Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design in Universities
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 18 of 310 (204720)
05-03-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by scordova
05-03-2005 4:13 PM


Re: thank all for your inputs
You want to market to the next generation of researchers that creationism and it's ill-disguised twin brother "Intelligent" design are science. One can only hope that you will fail, because if you succeed there will be no scientists, only priests.
What exactly do ID proponets dislike about science? I'm sorry that it doesn't bow down to christian ideas, but them's the breaks. Science is a system, a system that works. We know it works because we see the tangible benefits every day. Why is it that some people are so ready to ignore science because it doesn't support their particular brand of superstition?
Is it that some soft minded types are so attached to their fairy tales that anything that casts doubt on them must be opposed? I simply don't get it. Perhaps you, Mr. Cordova, can explain it to me.
I also have another question. Why is it that some of those same soft minded types claim to respect science, but only do so until it tells them something they don't like?
Maybe that's it. Perhaps those poor people do approve of science in some degenerate way and desperately want the respectability that science provides for their superstitions. Of course, that seems to me to be a testament to a lack of faith, but maybe I'm wrong. Again, Mr. Cordova, you seem to understand the way these people believe. Can you explain it?
Perhaps you can explain why all this alleged work in ID is published in popular books rather then in peer reviewed journals? I expect a chorus of the good old "bias" song here, perhaps tending upwards to the more strident "conspiracy" tune. I may be wrong, of course, so what is your explanation?
Finally, I would also like an answer to this: How exactly is ID not non-denominational creationism? I've heard the old saw about how ID just points to the existence of a designer but says nothing about Him. (In case it was missed, the use of "Him" was deliberate and sarcastic.) ID just tries to show that there is some unknown power out there that created everything (or at least life on earth). How is that not as religious claim?
I await your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by scordova, posted 05-03-2005 4:13 PM scordova has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 31 of 310 (204823)
05-04-2005 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-03-2005 10:13 PM


Field?
The communication problem here is that I fully understand my own field...
ID is a field now, rather then a largely undefined opinion? Well, color me stunned.
What degree do you hold and where did you get it? Is it in "Intelligent Design"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 10:13 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 32 of 310 (204826)
05-04-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by scordova
05-03-2005 4:57 PM


A problem
For example, one ID member said she asked her professor about the theoretical transitional between a prokaryotic to a eukaryotic cell, the professor said, "I don't know".
So you think the reasonable solution tothis is to say that god (or some unidentified entity you won't name because you don't want to say "god") did it? Wouldn't it be better to keep doing science till we find an answer rather than attributing it to the supernatural and calling it a day?
There are still questions waiting for you in my previous post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by scordova, posted 05-03-2005 4:57 PM scordova has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 57 of 310 (204976)
05-04-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by scordova
05-03-2005 4:13 PM


Re: thank all for your inputs
I am still awaiting your answers, scordova. Or, are you engaging in a classic creationist response of running when challenged.
Oh, by the way, yes, ID is creationism, so my term applies to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by scordova, posted 05-03-2005 4:13 PM scordova has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 64 of 310 (205020)
05-04-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by scordova
05-04-2005 4:41 PM


Still waiting.
I posed you some questions in #18 and #32, this thread, and have not heard any response. I await your reply.
I know for a fact that they come back to me each week telling me their biology professors are unable to give them proof of Darwin's grand claims (that's because Darwin's theory is wrong!). The effect of seeing their professors capitulation is powerful!
I strongly doubt that such "capitulation" is occurring. A scientist admitting they do not know something abiout evolution is not evidence in favor of creationism. How many time have we heard this from the creationist fringe? It's called a false dicotomy and it is a flawed way of thinking. To support your creationist ideas, you have to provide positive evidence for them. Why is it that these efforts have always failed? It must be the fault of science, not of the ideas, even though science works pretty well in every other area. Yes, it must be a conspiracy...
In fact, a running theme with you and every other creationist is to criticize evolutionary science in such a way that the layman can easily grasp the seeming problem but the explanation is in depth. That is why creationism, wearing it's own colors or it's feeble disguise of ID, propogates itself in popular books and in debates rather then in scientific circles. It cannot survive the deep scrutiny of knowledgable people.
You even seem to acknowledge creationism's complete lack of value. You want to see it taught in theology departments where the big bad scientists can't tell you how wrong you are, because you aren't, because there is a conspiracy, because you know you're right, because the bible tells you so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by scordova, posted 05-04-2005 4:41 PM scordova has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 91 of 310 (205262)
05-05-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by scordova
05-05-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Greetings Jerry
You still have sevral waiting for you, Mr. Cordova. I await with baited breath your replies to my questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by scordova, posted 05-05-2005 9:58 AM scordova has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 93 of 310 (205288)
05-05-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-05-2005 3:46 AM


