|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery Institute loses one | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3945 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Does it? Or does it suggest that there could be other natural mechanisms possible and that they shouldn't be discounted out of hand just because we already have mutation and natural selection? Sure, that suggestion is valid. ID as possible is not exclusive.
Again, they did not specifically ask for an endorsement of ID in the statement (yet it is still presented as one) all they did was couch skepticism in seductive phraseology. Do you find the phrasing seductive? I don't. It seems straight forward to me. I don't see any "phunny business" in the statement by itself. Its use, on the other hand, is a different story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3945 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I said:
quote: To which you responded:
Why? What give ID any better credibility than uncle bob's crank ideas? Let me rephrase that: what gives ID a single element of credibility compared to uncle bob's crank ideas? If evolution shows why people can't fly, and we cannot explain {theoretical event A} by the current theories of evolution, then we can fly??? Well that's what I want to find out with the project. If the majority of these scientist answered the statement with an eye towards other naturally occuring phenomenon specifically exclusive of ID, then DI misled them by not stating its subsequent use to promote ID. If OTOH, they answered as part of a general discussion of ID, then that gives more credence towards further examination of ID as opposed to uncle bob or IPU's or whatever. When I say credence I'm not saying ID is valid or scientific, just that a portion of the scientific community is intrigued by it and may be willing to see it examined further rather than dismissed out of hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If OTOH, they answered as part of a general discussion of ID, then that gives more credence towards further examination of ID as opposed to uncle bob or IPU's or whatever. Still logically false. That Dawkins endorses evolution does not make evolution any more valid. 1 billion scientists opinions have no validity as opposed to evidence. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I used to be involved with public surveys. The way you word a question can influence the answer you get. Unscrupulous pollsters know this and intentionally slant their questions to get the answers they want. Politicians do this. DI did this.
The hardest part of running an honest poll is phrasing the questions in answer neutral ways. Anything that is not neutral is seductive. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3945 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
That Dawkins endorses evolution does not make evolution any more valid. 1 billion scientists opinions have no validity as opposed to evidence. You didn't read my qualifier, here it is again.
When I say credence I'm not saying ID is valid or scientific, just that a portion of the scientific community is intrigued by it and may be willing to see it examined further rather than dismissed out of hand. This is why I would not put ID in the same category as uncle bob.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3945 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
The hardest part of running an honest poll is phrasing the questions in answer neutral ways. Anything that is not neutral is seductive. Absolutely true. But again. I find nothing seductive about the statement. If the statement was not used exactly as phrased in the pdf file, or if they asked a slightly different phrase and stuck all the names to the one in the pdf, then you have a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You didn't read my qualifier, here it is again. No, I saw it and dismissed it as the logical fallacy that it is. It is an appeal to authority, and in this case the authorities in question don't have a clue, or they would be writting papers about the evidence and theories and observations. That makes their opinions no more valid than uncle bob's no matter what their degree or the institution they work for.
This is why I would not put ID in the same category as uncle bob. Neither would I. Lower would be more appropriate, imho. Uncle bob has an open mind and ID is {assumption first, then the evidence} thinking. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, when we formulate our little survey, we'll have to be very careful about how we word things.
i think we'll basically state a dozen or so detailed questions about all sides (science, religion, id, creationism, etc) and see exactly where the erlenmeyer flasks fall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Might I suggest that you screen the list for non-scientists, for people who are associated with the DI or creationist organisations and also for those whose qualifications are not relevant.
If a die-hard YEC mechanical engineer might make it onto the list but adds no credibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Might I suggest that you screen the list for non-scientists, for people who are associated with the DI or creationist organisations and also for those whose qualifications are not relevant. If a die-hard YEC mechanical engineer might make it onto the list but adds no credibility. that'd rule out people like dembsky, a mathematician. i think we should ask them ALL. just to be scientifically accurate. we could then group them by field and see which fields are more likely to foster creationism, id, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I would specifically scan the list for biologists, and concentrate on what they say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, it'd be interesting to see how the list breaks down...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
It should be pointed out that if we have emails that it's no more of a problem to email all rather than a selective group - I don't think we want to leave ourselves open to charges of trying to pull a shellgame.
Let's take this nice and slow and I think we can really produce something that is of real worth (well at least for like minded souls on the net).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Charles Knight
If we were to ask of each member on the list, "Is either evolution or intelligent design a sound scientific theory? Why or why not?" would this be neutral enough a question to elicit a reply that requires input from the respondent that needs a definite stance outlining their viewpoint or is there a better means of enquiring?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
It should be pointed out that if we have emails that it's no more of a problem to email all rather than a selective group - I don't think we want to leave ourselves open to charges of trying to pull a shellgame. Let's take this nice and slow and I think we can really produce something that is of real worth (well at least for like minded souls on the net). yes, that's basically what i'm thinking. we email everyone we can get ahold of. whether or not they choose to return our email is one thing -- but it's not something we're rigging. i just think that as part of the data COLLECTION we should sort the results by profession/field, and whether they are research faculty at a legitimate university. if we could show that all of the biologists on the list don't really agree with di, that'd be a pretty substantial refutation, even if we don't get all of the mathematicians, or physicists. or homeschool teachers.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024