|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does intelligent design have creationist roots? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
quote: WOW!!!!!! Because it is too dangerous? Because the public may question their beliefs? Because it takes power away from religion? Your comment distills exactly what scares me about the fundamentalist, creationist, IDer mind set. The desire for a group of elites is so prevalent in that whole group. Guess we got to keep the masses ignorant in order to preserve our way of life. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
We can debate the epistemological obligations of science but I can't see how science can explain everything when it MUST dismiss any and all supernatural possibilities.
You can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, faked moon landings, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, a flat or hollow earth, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, crop circles, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, geocentrism, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, televangelists, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff. You can have it all, and knock yourself out! I'll stick to science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I agree. I can use my reasoning abilities if I wish to dismiss any of that other stuff.
May your science serve you well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Dear Theodoric,
I strongly suggest that you use start to utilize your best judgement because there are people out there who want you to hear what they want you to hear. I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I don't trust the people who disseminate science to the public. And I don't trust the people who disseminate 2000-3000 year old mumbo-jumbo, ie. the Bible, as law, history or as science. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I will leave science to the scientists. That is my best judgement. In science they have what is called peer-review. They usually don't just make shit up. If they do there is the peer review process.
Now in your mumbo-jumbo world, people can just say anything they want and say it is based on scripture. YOu expect me to balance science with mumbo-jumbo? I might as well just go down to the tarot card reader. Science is based on facts. That other stuff is based upon people having faith. I will take facts over misguided faith anyday.
quote: Evangelists? Politicians? Faux News? Oh BTW quit being condescending. You do not have any more answers than anyone else. If I want your advice I will ask for it. Oh, I won't be asking. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5186 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
traderdrew writes:
Has anyone ever not wanted someone to hear what they wanted them to hear? This is dribble.
I strongly suggest that you use start to utilize your best judgement because there are people out there who want you to hear what they want you to hear.
traderdrew writes:
Exactly! We should get our information from where they get their information, the universe. That's the beauty of scientific inquiry, you can always check someone's claim against the real world. If it doesn't measure up, then it is easily dismissed.
I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them.
I certainly hope your other sources don't receive their information from a source YOU can't directly test. If that's the case, then they sound like the typical con man who's only evidence for their claim is "Just trust me". Edited by Michamus, : typo, geesh, one of those nights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Michamus writes:
I think you mean "drivel". Both imply a flowing liquid, but only the latter includes meaningless talk.
This is dribble. Michamus writes:
On a personal note that was the first argument that my father used when I told him I saw no reason to be a Christian. I certainly hope your other sources don't receive their information from a source YOU can't directly test. If that's the case, then they sound like the typical con man who's only evidence for their claim is "Just trust me". I think that a guiding line when getting your information is if the source of your information wants you to alter your behavior. When a scientist tells me that they found a new type of bird on an island that has adapted to its environment in an interesting way I tend to believe them. When a preacher tells me I will burn forever if I curse I tend not to believe them. If they want something out of you there is a clear motivation to lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5186 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Phage0070 writes:
What about a cardiologist saying you should eat less salty, fatty foods?
I think that a guiding line when getting your information is if the source of your information wants you to alter your behavior.
I see where you are coming from, but in my above mentioned scenario, you would be able to independently obtain the data on the effects of salty, fatty foods on your cardiovascular system. This is what defines the difference as you ACCEPT what independently verified information there is on the subject, rather than simply believe your cardiologist's claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them. I agree that many sources of information may, given their credibility, help one form a much broader sense of what's right or worng. The point being made however, is that anyone is welcome to carry on any type of experimental analisis on the date collected. BUT, and this is of the upmost importance, those cunducting these inqueries MUST follow certain guildlines for how evidence and conclusions are rendered. In science it is refered to as the Scientific Method:
quote: So, given that anyone has the right to conduct any such investigation on their own, would you agree that the above method is the best way to do so, and, is the best way to verify that the conclusions are based on actual, observable evidence? If you can agree to the above question, then I see no reason why you would be skeptical of science, or scientist, since they are held to the rigors of having to follow the scientific method, and any scientist not doing so will feel the effects of not doing his/her work properly. Perhaps you can elaborate on what you see as a problem with modern science? "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I.D. doesn't necessarily start out with the answers. At least I haven't looked at it only from this perspective. Then you should take a second look. Let's look at the poster child of ID: Irreducible Complexity. Let's even say that Behe is right for the sake of argument. These structures can not evolve through known evolutionary pathways. So what next? The designer did it. Where did that come from? How do you get from "not evolution" to "the designer did it" if you don't already start with the notion that the designer did it? This is what we mean by starting with the conclusion. The push of ID is to disprove evolution so that their preconceived conclusion is left standing alone (and unsupported by evidence too boot). ID proponents know that they can't win a scientific argument so they try to rig the game so their opponent loses. From this perspective ID is no different from it's predecessor, Scientific Creationism.
We can debate the epistemological obligations of science but I can't see how science can explain everything when it MUST dismiss any and all supernatural possibilities. We have a separate thread dealing with this topic, but suffice it to say that no one has shown us how the supernatural can be included in science. How does one set up experiments so that supernatural mechanisms can be tested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I think it explains the evidence. When I think of the word "explanation" I think of something that is exclusive in nature. That is, only under certain circumstances would my explanation be right. For example, I think that micro-organisms cause infectious diseases. I think that germs explain the evidence. So what do I do? I test the idea. This brings us to one of the classic experiments, the Koch Postulates. These postulates make up a hypothesis, and if the conditions of the postulates are fulfilled then the explanation is right. So how does the designer explanation live up to this standard? It doesn't. There is nothing that can not be explained by a designer. Nothing. An explanation that explains everything explains nothing. That is the problem with ID as it stands right now. It can not say what one should or should not find if ID is true. It can not describe the genetic markers that one should or should not see if ID is true. ID can not say what fossils one should or should not see. In the end, ID is an attempt to add on scientific sounding words to a faith based belief that can not be tested nor falsified.
I am not criticizing evolution. I just don't believe in neo-Darwinism. The first hurdle you must overcome is understanding that scientific theories are not beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
deleted. Should have read the rest of your post. Sorry.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RDK Junior Member (Idle past 5298 days) Posts: 26 From: Ann Arbor, Michigan Joined: |
I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them. ...so somehow gathering interpreted information from an even larger number of sources suddenly makes it okay? Wouldn't that just increase the probability that the said source is putting its own spin on it? It would save you tons of time if you just looked at the evidence yourself. There's a difference between getting a second opinion and going to an alternative medicine quack just on the basis of opinion "diversity".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you see as a problem with modern science?
It would be quite a process if you wished to explain everything you encounter with science. Try explaining the people you need to deal with with science. Science doesn't explain everything in terms as though it is the truth. It gives the best explanation that fits the evidence until another theory comes along. Consider the theory that the universe is a hologram and that it contains holograms within it of various sizes. So far, as strange as this theory may seem I have not encountered any evidence that refutes it. Maybe I have not dug deep enough. But there seems to be legitimate scientific evidence to support it. There also seems to be pseudo-scientific evidence that supports it. Where do you draw the line if there is scientific evidence that supports it and none that proves it wrong?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024