Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
30 online now:
GDR, jar, Percy (Admin), ssope, Taq (5 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
Huntard
Member (Idle past 550 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 256 of 438 (516471)
07-25-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by crawler30
07-25-2009 10:13 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
crawler30 writes:

I simply stated that he had in fact, been discriminated against.


Yes, and as others have pointed out to you, he wasn't discriminated against. He didn't follow the rules, and when you don't follow the rules, you will be reprimanded.

And now you have admitted to it, but believe it was valid.

It wasn't discrimination, and it was valid.

The arguement was not with the validity of it, but that it did happen.

No discrimination occurred.

Also with your comment that kicking people around for saying things outside the mainstream of thought is basis for "kicking them around".

They can say whatever they want. They can expect a kicking around when they don't follow the rules of the organization they belong to. Imagine I would sign up to be a priest in the Catholic Church, and after a few years I would start teaching my flock that Jesus wasn't god, the virgin birth didn't happen, and the resurrection was a fabrication. Would I be discriminated against when they'd kick me out of the Catholic Church?

Poor choice of words I think, but I do understand the point you were trying to make.

Really?

But he did "suffer ill effects" for publishing the article as you said yourself.

Yes. And rightly so. This has however nothing to do with freedom of speech, but with violation the rules of the organization he was a part of.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by crawler30, posted 07-25-2009 10:13 AM crawler30 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by crawler30, posted 07-25-2009 11:37 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
crawler30
Junior Member (Idle past 3031 days)
Posts: 15
From: Florida
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 257 of 438 (516475)
07-25-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Huntard
07-25-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
fine. but the fact remains that the original point of my first post is correct. He did infact "suffer ill effects", being reprimanded in any way because of the article he published is an "ill effect", wheather or not you or I believe it is valid is irrelevant.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Huntard, posted 07-25-2009 10:56 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Percy, posted 07-25-2009 12:11 PM crawler30 has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 258 of 438 (516479)
07-25-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by crawler30
07-25-2009 11:37 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
crawler30 writes:

He did in fact "suffer ill effects"...

Sternberg suffered "ill effects" to a significantly less degree than most of the rest of us would had we screwed up as badly in our own jobs.

You know, I suffered ill effects at the varsity level in college when I was denied a more prominent role after failing to display an appropriate level of athleticism and skill. Could I get the creationist community to take up my cause? Given their skill at this, it shouldn't be too difficult portraying me as a victim of unfair bias and discrimination.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by crawler30, posted 07-25-2009 11:37 AM crawler30 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 259 of 438 (516487)
07-25-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by slevesque
07-25-2009 6:32 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
It is the job of an editor to not let pass an article that would promote intelligent design ???

As has been pointed out, ID is not science. It does not follow the scientific method. Its conclusion is assumed from the beginning, and no amount of evidence will be allowed to change that. Seems to me that's the antithesis of science.

Isn't that one of the major criticism of ID ... That it never gets published ? But then if it is not supposed to be publish , than how can someone critic ID on this particular point ?

You don't see astrology published in the astronomy journals, do you?

I also disagree with your saying that ID is simply creationist propaganda. The only thing it has in common with creationism is that it is not naturalistic. Many ID proponents believe in evolution, but not in a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis.

The lid was blown off the ID movement years ago when the Wedge Document leaked out from the Dishonesty Institute. For example, one very telling passage:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Now, does that sound like science to you? Or fundamentalist religion masquerading as science?

And didn't we have "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" once before? (I think they called it the Dark Ages.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 6:32 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 9:48 AM Coyote has responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 260 of 438 (516747)
07-27-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Coyote
07-25-2009 2:11 PM


Intelligent Design
As has been pointed out, ID is not science. It does not follow the scientific method. Its conclusion is assumed from the beginning, and no amount of evidence will be allowed to change that. Seems to me that's the antithesis of science.

ID is similar to the sciences that archaelogists and historians would employ. Nobody in these fields say that you can't put Attila the Hun in a test tube or keep him out of one. Nor do they say that we shouldn't believe in Attila the Hun because this belief would lack utility.

You see, science appears to have investigated astrology despite what you and others around this forum state. (evidence below) You see, this is just another example of irrationality of you Darwinists when they attempt to tell us what science cannot investigate.

