|
Author
|
Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4208 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
Message 196 of 305 (454828)
02-08-2008 7:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 187 by Beretta
02-08-2008 9:07 AM
|
|
Re: Old evolutionist's tales
Beretta Id proposes that natural causes may not be the only explanation possible for life on this earth but it does not attempt to get into who or what the creative intelligence may be because the identity of the designer is not part of science -that would be part of a theological debate.The point is not to exclude the potentially correct answer by limiting the definition of science to material causes and passing it off as fact since it may shut out investigation into the truth of what actually did produce life. Much like the identity of the creator being out of the domain of science, so would things like voodoo and charms be out of the realm of scientific investigation. The point is that ID cannot be scientifically tested anymore than any other pseudoscience (ie: astrology, alchemy) can. To be treated as science one must be able to show that the postulate is feasible (ie relativity, evolution, plate tectonics etc.).
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 187 by Beretta, posted 02-08-2008 9:07 AM | | Beretta has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 224 by Beretta, posted 02-12-2008 4:20 AM | | bluescat48 has replied |
|
CTD
Member (Idle past 5888 days) Posts: 253 Joined: 03-11-2007
|
|
|
Message 197 of 305 (454903)
02-09-2008 7:44 AM
|
|
|
Since when?
What's all this trash about astrology being immune to scientific inquiry? Astrology is simple enough to test: get a list of predictions and see how accurate they are. Duh! I'd say it's been done, but I'm not going to go chasing sources. The results don't matter one bit. What matters is that it can be tested. And this is all just nonsense. Trying to build an association between ID and astrology, but it fails. Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis, which is "supposed" to be a separate issue. Looks like these two "separate" issues are siamese twins. They're joined at the head and the heart, and if one dies the other can't last. Separate issues? What a joke! Only separate when it suits the hypocrites' argument from what I've seen. But all part of the same fairy tale. I really should look this up. It can't be new. There's got to be a term somewhere. Essentially what we have is an attempt to ad hom against astrology as an attack on ID. It's not a straw man, because there actually is astrology. I don't know what to call this junk. Anybody?
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 198 of 305 (454915)
02-09-2008 10:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by CTD
02-09-2008 7:44 AM
|
|
Re: Since when?
quote:
Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis, which is "supposed" to be a separate issue. Looks like these two "separate" issues are siamese twins. They're joined at the head and the heart, and if one dies the other can't last.
It isn't true that ID only questions abiogensis. Behe's ID has God directly intervening in evolution - and he's probably the most pro-evolution IDist out there. Others go much further in questioning or rejecting evolution - Paul Nelson is a Young Earth Creationist. Can you name even one major figure in ID who has publically admitted to accepting evolution - and only questions abiogenesis ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by CTD, posted 02-09-2008 7:44 AM | | CTD has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2125 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 199 of 305 (454919)
02-09-2008 10:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by CTD
02-09-2008 7:44 AM
|
|
You had two ideas in your post, kind of mixed together. I hope I separated them correctly.
quote:
What's all this trash about astrology being immune to scientific inquiry? Astrology is simple enough to test: get a list of predictions and see how accurate they are. Duh! I'd say it's been done, but I'm not going to go chasing sources. The results don't matter one bit. What matters is that it can be tested. And this is all just nonsense. Trying to build an association between ID and astrology, but it fails. I really should look this up. It can't be new. There's got to be a term somewhere. Essentially what we have is an attempt to ad hom against astrology as an attack on ID. It's not a straw man, because there actually is astrology. I don't know what to call this junk. Anybody?
Your "ad hom" against astrology came from Behe's testimony in the Dover trial. When asked about his definition of "science" Behe had to come up with a definition broad enough to include ID--that was the whole point of the trial, that ID was science. He was forced to admit, under oath, that his definition was sufficiently broad that it also included astrology. And the point was not that the tenets of astrology could be amenable to the scientific method (that was done centuries ago; astrology failed), but that astrology as it is currently practiced is not scientific. In that respect, it matches ID rather well. And that admission by Behe was one of the cornerstones of the Dover decision. (Another cornerstone was the clear link between ID and religion.)
quote:
Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis, which is "supposed" to be a separate issue. Looks like these two "separate" issues are siamese twins. They're joined at the head and the heart, and if one dies the other can't last. Separate issues? What a joke! Only separate when it suits the hypocrites' argument from what I've seen. But all part of the same fairy tale.
Abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. Evolution works just fine under any of these five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
Abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution because, as evolutionists have been saying all along, evolution deals with change over time -- not origins.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by CTD, posted 02-09-2008 7:44 AM | | CTD has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 200 of 305 (454928)
02-09-2008 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by CTD
02-09-2008 7:44 AM
|
|
Re: Since when?
Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis, which is "supposed" to be a separate issue. Er ... but your claim that "ID only questions abiogenesis" isn't actually true, is it? "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings." --- Of Pandas And People This makes the rest of your rant seem rankly dishonest, since your shrieks about the "hypocrisy" (not to mention "fairy tales") of your opponents are based entirely on a thumping great untruth told by you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by CTD, posted 02-09-2008 7:44 AM | | CTD has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 201 of 305 (454993)
02-09-2008 5:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by CTD
02-09-2008 7:44 AM
|
|
Re: Since when?
quote:
What's all this trash about astrology being immune to scientific inquiry? Astrology is simple enough to test: get a list of predictions and see how accurate they are. Duh! I'd say it's been done, but I'm not going to go chasing sources. The results don't matter one bit. What matters is that it can be tested.
Well, sort of. Astrology as it is generally practiced by its adherents is an unfalsifiable system. All of the professional astrologers I've ever heard about have a ready convenient excuse every time one of their predictions is completely wrong, i.e.: "Well, this prediction may seem wrong, but you see you are on the cusp of Libra, and Saturn is in the seventh house, so that's the explanation for why X happened instead of Y as I predicted." or somesuch. Good info on Astrology can be found here.
quote:
Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis, which is "supposed" to be a separate issue. Looks like these two "separate" issues are siamese twins. They're joined at the head and the heart, and if one dies the other can't last.
Not really. More religious notions of origins have died than exist today, that's for sure. Science, since it is not a set-in-stone revealed religious "truth" but a reality-based one that is both self-correcting and willing to say "we don't know", has far more staying power than any religion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by CTD, posted 02-09-2008 7:44 AM | | CTD has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3725 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 202 of 305 (455007)
02-09-2008 6:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by CTD
02-09-2008 7:44 AM
|
|
Trash it is not!
To save you looking it up, here's the part of the Trial transcript in question. The questions are asked by Eric Rothschild for the Plaintiffs (on cross)and the answers are given by Michael Behe (Expert Witness for the Defense). I've taken this directly from the official court transcript, Tuesday October 18th 2005, 1.25pm, Afternoon Session, Honorable John E. Jones III presiding. You will find the pdf file here Page not found | ACLU Pennsylvania
Q So in any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theort, correct? A I think I used a broaded definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community. Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just bases on you rown experience: it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community. Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] definition ? A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community. Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions. A It recognises that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it. Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct? A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But, in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reacched by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways. Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis? A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term. Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct? A yes Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that --which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light and many other --many other theories as well. Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct? A That is correct Q but you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, that's correct.... Behe then goes on to give explanations, but he doesn't retract his statement. You can read the entire Dover transcript Page not found | ACLU Pennsylvania So under the definition which allows ID to be taught in the science class, astrology can be taught too! I have to ask this question again. Why have IDists failed to familiarise themselves with the court transcript, especially when they want to dispute what it says? So, CTD, there you have it. In 20 years time, Astrology will be taught as science in science classes if IDists get their way since it's as valid as ID under Behe's definition and as explicitly stated by Behe in open court, under oath, as an expert witness and recorded in the transcript of that day's proceedings by the court stenographer. So, in response to your statement
And this is all just nonsense. Trying to build an association between ID and astrology, but it fails. No-one is trying to build an association between ID and astrology. It has already been built, demonstrated and declared in public by one of ID's most vocal supporters. It only fails if you are prepared to accept that Behe's redefinition of scientific hypothesis fails and if you accept that, you accept that ID isn't a scientific hypothesis and shouldn't be taught in science classes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by CTD, posted 02-09-2008 7:44 AM | | CTD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 205 by CTD, posted 02-10-2008 2:51 AM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3725 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 203 of 305 (455011)
02-09-2008 6:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by CTD
02-09-2008 7:44 AM
|
|
There actually is.....
