assumption". I'm asking for a single piece of ID science to show that the assumption is false.
You want to maintain that in the history of ID, no one has treated it in a proper scientific way, and that all of these scientists, despite their credentials, have misrepresented science. Now that is abusive.
I don't care about credentials or history. I want a single piece of ID science shown to me. Since you represent ID as having a valuable history and valuable members, surely you can come up with a single example of ID science?
Even if you're right on these two [edit: two examples you brought up in your post], these are only two examples.
I'm confused - what two examples are you talking about? I didn't give you any examples in my last post.
Through all of this evidence I was hoping to give you a broad perspective of what ID had really become.
Not meant to be rude, but: I'm not sure you know what evidence is. You've given lots of websites talking in general terms about the existence of evidence, but you haven't given any evidence. In science primary literature is the name of the game - it doesn't appear that it exists for ID.
And it's silly to think that this whole scientific controversy and all of its venues were based off of an unscientific theory.
Actually, that's precisely why the controversy exists - because a group is claiming that they have a scientific theory when they do not. If it was scientific, it would be published in scientific literature, but it is not. I believe it was you who started a topic pointing out that the scientific literature published a paper demonstrating a newly discovered way that Mendel's Laws, the foundation of genetics, are violated - so I don't see how you can complain that only dogma makes it into the scientific literature.
Finally, if you recall you called one of my statements abusive and false ("PCID journal mentioned is peer-reviewed by IDers only, is published only on-line, and only contains theoretical/philosophical and/or review papers.")
I showed all parts of it were true. Perhaps you should ask yourself why PCID claims to publish hard science but does not do so. Perhaps you should ask yourself whether ISCID and those that cite ISCID as a valid scientific organization are honest, or are simply generating propaganda.
I have been completely civil with you. Do you apologize for essentially calling me an abusive liar?
If not, then it is you who is being abusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:39 PM commike37 has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 36 of 292 (194236)
03-24-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:01 PM


commike writes:
So you want to maintain that it's OK to call creos bigots, morons, and nutcases, and that this is not stereotyping?
Well, most creos are christian fundies and christian fundies ARE bigots.
Morons? I don't recall anyone ever calling creos morons. However, if you would like me to...
Nutcases? Well, some certainly are. Go search for posts by willowtree, riverrat, desdamona, etc. and see some samples of how some (may be more) are certainly nutcases, if not crackpots.
Actually, I haven't done that. But I've now been stereotyped as doing that just because I'm a creo.
I'm willing to bet 5 bucks that you haven't done that because you've seen how people have responded to such argument in the past. Furthermore, not that I'm accusing you of anything, but I have known creos that when talking to a science fluent person they refrain from saying much but when dealing with the typical church-going aunt they present every crackpot idea known to man. It's amazing how much you could learn by pretending to be a dummy.
I've been keeping track of your posts, mike. That's all I'm going to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:01 PM commike37 has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 37 of 292 (194243)
03-24-2005 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by AdminAsgara
03-24-2005 7:19 PM


This board is a science minded board designed with the intent to showcase how creationism is not science
Well, I'm aware that his mightiness, Admin, believes that creationism is not science, but IIRC (search appears to be down right now) his stated purpose is not quite so blatantly anti-creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-24-2005 7:19 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 292 (194260)
03-24-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by AdminAsgara
03-24-2005 7:19 PM


