Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
John
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 249 (234891)
08-19-2005 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Monk
08-19-2005 3:12 PM


Re: Why "Sigh"? I am confused.
Well, I still don't really see the point but you don't seem to be arguing anything critical anyway so its hard to get worked up about it.
Take care.

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Monk, posted 08-19-2005 3:12 PM Monk has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 62 of 249 (235390)
08-22-2005 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ooook!
08-19-2005 5:07 AM


Re: ToG
Ooook! writes:
Then I see no reason to bring Bert into the Theory of Glass(ToG).
Yes, but isn't there a point where you do you have reason? Seems to me that 'someone did it' is not inherently unscientific. You can bring in a 'someone' if one is needed, like how there's no problem bringing one in to explain how this glass got on my desk. So, Creationism/ID could, at some point, be scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ooook!, posted 08-19-2005 5:07 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Ooook!, posted 08-26-2005 4:53 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 63 of 249 (237184)
08-26-2005 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by DominionSeraph
08-22-2005 7:19 AM


Re: ToG
Hello again,
Sorry for the late reply, procrastination and all that.
DominionSeraph writes:
Seems to me that 'someone did it' is not inherently unscientific. You can bring in a 'someone' if one is needed, like how there's no problem bringing one in to explain how this glass got on my desk. So, Creationism/ID could, at some point, be scientific.
I would say that 'someone did it' is not an unscientific statement but it isn't specifically scientific either. As I said before: it should always be followed up with some (answerable) questions. 'How?' is a good place to start, maybe accompanied by 'Who?' or even 'Why are you so sure?'.
If someone is unwilling and/or unable to present satisfactory answers to this kind of question or at least suggest tests for them then they are being unscientific. Whether people are discussing 'designers', 'Bert the glass bringer', or the magical universal energy 'Oooomph' they have to keep chasing answers to remain within the realms of science.
It is the method that is scientific, not the statements made: a concept that IDers and other creation 'scientists' seem to have trouble grasping. It is enough for them to point at the Bacterial Flagellum, use some scientific sounding equations and jargon to declare there must have been a creator and then leave it there. I can see no evidence to suggest that this will ever change; it's a faith-based position, not a science-led one.
In addition to this there have been numerous instances of tests that have been failed many times over, especially for a young earth. Universal common descent and the age of the earth are the examples that spring to mind immediately. The evidence for evolution won't go away. In order for creationism to become a science, in my opinion, it has to scientifically answer the biggest question of all "Why would God make it look otherwise?".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-22-2005 7:19 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
jbob77
Inactive Junior Member


Message 64 of 249 (281407)
01-25-2006 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Athansor
08-16-2005 11:55 PM


ID not a science
In my mind (this is an opinion only) ID is not a science. This is because ID relies upon inferences and holes in evolutionary science as the tiers of its foundation. The concept of something being too complex to be thought of as being able to evolve to me proves nothing. It is surely difficult for me to picture how certain rotor motors on flagellum evolved with such precision, as it is for most people, but perhaps it is also hard for most people as well as myself to take into account the sheer numbers of years that could have been devoted to the construction of such a rotor.
Regardless of my opinion ID has been approached as a watered down form of Creation Science in the Dover Trial, and in my mind will continue to be approached as such until such facts may or may not arise to prove and/or disprove the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Athansor, posted 08-16-2005 11:55 PM Athansor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by bwade226, posted 01-26-2006 9:23 PM jbob77 has not replied

  
bwade226
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 249 (281847)
01-26-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by jbob77
01-25-2006 1:57 AM


Re: ID not a science
ID may not be a science yet, mostly because it relies mostly on faith. Faith is something that isn't science, can't be proven, but most people acknowledge that it is still there. It is true most of the evidence towards ID is holes in evolution, but is this wrong? Just because it isn't direct evidence for ID doesn't mean it shouldnt be used. Lastly, will evidence for ID come about? Most people don't think there will be, because it relies solely on faith. This might mean you will be waiting a long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jbob77, posted 01-25-2006 1:57 AM jbob77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-27-2006 2:52 PM bwade226 has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 66 of 249 (282009)
01-27-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by bwade226
01-26-2006 9:23 PM


Re: ID not a science
It is true most of the evidence towards ID is holes in evolution, but is this wrong? Just because it isn't direct evidence for ID doesn't mean it shouldnt be used.
Gaps or holes in any one theory can never be used as positive evidence for any other theory, competing or otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by bwade226, posted 01-26-2006 9:23 PM bwade226 has not replied

  
tanzanos
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 249 (288351)
02-19-2006 1:25 PM


VERY SILLY!!!!
I am dumbfounded by the fact that You Americans are seriously debating this issue. The rest of the planet has no problems with evolution and are happy with their respective religions. What is it about Americans that makes them so religiously fanatic as to actually persevere into enforcing a religious idea into their school’s curriculum?
For a Nation that sent man to the moon you sure are trying hard to go to the middle ages!
Creationism (a.k.a. ID) is not Science. It is a religious belief.
Evolution is science. Supported by almost all the scientists worldwide (most of them religious people who see no conflict with God and evolution).
What next? Will you be debating on whether to legalise public burnings of witches?
America wake up. This planet has many problems and science is the only tool we have to solve them.