You say
It's not a straw man, because there actually is astrology. Can I point out and paraphrase Shakespeare in the process
There are more things in heaven and Earth......than you can shake a stick at There actually is, or has been 1. Voodoo 2. Witch pricking 3. Palmistry 4. Alien abduction 5. Crystal Ball Gazing Just because they exist(ed) and can be investigated scientifically doesn't mean that they are science. They have been scientifically investigated and discovered to be bunkum. The same can be said for Astrology. So it shouldn't be taught in science class as an alternative theory. ID, on the other hand, can't even measure up to the five examples above because it can't even be tested in the first place
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by CTD, posted 02-09-2008 7:44 AM | | CTD has not replied |
|
CTD
Member (Idle past 5888 days) Posts: 253 Joined: 03-11-2007
|
|
|
Message 204 of 305 (455060)
02-10-2008 2:26 AM
|
|
|
If astrology weren't subject to scientific investigation, the lawyer might have had a point. As it has been investigated scientifically, it must be considered an hypothesis by any honest person. Now I'm guessing folks are just parroting this deceitful lawyer, instead of thinking for themselves here. Otherwise the only consistent course of action would be to bar any mention of any scientific hypothesis which failed to measure up when tested. And I know for dead certain that ain't what you all want. Of course I don't assume you want to be consistent. And as for ID vs. evolution, the only way you get that is to misconstrue what ID is about. It isn't about the view of any individual. It's about the one thing they all agree on: life clearly exhibits all the traits of things that only arise by intelligent design, and should therefore be classified as one of these things. They do not agree on what form(s) of life were originally created, or when it took place. If they were required to agree on any individual's ideas, they'd never have formed as a group. I spent some time reading their forums, and to say they agree on religion or timetables is totally wrong. Neither do they agree on how much postcreation involvement the creating intelligence had with life. To say ID is defined by the beliefs of any individual member's beliefs is no better than saying evolutionism is defined by the beliefs of one of their counterparts. Oh yes! And since it's an evolutionist picking which IDer's ideas define ID, it's only fair that an IDer choose which evolutionist's ideas will represent the beliefs of all evolutionists. That's how these games work. Care to play? Of course there's a great fear of ID in evolutionist circles. It's be tough to find a TE who wouldn't fit in with them, and losing the support of the TE's would really hurt. So evolutionists are in a bad position. People aren't ions, but polarity is polarity. You can only fight it so long. Final word: It's not hard to find individual IDer's who are willing to accept non-science or even things that have been conclusively proven wrong. Many of them accept Old Earth stories.
|
CTD
Member (Idle past 5888 days) Posts: 253 Joined: 03-11-2007
|
|
|
Message 205 of 305 (455061)
02-10-2008 2:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 202 by Trixie
02-09-2008 6:13 PM
|
|
Re: Trash it is so
quote:
So, CTD, there you have it. In 20 years time, Astrology will be taught as science in science classes if IDists get their way since it's as valid as ID under Behe's definition and as explicitly stated by Behe in open court, under oath, as an expert witness and recorded in the transcript of that day's proceedings by the court stenographer.
Thanks for the sample of lame hype. There's no requirement to teach all theories in science classes. Even if such a requirement arose, persons not unlike that lawyer would ensure selective enforcement. Neither was it ever said that astrology is "as valid as ID". All that was said is that astrology is a "theory". Astrology can be and has been examined scientifically, and it most certainly is an hypothesis. It'd serve you right if they chose Chas. Darwin's definition of "theory". He was a pioneer in the field of obfuscation. Speaking of obfuscation, still no term for the technique in question. Doesn't anyone take any pride in the craft they practice? If y'all're going to employ these things, learn their names fer cryin' out loud. I know if logical fallacies were my life's passion I'd take the time. That & a little money might land you a sweet gig workin' the courtrooms.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 202 by Trixie, posted 02-09-2008 6:13 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 206 by Percy, posted 02-10-2008 5:44 AM | | CTD has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22475 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 206 of 305 (455069)
02-10-2008 5:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 205 by CTD
02-10-2008 2:51 AM
|
|
Re: Trash it is so
It's being argued that if ID becomes accepted into the curriculum that other sciences of questionable legitimacy, such as astrology, would also. You seem to think that wouldn't happen, so I guess the question is what is it from the perspective of science that differentiates ID from astrology? I think you already answered this question when you said in Message 204 that, "life clearly exhibits all the traits of things that only arise by intelligent design, and should therefore be classified as one of these things," but don't you need more than this? The appearance of design is sufficient for forming a hypothesis, but building a theory requires experiment, observation, analysis, replication and consensus building within the scientific community, something the field of ID has yet to do. The same is true of astrology. So if ID were to be added to the curriculum, it's being argued that astrology can fulfill any scientific criteria that ID does. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 205 by CTD, posted 02-10-2008 2:51 AM | | CTD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 221 by CTD, posted 02-11-2008 11:44 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3725 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 207 of 305 (455079)