London Daily Telegraph, notes "Scientists have once and for all debunked astrology's central claim — that our human characteristics are molded by the influence of the sun, moon and planets at the time of our birth — in the most thorough scientific study ever conducted on the subject. ... For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people — most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subjects should have had very similar traits. The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the 'time twins' ..."

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

I am not defending the Discovery Institute right now. I will point out that ID does not tell us what type of rituals to perform or what kind of clothes we should wear or to practice yoga or how to pray. You can be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian and be a proponent of ID.

Using your logic, when you define ID as a religion, you MUST define religion as belief "without" rituals. So it boils down to belief. Is Darwinism based on evidence and a belief system?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2009 2:11 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 10:07 AM traderdrew has responded
 Message 262 by Coyote, posted 07-27-2009 11:03 AM traderdrew has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 550 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 261 of 438 (516749)
07-27-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 9:48 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
traderdrew writes:

ID is similar to the sciences that archaelogists and historians would employ.


No, it isn't. And even if it was, that's a strange way of studying biology, wouldn't you say?

You see, science appears to have investigated astrology despite what you and others around this forum state.

I haven't seen anyone here state that the scientific method wasn't used to investigate the claims of atrology. We have however claimed that astrology itself does noet use the scientific method, and is thus not science.

You see, this is just another example of irrationality of you Darwinists when they attempt to tell us what science cannot investigate.

As no one has claimed this, could this just be an attempt to paint "Darwinists" as irrational without any basis?

I will point out that ID does not tell us what type of rituals to perform or what kind of clothes we should wear or to practice yoga or how to pray. You can be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian and be a proponent of ID.

The same is true for creationism. That doesn't tell you what close to wear and stuff as is. It's still not science.

Using your logic, when you define ID as a religion, you MUST define religion as belief "without" rituals. So it boils down to belief.

Faith IS belief.

Is Darwinism based on evidence and a belief system?

Even if we grant you your completely wrong term "Darwinism". Then still no. It's based only on evidence.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 9:48 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 12:42 PM Huntard has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 262 of 438 (516756)
07-27-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 9:48 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
As has been pointed out, ID is not science. It does not follow the scientific method. Its conclusion is assumed from the beginning, and no amount of evidence will be allowed to change that. Seems to me that's the antithesis of science.

ID is similar to the sciences that archaelogists and historians would employ. Nobody in these fields say that you can't put Attila the Hun in a test tube or keep him out of one. Nor do they say that we shouldn't believe in Attila the Hun because this belief would lack utility.

ID is not similar to the science that archaeologists and historians employ! (I'm an archaeologist, so I have some familiarity with the subject.)

ID starts with a conclusion, sciences do not. Sciences are free to follow the data wherever they lead, ID is not. Sciences follow the scientific method, ID does not.

You see, science appears to have investigated astrology despite what you and others around this forum state. (evidence below) You see, this is just another example of irrationality of you Darwinists when they attempt to tell us what science cannot investigate.

London Daily Telegraph, notes "Scientists have once and for all debunked astrology's central claim — that our human characteristics are molded by the influence of the sun, moon and planets at the time of our birth — in the most thorough scientific study ever conducted on the subject. ... For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people — most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subjects should have had very similar traits. The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the 'time twins' ..."

You are making a simple, fundamental mistake here. The fact that science investigates astrology does not make astrology a science! It makes science a science.

And science can investigate ID and its claims just as it has astrology. This does not make ID a science.

Its lack of adherence to the scientific method is what prohibits ID from being a science.

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

I am not defending the Discovery Institute right now. I will point out that ID does not tell us what type of rituals to perform or what kind of clothes we should wear or to practice yoga or how to pray. You can be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian and be a proponent of ID.

You miss the entire point of the Dishonesty Institute quotation. They are stating flat out, in this internal fund-raising prospectus, that they intend to destroy science as it is practiced and to replace it with a "science" that follows their narrow religious belief. Certainly that would not be a science free to follow the data wherever it leads, now would it? It would be a "science" that adhered to dogma, and came up with the proper answers no matter where the data leads. (It would take a theocracy to enforce this mandate, but that little fact doesn't seem to bother those folks; I assume they figure they would be in charge and it would be their particular narrow view that would be mandated.)