Still though, there's been a noticeable trend in topics lately with this argument.
Should intelligent design be taught in schools?
No, ID isn't science, so it shouldn't be taught in science classes.
This person believes in ID. What a fool...who would believe in non-science.
Now I could go on and on, but the main problem is that many of these topics could get into many interesting issues, but some are just degrading into an "ID isn't science" debate.
It kind of reminds me about how Bush responded (yes, a Republican is posting a criticism of Bush, though I'm mostly recalling this from my memory of what someone else said in a discussion of this debate) to Kerry's attacks on Iraq. He seemed to echo again and again how Kerry's criticisms were bad for the troops morale, sends mixed messages to the troops, etc, trying to turn each argument with this neo-con response. The same thing is happening with "ID isn't science."
Also, saying that ID isn't science seems to really undermine and oversimplify the progress the intelligent design has made. It's basically claiming that the 300 on the Dissent from Darwin list, Beckwith, Campbell, Craig, Dembski, Gonzalez, Hartwig, Mims, Weikart, Pearcey, The Center for Science and Culture, Access Research Network, The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center, Intelligent Design Network, Inc, and many others who I don't have time to put on this list are all wrong, that despite all of their combined credentials, not one of them has presented a viable theory on ID that fits "X" criteria. A lot of primers and FAQs from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center can easily refute many of the misconceptions presented in this topic alone. IDEA has even written a refutation to an ACLU brief on this subject. Now I could go on an on about these accomplishments, but I'll let it rest because that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to establish some respect for ID. To say that despite everything I've listed here and much that I've left out, that ID can't put forth a plausible theory is just plain ludicrous. It would be nice if people could learn to respect ID as science more without having to have this evidence thrown at them.
Don't misconstrue me on this, however. I'm certainly not going to advocate that all of these aforementioned authors and groups are right, and that they conclusively prove that ID wins and evolution loses. It reminds me of something I read in a debate handbook which basically said don't expect to win every argument. But at the same time, the other side shouldn't think that they can win every argument, that every theory related to intelligent design has been dealt with, and thus we can conclude that ID should not be considered a form of science. A lot of this is interpretation, too. While I mentioned my desire to keep this evidence minimal (for the purpose of this topic), let me pull one piece from the IDEA FAQ: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?
Actually, upon closer inspection, once one understands the predictions of intelligent design theory, it becomes clear that there is much data published in the journals already supporting intelligent design theory; researchers simply have not been inferring design because the implications of their results have not been made clear to them.
A lot of this is about interpretting the evidence, too, not just citing loads of evidence, so this issue of ID not being science is not as cut and dry (in many ways, not just in the specific one I mentioned in my piece of evidence) as you would think.
As an aside, it's interesting that although I provided substantial evidence once in this topic, that everybody thought they could win by simply analyzing this evidence with their own brain, and pointing out every little detail. I didn't see anyone really quote a source as a piece of counter-evidence. And even if some evidence is weak or doesn't fit "X" criteria, it's certainly better than no evidence at all. And I was just plain pissed about this counter-post by PaulK
Isn't it interesting that despite objecting to people suggesting that you have been decieved by propaganda all you can do to support ID is - quote propaganda.
Funny, that.
That was basically his blanket standard for rejecting all of my evidence.
Finally, let me leave you [edit: you does not specifically refer to AdminAsgara, it's more like a you all] with two warnings.
1: I find the idea of being of hoping to be as prestigious as TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy quite scary. The subtitle reads "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy." However, this website presents a very biased, one-sided story. When http://www.trueorigins.org came about, it quite frankly stated, "We're biased towards creation." They didn't try to add a nice subtitle or to list some sites on the other side to look good. They openly admitted their bias. That's part of the reason why I like the Center for Science and Culture. They may not support the required teaching of ID in schools, but they don't oppose it or claim its unconstitutional or anything like that. In this way, they act as a balancing force.
2: There's a general feeling of elitism on the evolution side. Let me tell you a story to explain this. This year I was one of six in my school's first Advanced Competitive Forensics (advanced debate) class. We were so small that we were put in with the regular debate class. When it came time for a discussion about the class at the end of the semester, one student noted that the ACF class seemed very cocky or elitist to her. That comment caught me off guard, but unfortunatly a feeling deep inside told me she was right. It feels like the very same thing is happening here.
This message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 10:51 PM
This message has been edited by commike37, 03-25-2005 01:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-24-2005 7:19 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-25-2005 12:25 AM commike37 has replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 39 of 292 (194269)
03-24-2005 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:28 PM


Real ID?
And I want to discuss real ID rather than to have to spend every topic refuting these false perceptions about ID.
Sure. Who's the designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:28 PM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by coffee_addict, posted 03-25-2005 12:28 AM mikehager has replied

Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 292 (194290)
03-25-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by commike37
03-24-2005 10:47 PM


