Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children.
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 111 (20385)
10-21-2002 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Mammuthus
10-21-2002 7:25 AM


I'll agree with that definition. It is debateable whether ID is creationism or not.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 7:25 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 8:21 AM blitz77 has replied
 Message 36 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-21-2002 9:59 AM blitz77 has not replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 111 (20388)
10-21-2002 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by blitz77
10-21-2002 7:18 AM


Originally posted by blitz77:
ID is not creationism. Gene, how could you make that mistake? It isn't young earth creationism or even progressive creationism.
Of course it is creationism because it implies a creator. The common idea behind all forms of creationism, wheither it be YEO, OEC, or ID is a creator.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by blitz77, posted 10-21-2002 7:18 AM blitz77 has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 33 of 111 (20389)
10-21-2002 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by blitz77
10-21-2002 7:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
I'll agree with that definition. It is debateable whether ID is creationism or not.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]

*****************************
ID posits an intelligent designer that engineers all biological life on the assumption that what we observe is too complex to have arisen naturally. This requires that said designer is responsible for the creation of all life, operates outside observable natural laws, and hence it is creationism. This does not necessarily mean it is Christian creationism. However, it posits an intelligent designer that created all life. It is not science because it is 1) an assumption based on an inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed 2) presents no testable hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by blitz77, posted 10-21-2002 7:34 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by blitz77, posted 10-21-2002 8:47 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 41 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-21-2002 10:28 PM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 74 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-17-2003 4:58 PM Mammuthus has not replied

blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 111 (20390)
10-21-2002 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Mammuthus
10-21-2002 8:21 AM


No problem. I'll just change it from (neither Christian or creationist) to (non-Christian IDist).
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 8:21 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 9:20 AM blitz77 has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 35 of 111 (20393)
10-21-2002 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by blitz77
10-21-2002 8:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
No problem. I'll just change it from (neither Christian or creationist) to (non-Christian IDist).
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]

******************
But then you would be excluding the Christian IDists..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by blitz77, posted 10-21-2002 8:47 AM blitz77 has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 36 of 111 (20399)
10-21-2002 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by blitz77
10-21-2002 7:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
I'll agree with that definition. It is debateable whether ID is creationism or not.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]

Blitz, I took a list of the books at the Discovery Institute (the driving force behind the ID movement). Here it is
Discovery bookstore
If you really look at some of the books it becomes immediatley apparent that the site is a creationist site.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 10-21-2002]
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 10-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by blitz77, posted 10-21-2002 7:34 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nos482, posted 10-21-2002 10:29 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 111 (20402)
10-21-2002 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
10-21-2002 9:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
Blitz, I took a list of the books at the Discovery Institute (the driving force behind the ID movement). Here it is
Discovery bookstore
If you really look at some of the books it becomes immediatley apparent that the site is a creationist site.

Especially this one;
Creation Hypothesis, The
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer
http://www.discovery.org/...ks/creationHypothesis/index.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-21-2002 9:59 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-21-2002 10:49 AM nos482 has replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 38 of 111 (20406)
10-21-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by nos482
10-21-2002 10:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Especially this one;
Creation Hypothesis, The
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer
Did you note that of the four main areas that the book addresses that only ONE deals with evolution.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nos482, posted 10-21-2002 10:29 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nos482, posted 10-21-2002 12:01 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 39 of 111 (20407)
10-21-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by blitz77
10-20-2002 7:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
To quote David Berlinski (IDist) has words for those who think evolution should be protected from criticism:
Why should anyopne care what a conservative mathematician has to say about an issue in biology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by blitz77, posted 10-20-2002 7:48 AM blitz77 has not replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 111 (20409)
10-21-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
10-21-2002 10:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Especially this one;
Creation Hypothesis, The
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer
Did you note that of the four main areas that the book addresses that only ONE deals with evolution.

And barely even that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-21-2002 10:49 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 111 (20433)
10-21-2002 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Mammuthus
10-21-2002 8:21 AM


Mammuthus
Your proclamation that ID is not science is crucially flawed Mamuthus:
You said:
quote:
It is not science because it is 1) an assumption based on an inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed 2) presents no testable hypothesis.
Clearly your claim of our 'inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed' presumes that they are natural before they are proven to be that! You have not proven the origin of genomes. Of course they now work naturally and are submitted to evolutionary processes but you have not proved how the genomes arrived.
Your second point is also plain incorrect. Both detailed ID and YECism provide testable predicitions. IDers predict that it will not be possible to find plausible paths between major novelties. YECs make numerous predictions that the flood will ultimatley explain the fossil record or that ancient DNA will be shown to be only thousands of years old for example. But I agree that these theories are not as clear in their predicitons as gavitation.
Just imagine the sceanrio of aliens turning up on our doorstep saying: "We designed those genomes you guys! The creationists almost had it right." And you'll say 'but it was unscientific'. And they'll accuse you of assuming something before it was proven. And they'll label you as unscientific.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 8:21 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-21-2002 10:42 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 44 by Mammuthus, posted 10-22-2002 5:08 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 42 of 111 (20435)
10-21-2002 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tranquility Base
10-21-2002 10:28 PM