02-10-2008 7:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 204 by CTD
02-10-2008 2:26 AM
|
|
Read carefully
You said
Now I'm guessing folks are just parroting this deceitful lawyer..... Read more closely. The lawyer asked the question and Michael behe answered in the affirmative.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct? A yes Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that --which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light and many other --many other theories as well. At the risk of spoonfeeding, the questions were asked by the lawyer - they are prefixed by "Q". The answers are given by Michael Behe - they are prefixed by an "A". The words were spoken by Michael Behe, the answers were given by Michael Behe. How is this deceit by the lawyer? Is he a ventriloquist? Nowhere in Michael Behe's definition of science is there a requirement for scientific testing. If you don't like the way ID is being touted, take it up with the ID movement itself. Something being amenable to scientific testing is only the first step. The next step is to test it and if it fails the test, it's out. That's what's happened to Astrology - it can be scientifically tested, it has been and has been shown to be so much marsh gas. We can't test ID because it, as defined by cdesign proponentsists, can't be tested. So it's in a worse position than Astrology was. Now, while ID hasn't suggested that Astrology be taught in science classes, what I'm trying to point out is that Michael Behe has admitted that his argument for including ID in science classes, also holds true for Astrology. You can guess folks are just parroting Michael Behe's words, instead of thinking for themselves. I would suggest to you that if Michael Behe and the other cdesign proponentsists had done a bit of thinking instead of making such idiotic faux pas in court, ID wouldn't be the laughing stock it is at the moment. Can I say that I'm one of many people who have read over that court transcript and judgement very carefully. Why is it that those people who wish to deny that certain things were said in open court, fail to read the transcript? Read the transcript, become informed, then come back and try again. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box by adding the "/" to the quote closer.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 204 by CTD, posted 02-10-2008 2:26 AM | | CTD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 219 by CTD, posted 02-11-2008 10:50 PM | | Trixie has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 208 of 305 (455080)
02-10-2008 7:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 204 by CTD
02-10-2008 2:26 AM
|
|
quote:
If astrology weren't subject to scientific investigation, the lawyer might have had a point. As it has been investigated scientifically, it must be considered an hypothesis by any honest person.
Astrology as it is generally practiced by its adherents is an unfalsifiable system. All of the professional astrologers I've ever heard about have a ready convenient excuse every time one of their predictions is completely wrong, i.e.: "Well, this prediction may seem wrong, but you see you are on the cusp of Libra, and Saturn is in the seventh house, so that's the explanation for why X happened instead of Y as I predicted." or somesuch. Good info on Astrology can be found here. quote:
Of course there's a great fear of ID in evolutionist circles.
There's great fear that ID, which is religion, will be forced into public school science classrooms.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 204 by CTD, posted 02-10-2008 2:26 AM | | CTD has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 209 of 305 (455087)
02-10-2008 8:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 204 by CTD
02-10-2008 2:26 AM
|
|
And as for ID vs. evolution, the only way you get that is to misconstrue what ID is about. It isn't about the view of any individual. It's about the one thing they all agree on: life clearly exhibits all the traits of things that only arise by intelligent design, and should therefore be classified as one of these things. So let me get this straight. If someone who claims to be an ID proponent offers any other definition of ID, such as
quote:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings." --- Of Pandas And People
... then they are not telling the truth? But, my dear chap, who died and made you Phillip Johnson? How come you get to decide what ID really is, and who amongst the IDiots is a True Scotsman? If you want the privilege of defining Intelligent Design and deciding who is in and who is out of the Intelligent Design movement, we are the wrong people to argue with. Go convince all the people at the DI that ID is not opposed to evolution in any way. We'll watch ... and applaud. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 204 by CTD, posted 02-10-2008 2:26 AM | | CTD has replied |
|
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3066 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
If you want the privilege of defining Intelligent Design and deciding who is in and who is out of the Intelligent Design movement, we are the wrong people to argue with. Go convince all the people at the DI that ID is not opposed to evolution in any way.... Must agree with Adequate here. ID opposes evolution and evolution opposes ID - SHEESH! Ray
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 218 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2008 8:53 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2