Speak for yourself
No. since I haven't any idea what the heck you are talking about and highly doubt anyone reading this does, there is little chance I will say that.
Um... I did. Beware projecting your ignorance on to others. It's very bad form.
I like my hubris, thank you. It fills my puddle.
Hubris is something you should be ashamed of. It is not a laudable quality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-05-2005 3:46 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-05-2005 6:02 PM mikehager has replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 102 of 310 (205394)
05-05-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-05-2005 6:02 PM


Ah...
I see. You don't know the definition of "hubris" either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-05-2005 6:02 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 103 of 310 (205396)
05-05-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-05-2005 6:29 PM


Sal?
like Sal and I that can actually show ID to be true both scientifically and mathematically.
Well, you have been challenged to show what you braggadocio claims. Go to it. I'm looking forward to it.
As far as Sal goes, he has nothing to say other then bland assurances that he is succeeding at his goals (one is tempted to throw in nefarious goals, but I will not). I've asked him several questions he has not seen fit to reply to.
He is a classic creationist, ducking and running when challenged. I am pretty sure you are the same, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Meet the challenge Paisano(sp?) has made with something other then arrogant claims of knowledge you have not demonstrated and insults.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-05-2005 6:29 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 05-05-2005 10:50 PM mikehager has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 105 of 310 (205408)
05-05-2005 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by scordova
05-05-2005 7:42 PM


Re: Mike Hager asked
Perhaps you can answer a simple question. I doubt it, but I will give you a shot. Exactly how is ID, which posits an unknown force capable of manipulating events on many scales in some unknown yet effective manner (a decent definition of a deity) not just a sham for simple religious creationism?
Also, at what point is it appropriate, if the god of ID exists, is it proper for researchers to stop and say "goddidit"?
I will admit that my charge was not accurate. ID advocates may well not dislike science but they certainly don't use it or like to see it applied to their ideas.
In light of my admisson, maybe you would like to recant on your claims that a biology professor saying that they do not know a thing is somehow support for creationism (or ID... whichever... same thing). Since you have the ability to look up a fallacy on the web, perhaps you might take the time to look up false dichotomy.
This message has been edited by mikehager, 05-05-2005 08:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by scordova, posted 05-05-2005 7:42 PM scordova has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Limbo, posted 05-05-2005 9:13 PM mikehager has not replied
 Message 108 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-05-2005 9:18 PM mikehager has replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 117 of 310 (205469)
05-06-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-05-2005 9:18 PM


Learn?
I am hardly here to learn from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-05-2005 9:18 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 120 of 310 (205472)
05-06-2005 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by scordova
05-05-2005 9:52 PM


nice try all around
Quite the contrary, I'm only giving you a shot. I'm responding not to persuade you, but to encourage sympathetic readers.
Of course, inevitably, you try not to persuade those who have examined your ideas and seen the flaws, but the impressionable who you can fool. Go, Big P!
ID is rooted in interpretations of physical law...
No, it is rooted in Mistaken interpertations, as is being show elsewhere in this thread.
Creationism (I never said biblical creationism) is the belief that some supernatural entity was the motive force in the arising and development of life. ID says the same thing.
If the emprical evidence is consistent with the creation account, then that does not negate the plausibility of the inference.
That would be true, if the evidence were consistent. It isn't. Again, see other entries in this thread.
if ID were purely religious, there would be no need to offer it as a separate class from creationism.
As it is religious, you are correct, there is no need to seperate them... they are one. See above.
At the university level, I hope both will be offered, because 55% of the students want undiluted creationism. Where as only 14% want pure ID. From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense to offer creationism in addition to ID.
And you think profit motive is an appropriate way to choose subject matter for universities? Also, if creationism were to be taught, which myth would you choose? Christianity's or some other?
That you think there is ANY point where inquiry should stop, or more precisely, that people who think that way should be allowed to do science is disturbing. The search for real knowledge must never stop, especially for religious reasons.
You completely missed the point at which you posed your false dichotomy. Try again, then we can proceed. If you can't get it this time, I will explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by scordova, posted 05-05-2005 9:52 PM scordova has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024