Using your logic, when you define ID as a religion, you MUST define religion as belief "without" rituals. So it boils down to belief. Is Darwinism based on evidence and a belief system?

Wrong again! ID was cooked up after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to sneak religion back into the schools. It is based on dogma, not science. It is not a religion in itself as much as a tool to masquerade religion as science.

"Darwinism" (a term used almost exclusively by fundamentalists who are out to destroy the theory of evolution) is based on empirical evidence and the scientific method. It is not a belief system except in the minds of fundamentalists who are out to destroy it.

If new data were to emerge science would have to follow it wherever it led. That is the hallmark and strength of science. ID could not follow new evidence wherever it led, as its conclusion is fixed in advance. That is part of why ID is not, and cannot be, a science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 9:48 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 11:41 AM Coyote has not yet responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 263 of 438 (516762)
07-27-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Coyote
07-27-2009 11:03 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
ID starts with a conclusion, sciences do not.

ID arrives to the conclusion because other natural causeations continue to fail to explain some things such as IC structures and CSI.

Sciences are free to follow the data wherever they lead, ID is not.

ID continues to exist because people have used and expressed data in creative ways but it has still failed to explain some things. Whether you believe it or not is your choice.

Sciences follow the scientific method, ID does not.

Prove to me that ID cannot follow scientific methods.

You are making a simple, fundamental mistake here. The fact that science investigates astrology does not make astrology a science! It makes science a science.

I never stated that astrology is science. I was indirectly referring to something that says ID must investigate astrology.

You miss the entire point of the Dishonesty Institute quotation.

I got your point but you are ducking my logic.

I assume they figure they would be in charge and it would be their particular narrow view that would be mandated.)

Is that what you are afraid of? Of course that is not what would happen. Actually, I suspect this really boils down to what was stated in the Declaration of Independence. It goes something like this, "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So if science can eliminate "our creator", who is left to grant US citizens those rights?

From this you can deduce that I have a motive but motives are irrelevant for determining the strengths of statements used to advance them.

Wrong again! ID was cooked up after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to sneak religion back into the schools. It is based on dogma, not science. It is not a religion in itself as much as a tool to masquerade religion as science.

This does not say that ID was a new idea that was cooked up after that decision. Most of the American people want ID taught along with Darwinian evolution.

"Darwinism" (a term used almost exclusively by fundamentalists who are out to destroy the theory of evolution) is based on empirical evidence and the scientific method. It is not a belief system except in the minds of fundamentalists who are out to destroy it.

Proponents of ID believe in evolution but of course they are not pure evolutionists.

If new data were to emerge science would have to follow it wherever it led. That is the hallmark and strength of science. ID could not follow new evidence wherever it led, as its conclusion is fixed in advance. That is part of why ID is not, and cannot be, a science.

How many years has science had to knock ID down? The more years pass and more information is founded that supports ID, just like the one I recently uncovered about diverse rings of phyla represented across our vast oceans.

The trend is up for ID. More people are learning about it and as Winston Churchill said, "We will never, ever surrender." We will win. I suspect science is hiding some things that I don't know about and that could be why scientists get expelled for advocating certain theories. I don't just buy that it isn't science. Otherwise, they would be attempting to refute it at face value rather than expelling people. What are they afraid of?

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Coyote, posted 07-27-2009 11:03 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2009 11:49 AM traderdrew has responded
 Message 266 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 12:39 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 351 by Theodoric, posted 08-01-2009 12:21 PM traderdrew has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 438 (516764)
07-27-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 11:41 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
Is that what you are afraid of? Of course that is not what would happen. Actually, I suspect this really boils down to what was stated in the Declaration of Independence. It goes something like this, "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So if science can eliminate "our creator", who is left to grant US citizens those rights?

Uhhh...The Constitution!?

The Declaration of Independence grants no rights.

I suspect science is hiding some things that I don't know about and that could be why scientists get expelled for advocating certain theories. I don't just buy that it isn't science. Otherwise, they would be attempting to refute it at face value rather than expelling people. What are they afraid of?

There's no big conspiracy is science. They are simply afraid of people being deluded into thinking that non-science (ID) is actually science.

ID arrives to the conclusion because other natural causeations continue to fail to explain some things such as IC structures and CSI.