TB, a couple of points before I crash.
1) The origin of genomes, at least where you appear to be defineing it, will likely occur in a blurred area between abiogenesis and evolution. Namely in an area between a series of patterns in chemical copying and true life forms. Problem is I think that the closer that we get to that area the more that it will become blurred; and people think that virus's are hard to define in this respect, they ain't seen noth'in yet.
2) W.R.T. defininitions in science and the basis for science. Neither ID nor any creationism based "science" meet any of the philosophical interpretations for a science as far as I am aware. Definitely not Popperian (although I do not subscribe to a strict Popperian interpretation, a looser ony w.r.t. ability to disprove a theory is accurate IMO) and not Baconian/Inductive/Deductive either. When one of the leading lights (as it were) of ID admits in print that ID is not falsefiable then it is time for ID to hang up its pretenses of being science. I am refering of course to M. Behe and his admission in "Mere Creation"
Sorry for any typos, but I am too beat to do more than a cursory spelling check.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-21-2002 10:28 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-21-2002 10:52 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 111 (20437)
10-21-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
10-21-2002 10:42 PM


^
ID may be hard to falisify but I don't think it's unfalsifiable. Falsifiability will always creep over time so it is not a good definition for science, even if it is typical of science. What is not falisiable now may be falisifiable in the future.
Definitions of science? If having studied genomes and mechanisms of evolution one comes to the conclusion that both abiogenesis and the last 500 million years of evolution is unlikely is that unscientific? No, of course not. The last step to creationism? If you want to call that unscientific go for it. I will call it logical and I would call it consistent with the science at the very least.
Abiogenesis vs evolution? I don't really agree. Genomes have advanced a lot under the heading of evolution since prokaryotes.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-21-2002 10:42 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 44 of 111 (20454)
10-22-2002 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tranquility Base
10-21-2002 10:28 PM


TB:
Your proclamation that ID is not science is crucially flawed Mamuthus:
M: You will have to demonstrate this TB.
My original quote:
You said:
quote:
It is not science because it is 1) an assumption based on an inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed 2) presents no testable hypothesis.
TB:
Clearly your claim of our 'inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed' presumes that they are natural before they are proven to be that! You have not proven the origin of genomes. Of course they now work naturally and are submitted to evolutionary processes but you have not proved how the genomes arrived.
M: Yet again, TB, you demonstrate another fault in your understanding of science. You do not "prove the origin of genomes"...how many time have you been told this? In any case, I stand by my point. Your and Behe et al. inability to understand complexity is hardly supporting evidence for creation. It is merely supporting evidence for your lack comprehension. And I was careful in my wording "inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as OBSERVED". An example of this was your claim that hemoglobin popped out of thin air because you could not imagine bacteria developing such a gene yet there it is in bacteria. Arguements from disbelief are hardly supportive evidence for your own ideas.
TB:
Your second point is also plain incorrect. Both detailed ID and YECism provide testable predicitions. IDers predict that it will not be possible to find plausible paths between major novelties.
M: My second point is fatal to ID. Your comment above states that ID is based on the prediction of the inability to find something. However, plausible paths between major novelties is common. Experiments, particularly with Drosophila, also demonstrate the types of mechanisms involved. Since "plausible paths" are constantly studied i.e. hox genes that kills your proposition regarding a prediction of ID. But the real issue is what is the testable hypothesis of ID? What are the observations and experiments that can be done to demonstrate 1. a designer 2. its intelligence?
Please provide a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID.
1. ID would be falsified if?
2. supporting data for ID?
3. testable predictions based on ID?
TB:
YECs make numerous predictions that the flood will ultimatley explain the fossil record or that ancient DNA will be shown to be only thousands of years old for example. But I agree that these theories are not as clear in their predicitons as gavitation.
M: Because none of them are theories. None of your "predictions" is a hypothesis of YEC. You are merely claiming that ultimately the flood will explain the fossil record. The second issue of aDNA is your wish but not a testable hypothesis of YEC. Neither of your statements shave been supported nor would they lead to supporting data for YEC. If all aDNA studies turned out to be wrong...why would that "prove creationism"? And you already gave an example of an aDNA study that is incorrect i.e. your 250 MYA bacteria
As with ID.
1. what is the testable hypothesis of YEC
2.How do you falsify YEC?
3. What testable predictions (not your wish list) can you make based on YEC?
4. Where is the supporting data?
TB:
Just imagine the sceanrio of aliens turning up on our doorstep saying: "We designed those genomes you guys! The creationists almost had it right." And you'll say 'but it was unscientific'. And they'll accuse you of assuming something before it was proven. And they'll label you as unscientific.
M: Good job TB! You use science fiction to justify non-scientific ideas ...or maybe the aliens come and say "Hey, there is no god, have a nice day".
YEC/ID is not science....it is barely good fiction
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-21-2002 10:28 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

keith63
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 111 (67079)
11-17-2003 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by gene90
10-14-2002 7:05 PM


US Constitution
I'm not sure which part of the constitution says you can't teach anything religious in public schools. The so called establishment clause says that congress shall pass no laws that establish a religion. I don't think showing an alternative to evolution is establishing, lets say christianity, as the only state sponsored religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by gene90, posted 10-14-2002 7:05 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by sidelined, posted 11-17-2003 1:59 PM keith63 has replied
 Message 47 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-17-2003 2:58 PM keith63 has not replied
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2003 3:07 PM keith63 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