Mighty is the sword that draws blood!
Mightier is the Pen that draws ink!
Mightiest is the tongue that draws ears! (Yiannis Mantheakis)

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AdminJar, posted 02-19-2006 1:37 PM tanzanos has not replied
 Message 69 by ReverendDG, posted 02-19-2006 8:29 PM tanzanos has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 249 (288355)
02-19-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by tanzanos
02-19-2006 1:25 PM


Welcome to EvC
We're glad you decided to join us and look forward to learning from you. At the end of this message you'll find some links to threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by tanzanos, posted 02-19-2006 1:25 PM tanzanos has not replied

      
    ReverendDG
    Member (Idle past 4110 days)
    Posts: 1119
    From: Topeka,kansas
    Joined: 06-06-2005


    Message 69 of 249 (288442)
    02-19-2006 8:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 67 by tanzanos
    02-19-2006 1:25 PM


    Re: VERY SILLY!!!!
    I agree with you on this, the fact is that people are afraid of science and science advancement, whether from all those monster movies of science turning things into monsters or movies depicting the cold-heartedness of the sciece-based goverment control of humanity. it has all led people to believe that science is evil, wrong, and does nothing but lead us down a path to nothingness
    with religion - mostly fundamentalism, people form a shell agenst the idea that the world isn't build by a loving-yet-jealous god

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by tanzanos, posted 02-19-2006 1:25 PM tanzanos has not replied

      
    2ice_baked_taters
    Member (Idle past 5851 days)
    Posts: 566
    From: Boulder Junction WI.
    Joined: 02-16-2006


    Message 70 of 249 (288509)
    02-20-2006 1:19 AM


    Creationism is not science. It implies intent and purpose.
    Science does not deal with intent or meaning ...only the physical details. Nothing of science has ever implied intent or purpose.
    The minute it does it is no longer science but becomes religion.
    Science must be kept free from Religion because religion creates meaning and purpose and morals and guilt all sorts of other messy things that the tool we call science is not capable of dealing with.
    However....it is human to be devisive. And I see many using science as thier religion. If one uses science as a way to argue the lack of a divine being or to deny an afterlife one has slid right into religion.
    Science is not a belief system. It is a way to examine and understand the "physical" environment. It is best suited to do this.
    Science will never define the spiritual. To ask it to is folly. That is simply not its nature.
    When both sides of the issue realize this there will no longer be an issue.
    This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 01:25 AM
    This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 10:33 AM

    Replies to this message:
     Message 71 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 12:01 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
     Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 12:54 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 71 of 249 (288662)
    02-20-2006 12:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 70 by 2ice_baked_taters
    02-20-2006 1:19 AM


    Science does not deal with intent or meaning ...only the physical details. Nothing of science has ever implied intent or purpose.
    The minute it does it is no longer science but becomes religion.
    What about psychology, and perhaps other social sciences?
    Okay, perhaps this would take us off topic. I'm just suggesting that your statement might be a little too broad.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-20-2006 1:19 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-20-2006 2:06 PM nwr has not replied
     Message 73 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-20-2006 2:16 PM nwr has replied

      
    2ice_baked_taters
    Member (Idle past 5851 days)
    Posts: 566
    From: Boulder Junction WI.
    Joined: 02-16-2006


    Message 72 of 249 (288705)
    02-20-2006 2:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 71 by nwr
    02-20-2006 12:01 PM


    I posted twice by accident...see below
    This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 02:18 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 12:01 PM nwr has not replied

      
    2ice_baked_taters
    Member (Idle past 5851 days)
    Posts: 566
    From: Boulder Junction WI.
    Joined: 02-16-2006


    Message 73 of 249 (288710)
    02-20-2006 2:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 71 by nwr
    02-20-2006 12:01 PM


    We have to realize that these social sciences must treat an individual as an object to be examined and cannot and do not acknowledge the existance of self. "Self" in this context is only a concept.
    If we accept that we are merely a concept then we do not exist. It is inherantly dehumanizing.
    We must inherantly have faith in our existance or we cease to exist.
    For me or anyone else to comunicate in any meaningful human way we must have faith and believe our own and each others existance. That is a fundimental truth. As such to be human is to have faith. This does not in any way imply religion. It is more basic. Religion attempts to bring meaning to this fundimental truth. Something science cannot ever do.
    I appolgise for how far from the tree this appears to have fallen.
    I do believe it is behind the underlying reason for the topic.
    Oh yes....and again...creationism is not science

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 12:01 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 74 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 2:52 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 74 of 249 (288726)
    02-20-2006 2:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 73 by 2ice_baked_taters
    02-20-2006 2:16 PM


    My point was simply that psychology does investigate intentionality, although IMO they have not yet successfully accounted for it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 73 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-20-2006 2:16 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 75 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-23-2006 11:33 AM nwr has not replied

      
    2ice_baked_taters
    Member (Idle past 5851 days)
    Posts: 566
    From: Boulder Junction WI.
    Joined: 02-16-2006


    Message 75 of 249 (289766)
    02-23-2006 11:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 74 by nwr
    02-20-2006 2:52 PM


    Yes...I understand. This is why science will continually mistake apples for oranges.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 74 by nwr, posted 02-20-2006 2:52 PM nwr has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by ramoss, posted 02-23-2006 1:59 PM 2ice_baked_taters 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