Actually they only attack evolution's claims and don't follow the evidence where it leads and that they are simply trying to support a preconceived notion. Ergo, they are not doing science.

Prove to me that ID cannot follow scientific methods.

Its not that they cannot, it that they do not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 11:41 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 265 of 438 (516770)
07-27-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by New Cat's Eye
07-27-2009 11:49 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
Uhhh...The Constitution!?

The Declaration of Independence grants no rights.

The Declaration was a letter to and about King George of England. Since it was a declaration of independence, the founders went on to write the Constitution.

"You don't need God anymore, you have us Democrats." (Nancy Pelosi, 2006)

Of all things you chose to attack that idea and my idea came from speculation.

I think your opinions are clear. We agree to disagree so there is no point in any further debate on those issues.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2009 11:49 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Granny Magda, posted 07-27-2009 12:44 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2009 12:54 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 352 by Theodoric, posted 08-01-2009 12:34 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 550 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 266 of 438 (516773)
07-27-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 11:41 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
traderdrew writes:

ID arrives to the conclusion because other natural causeations continue to fail to explain some things such as IC structures and CSI.


No it doesn't. That's actually the premise.

ID continues to exist because people have used and expressed data in creative ways but it has still failed to explain some things.

No it doesn't. It continues to exist because some people expressed data in creative ways. Ways that are uncscientific.

Whether you believe it or not is your choice.

Of course.

Prove to me that ID cannot follow scientific methods.

They can, they just don't

I never stated that astrology is science.

No, but you did state that "Darwinists" said that science couldn't study the claims of astrology, when in fact, nobody said that.

I was indirectly referring to something that says ID must investigate astrology.

Nothing says ID must investigate astrology. Another thing that was never said. Where do you get this stuff. Does a physicist have to study literature?

Is that what you are afraid of?

Afraid's not the right word. But something like that, yes.

Of course that is not what would happen.

Really? The wedge document says otherwise.

From this you can deduce that I have a motive but motives are irrelevant for determining the strengths of statements used to advance them.

True. However, it might shed some light as to why you don't want to see that you're wrong.

This does not say that ID was a new idea that was cooked up after that decision.

What's the "this" you are referring to here?

Most of the American people want ID taught along with Darwinian evolution.

Really? First of all, according to crawler30 ID's got nothing to do with evolution. I'd sort it out amongst yourselves what it does and doesn't address first. Second, if most Americans would want to teach the earth is flat theory alongside the earth is round theory, would it be ok to teach that too?

Proponents of ID believe in evolution but of course they are not pure evolutionists.

What is a "pure evolutionist"? And if you accept evolution, then why teach ID alongside it?

How many years has science had to knock ID down?

What does this got to do with anything? Just because some people refuse to accept they are wrong, it somehow proves science is wrong? Furthermore, science doesn't work that way.

The more years pass and more information is founded that supports ID, just like the one I recently uncovered about diverse rings of phyla represented across our vast oceans.

Would you mind elaborating on that proof?

The trend is up for ID.

Not according to the courts. And not according to reality either.

More people are learning about it and as Winston Churchill said, "We will never, ever surrender."

So, even when you are proven utterly and completely false, you'd still cling to ID and claim it's true? Nice way to do science.

We will win.

You've allready lost. See Kitzmiller v. Dover.

I suspect science is hiding some things that I don't know about and that could be why scientists get expelled for advocating certain theories.

Really? And who are part of this globe spanning conspiracy?

I don't just buy that it isn't science.

Irrelevant. It doesn't follow the scientific method, therefore, it's not science. If you show up with a tennis racket and some tennis balls to a football game, would you still insist you're playing football?

Otherwise, they would be attempting to refute it at face value rather than expelling people.

First of all, that's not what science does. Second, they're not expelling people.

What are they afraid of?

Nothing. They have reality on their side, after all.

Edited by Huntard, : Clicked wrong button and left some mistakes in


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 11:41 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 1:08 PM Huntard has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 267 of 438 (516774)
07-27-2009 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Huntard
07-27-2009 10:07 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
No, it isn't. And even if it was, that's a strange way of studying biology, wouldn't you say?

Science involves creativity and imagination. So why would you stop when something is strange?

