Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID and the bias inherent in human nature
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 105 (203091)
04-27-2005 5:42 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 04-27-2005 5:57 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 6:17 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 10 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 8:24 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 12 by dsv, posted 04-27-2005 8:47 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 105 (203117)
04-27-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
04-27-2005 6:17 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 6:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 6:38 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 10:22 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 105 (203126)
04-27-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
04-27-2005 6:38 PM


quote:
But nobody is stopping the ID movement from developing their ideas. They're free to do that all they like.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 6:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 7:06 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 16 by christian atheist, posted 04-27-2005 11:12 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 17 by Clark, posted 04-27-2005 11:51 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 105 (203153)
04-27-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mick
04-27-2005 8:24 PM


quote:
Galileo was not attacked by the "scientific community". Galieo lived from 1564-1642. In those days the "scientific community" simply did not exist. Should you care to read a history book, you will find that Galileo was persecuted by the religious community.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 8:24 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 8:49 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 14 by coffee_addict, posted 04-27-2005 8:57 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 105 (203164)
04-27-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mick
04-27-2005 8:49 PM


hehe very funny picture that would make. Seriously though I am only comparing the mindset and not the circumstances. BIG difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 8:49 PM mick has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 105 (203275)
04-28-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by christian atheist
04-27-2005 11:12 PM


quote:
If it's not ready to be presented yet, then why try to force it into schools?
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:
I would argue Christians have had the money, education, and inclination for at least 140 years (if not a lot longer) to come up with a viable theory. Currently they're not even close to having one.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by christian atheist, posted 04-27-2005 11:12 PM christian atheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2005 9:03 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 20 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2005 9:17 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 105 (203286)
04-28-2005 9:17 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2005 9:26 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 23 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2005 9:28 AM Limbo has replied
 Message 27 by dsv, posted 04-28-2005 9:49 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 105 (203291)
04-28-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Wounded King
04-28-2005 9:28 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2005 9:28 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by JonF, posted 04-28-2005 9:39 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 26 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2005 9:43 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 29 by CK, posted 04-28-2005 10:15 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 105 (203309)
04-28-2005 10:22 AM


quote:
Is a streaming audio hosted on a conservative political website really the best forum to present groundbreaking theoretical scientific research?
quote:
We don't argue by link around here. If you think there's something worth saying, say it.
quote:
And really low quality streaming audio at that.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2005 10:30 AM Limbo has replied
 Message 32 by nator, posted 04-28-2005 10:32 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2005 10:36 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 39 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2005 10:56 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 56 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-15-2005 5:17 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 105 (203324)
04-28-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
04-28-2005 10:30 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines
quote:
Are you going to follow these guidelines or do you intned to go on ignoring them ?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2005 10:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by CK, posted 04-28-2005 10:40 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2005 10:42 AM Limbo has replied
 Message 38 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2005 10:49 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 105 (203329)
04-28-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
04-28-2005 10:42 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2005 10:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2005 10:56 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 41 by dsv, posted 04-28-2005 10:58 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 105 (203676)
04-29-2005 1:15 PM


The Branding of a Heretic
Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?
BY DAVID KLINGHOFFER
Friday, 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2005 2:00 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 04-29-2005 2:26 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 105 (204203)
05-01-2005 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by CK
04-27-2005 5:57 PM


quote:
Can you suggest a system to overcome this problem? Maybe you know of an existing system that we could use?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 04-27-2005 5:57 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 05-02-2005 8:57 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 11:23 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 55 by jar, posted 05-02-2005 11:54 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 57 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-15-2005 5:31 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 105 (208849)
05-16-2005 9:33 PM


And now for something completely different
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 10:13 PM Limbo has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 105 (208872)
05-16-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
05-16-2005 10:13 PM


Re: And now for something completely different
quote:
What connection is there between Darwinism (whatever the hell that is) and being religious or non-religious? You keep saying stuff like that that simply makes no sense.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 10:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 10:55 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 63 by paisano, posted 05-16-2005 10:58 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 65 by zyncod, posted 05-17-2005 1:15 AM Limbo has replied
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2005 2:18 AM Limbo 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