A Simple Solution
commike37, all you really need to do is to go to the Science forums, open a topic named "Evidence For ID" and lay out your evidence and arguments. Why come here and complain when you can just go out and show that ID is scientific and supported by the evidence?
Now I could go on an on about these accomplishments, but I'll let it rest because that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to establish some respect for ID.
You don't seem to get it, the ONLY way for ID to get respect is through evidence. Only after you have shown that it is supported will respect come. If you sit here complaining your just strengthening the argument that ID is not science.
1: I find the idea of being of hoping to be as prestigious as TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy quite scary. The subtitle reads "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy." However, this website presents a very biased, one-sided story.
They are one sided towards science, just like EvC is. I was under the impression that the whole goal of you being here is to show that ID/creationism is science. However, if you truly think that talkorigins is not telling the whole truth then why not support that statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 10:47 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:08 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 41 of 292 (194294)
03-25-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by mikehager
03-24-2005 11:35 PM


Re: Real ID?
mikehager writes:
Sure. Who's the designer?
Oh, come now. We all know the answer to that is the almighty christian god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mikehager, posted 03-24-2005 11:35 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by mikehager, posted 03-25-2005 12:35 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 43 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 12:59 AM coffee_addict has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 42 of 292 (194296)
03-25-2005 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by coffee_addict
03-25-2005 12:28 AM


Re: Real ID?
You know that and I know that... I just wonder if he will admit it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by coffee_addict, posted 03-25-2005 12:28 AM coffee_addict has not replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 292 (194304)
03-25-2005 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by coffee_addict
03-25-2005 12:28 AM


More Stereotypes
Cut it, Lam. Nowhere have I made any references to my faith or to the designer being the Christian god. This is just more negative stereotyping and blatant discriminatin.
It is possible to believe in ID and not be a stereotypical right-wing Christian fundie. Consider this excerpt from the ABC News article, "Famous Atheist Now Believes In God," about an atheist named Tony Flew.
Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."
And as for his reason for converting:
Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Furthermore, your post here should automatically be rejected due to an "ad hominem" fallacy. And as far as I know, evolution can't change the rules of logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by coffee_addict, posted 03-25-2005 12:28 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mikehager, posted 03-25-2005 1:33 AM commike37 has replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 292 (194308)
03-25-2005 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rand Al'Thor
03-25-2005 12:25 AM


Re: A Simple Solution
You don't seem to get it, the ONLY way for ID to get respect is through evidence. Only after you have shown that it is supported will respect come. If you sit here complaining your just strengthening the argument that ID is not science.
I've spent part of my post listing all of the people and organizations who have supported ID in one form or another. I just want you all to realize the progress ID has made without me having to rehash evidence for every potential topic that would degrade into an "ID isn't science" debate. If we can get beyond this silly proposition then we can start doing a more in-depth exploration of the controversy. And notice how I specifically construct this part of my post to talk about how I'm asking the same thing for both evolution and ID.
I'm certainly not going to advocate that all of these aforementioned authors and groups are right, and that they conclusively prove that ID wins and evolution loses. It reminds me of something I read in a debate handbook which basically said don't expect to win every argument. But at the same time, the other side shouldn't think that they can win every argument, that every theory related to intelligent design has been dealt with, and thus we can conclude that ID should not be considered a form of science.
To win this argument, you're going to have deal with this issue of uniqueness for your argument.
-----
They are one sided towards science, just like EvC is. I was under the impression that the whole goal of you being here is to show that ID/creationism is science. However, if you truly think that talkorigins is not telling the whole truth then why not support that statement?
You never directly refute my claim here. Even a cursory observation of the web site, for example, the post of the month section, would reveal that it is almost exclusively composed of pro-evolution or anti-creation science. I challeng you to find one piece of pro-creation or anti-evolution evidence from that website [this should be an easy challenge, but I'll make the next one harder if you succeed]. There's a serious issue of resource allocation here, that is, allocating research to an evolutionary viewpoint solely. How do you call such exclusion true science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-25-2005 12:25 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-25-2005 1:34 AM commike37 has replied
 Message 52 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-25-2005 9:17 AM commike37 has replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 45 of 292 (194318)
03-25-2005 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by commike37
03-25-2005 12:59 AM


Re: More Stereotypes
Ok, maybe Lam and I are wrong. Who is the designer in ID?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 12:59 AM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:50 AM mikehager has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024