I haven't seen anyone here state that the scientific method wasn't used to investigate the claims of atrology. We have however claimed that astrology itself does noet use the scientific method, and is thus not science.

True, but time and time again I have seen a quote from the Dover trial that ID would have to investigate astrology as though science should not.

The same is true for creationism. That doesn't tell you what close to wear and stuff as is. It's still not science.

Creationism is based on the bible as it tries to shoehorn scientific evidence into a biblical framework. Since it is based on the bible, then why not attempt to use it to reinforce moral concepts that can be derived from the bible?

Faith IS belief

Not exactaly. Faith is the belief in things that are not yet proven. An example would be the Darwinian faith which says their theory will eventually explain the entire fossil record or all irreducibly complex systems. It can't explain the fossil record unless it explains what occurs on a lilliputian scale. Otherwise, I could say, "How do I know that Darwin can explain whale evolution?" or "How do you know that there isn't another theory of common descent that could explain it also?"

Of course, creationism seems to assume that our modern bibles are entirely accurate or that the writers of the bible thought within a modern scientific framework.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 10:07 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 12:52 PM traderdrew has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 268 of 438 (516775)
07-27-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 12:20 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
Hi traderdrew, nice avatar pic! Is there a larger copy anywhere online?

"You don't need God anymore, you have us Democrats."

For the record, I am sceptical as to whether Pelosi really said this. I notice that it commonly comes attached to a list of Democrat-attributed quotes, at least some of which are false.

Can you source this comment? Where was it made and in what context?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 12:20 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 550 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 269 of 438 (516777)
07-27-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 12:42 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
Science involves creativity and imagination. So why would you stop when something is strange?

No, science involves following the scientific method. You don't want to get "creative" with you results, trust me.

True, but time and time again I have seen a quote from the Dover trial that ID would have to investigate astrology as though science should not.

Really? Would you mind sharing that quote with me? I think you're confusing this with something to do with Michael Behe's definition of science. It's so broad it would include astrology as well. And you really aren't advocating astrology is science, now are you?

Creationism is based on the bible as it tries to shoehorn scientific evidence into a biblical framework. Since it is based on the bible, then why not attempt to use it to reinforce moral concepts that can be derived from the bible?

But that's what ID does as well, only they've gone far more vague. In case you object to this, who or what/ according to YOU, is the designer?

Not exactaly. Faith is the belief in things that are not yet proven.

I should have been more clear, my apologies. You're basically right, although this statement seems to imply that one day things of faith WILL be proven. That's not the case either.

An example would be the Darwinian faith which says their theory will eventually explain the entire fossil record or all irreducibly complex systems.

First of all, there is no "Darwinian faith". Second, it already does.

It can't explain the fossil record unless it explains what occurs on a lilliputian scale.

It does.

Otherwise, I could say, "How do I know that Darwin can explain whale evolution?

Darwin can't the modern theory of evolution can and does.

How do you know that there isn't another theory of common descent that could explain it also?

We don't know, nobody claims evolution is 100% true though. There is however no evidence that points towards any other thing but evolution.

Of course, creationism seems to assume that our modern bibles are entirely accurate or that the writers of the bible thought within a modern scientific framework.

Yep. They're silly like that.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 12:42 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 3:24 PM Huntard has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 438 (516778)
07-27-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 12:20 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
Is that what you are afraid of? Of course that is not what would happen. Actually, I suspect this really boils down to what was stated in the Declaration of Independence. It goes something like this, "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So if science can eliminate "our creator", who is left to grant US citizens those rights?

Uhhh...The Constitution!?

The Declaration of Independence grants no rights.

The Declaration was a letter to and about King George of England. Since it was a declaration of independence, the founders went on to write the Constitution.

So what? What does that have to do with removing the creator having nothing to do with us being granted rights?

"You don't need God anymore, you have us Democrats." (Nancy Pelosi, 2006)

I'm no Democrat.

Of all things you chose to attack that idea and my idea came from speculation.

Huh? What are you referring to? I'm lost. Quoting helps.

I think your opinions are clear. We agree to disagree so there is no point in any further debate on those issues.

Its not that we agree to disagree, its that I've shown that you are wrong and you haven't shown otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 12:20 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 1:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019