|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ID and the bias inherent in human nature | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
Critics of evolution get alot of ridicule from people with a mindset not too different from the mindset that condemned Galileo. The scientific community at that time attacked him because his ideas threatened the entire framework through which they viewed the world.
A similar situation exists today with evolution. Discussion of other theories and/or weaknesess of evolution are simply not tolerated. True cause of the debate: worldviews in conflict. Facts dont always speak for themselves. They're interpreted according to a framework. The framework one uses to interprete facts is inevitably affected by prior philosophical beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a creator. So it’s NOT about "biased religious creationists" versus objective scientific evolutionists. Its about the biases of religions versus the biases of non-religions resulting in different interpretations of the exact same scientific data. Nobodys perfect, and scientists are people too. A mistake scientists have been known to make is to ignore or rule out data which do not support a hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong" with data which do not support the scientists expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. If honest mistakes were all we had to worry about that would be one thing. But we also have to worry about the possibility of outright fraud. When you actually bother to learn a thing or two about Galileo and the development, rise and fall of the geocentric worldview, it seems the people who most resemble the defenders of that old "flat-earth" worldview are not the opponents of evolution, but its proponents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
ID is still very young. It needs time (decades, maybe) to flesh itself out...to work out the kinks...to organize.
I would like to see ID have a chance to grow and adapt. If the "ID movement" were a movie, and we were all watching it together in a theatre, I would say we are still in the opening credits. And I would say to the hecklers in the audience: be quiet, watch the movie, and see what happens. Im not saying anyone in this thread is a heckler, in fact they are great responces so far. This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 06:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: I would argue that the biases in the scientific community and in the media are retarding the development of the ID theory. This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 06:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: the religious community WAS the scientific community back then. You can't fight city hall, no matter what century you live in. And thanks for the welcome! Glad to be here! This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 08:29 PM This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 08:30 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
hehe very funny picture that would make. Seriously though I am only comparing the mindset and not the circumstances. BIG difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: Who said it wasn't ready to be presented? Just because it isn't fully developed doesn't mean it isn't ready to be presented. It's like a newborn baby. See it for what it is, not for what you expect it to be. People expect too much from it too soon. And who is talking about schools? "It takes two to tango", and it takes two to make something political. In this case...one to force it out of school and one to force it in.
quote: Harsh man, harsh. This kind of angry, intolerant, dismissive attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. All you need is a few influential people in the scientific community and in the media to think that way and presto! You have a chain reaction that leads to the current situation. I mean, c'mon Clark. Jeesh. "Not even close". Really? This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-28-2005 08:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
ID is very compatable with MUCH of standard evolution theory. Evolution says that species change in response to environmental and genetic factors over the course of many generations. That is not incompatable at all with ID.
The vast majority of people don't really understand TOE, and even fewer understand ID. Unless you go to the source, and read what the ID people themselves say, you are getting an incomplete picture. If all you know of ID comes from places like The Panda's Thumb, then you are biased without even realizing it. This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-28-2005 09:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
It was not. Much of what people say is not worthy of a responce. Sorry.
If any of you are brave enough to risk gaining a real understanding of ID, watch this presentation: Conservative news, politics, opinion, breaking news analysis, political cartoons and commentary - Townhall This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-28-2005 09:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: quote: quote: examples of bias causing dismisal of ID a priori. Humans never cease to amaze me. If Galileo were alive today, would be proud of the way the scientific community deals with opposing ideas? Do you think he would see the mindset of his ancient antagonists in all your posts? AND ITS A VIDEO PEOPLE. CLICK IT. This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-28-2005 10:24 AM This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-28-2005 10:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: People will do anything to preserve the bliss of their ignorance, eh? However, when people start throwing rules and guidelines at me, I usually back out of the discussion. It's safer that way, since things begin to get messy. So, I'm done with this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
Think what you want. They threw the rules and guidelines at Galileo too. Seems like you are the cowardly one who hides behind the rules, hoping they will shield you from the truth. Ive seen it a million times. Very predictable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
The Branding of a Heretic
Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian? BY DAVID KLINGHOFFERFriday, January 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST Get The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: A search using the key words "SCIENCE FRAUD" yielded over ten thousand hits. Scientific research, like other human activities, is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. But this trust will continue only if the scientific community devotes itself to transmitting and enforcing ethical scientific conduct. Scientists need a VERY well-defined and clearly written international code of conduct. Scientists should know the rules and the nature of their punishment if they fail to abide by their code of conduct. They should be frequently reminded of their professional obligations, formally or informally. Punishment for violation should be severe. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-01-2005 10:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
One factor I consider when I weigh the arguments on both side is psychology.
People seem to assume that religious belief is based on all kinds of irrational needs, and that non-belief is based on a rational, no- nonsense appraisal of the way things really are. However my experience has shown me that the major barriers to religious belief are not rational but psychological. For every person persuaded one way or the other by rational argument there are many, many more affected by non-rational psychological factors. Personal convenience, social pressure, neurotic psychological barriers, or personal hardship or loss. Any one of these can influence someones choice not to believe. And then there is the erroneous perception that being "a genuinely religious person" would be too much trouble, too inconvenient in many cases. Darwinism is easier, right? Beware the easy road. And then theres the small, nagging fear that many non-believers have deep in their hearts that they may be wrong. Fear can motivate people in weird ways. It destroys reason. Now, before you all start screaming I am not saying every non-believer is like this. I know some rational, friendly, sincere, free-thinking non-believers. And I know there are some that post here. Even so, I take everything with a grain of salt. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 09:35 PM This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 09:53 PM This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:07 PM This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:10 PM This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, because they insist that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature-by God, for example. Darwinists cannot accept that evolution, their pride and joy, can now be interpreted as by design through ID. They dont want to share evolution, they want to keep the battle as it was: creationism vs evolution. So, a distinction has to be made between naturalistic evolutionists (Darwinists) and non-materialist evolutionists (IDists / Theist-evolutionists) You can no longer simply be called evolutionists, and we can no longer simply be called creationists. Wake up and smell the media spin. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:38 PM This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:39 PM This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:40 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024