|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Again it depends on what meaning you pour into the term "evolution." I am sure that you agree that those 99+ scientists (I question it being that high) all start with the assumption that only natural causes can account for biological life.... So when you say that 99+ scientists conclude evolution (ie naturalism) to be the only explanation for biological life, I can't help but wonder if science is really best served by majority rules?
If you are going to debate scientists it would help a great deal if you used scientific terms correctly. The meaning of the term "evolution" is very clear--to scientists--and it does not include origins of life. Evolution is change in the genome, which over time adds up, and one of the results we see is speciation. That's why Darwin titled his book, The Origin of Species rather than The Origin of Life. This mistake on your part renders the rest of your post moot. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I spent six years in graduate school, much of that time studying evolution.
I don't need fundamentalists to explain the data or theory to me. Try someone who doesn't know any better. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
No this is only true for all population. But it's more pronounced in smaller ones.
But after 3.5+ billion years genetic entropy shows no signs of eliminating millions upon millions of species that are now thriving worldwide--most of which are thriving just fine in spite of your belief in the "fall" and your attempt to link that to genetic entropy. Genetic entropy = Yawn! The "fall" = Myth. And you are still ignoring these inconvenient facts even though I've posted them a half dozen times. That's OK. The rest of the folks reading the thread know you are ducking the issue. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
1.) You know life is billions of years old becasue...?
So after I make about six requests for a response to the extended time involved, and the lack of this genetic entropy in all of that time, you finally respond to another poster with the requested information. I guess I'm on your ignore list for bringing up these inconvenient facts, eh? 2.) Even if it was it would just mean that the mechanism that keep life going are efficient enough to keep it going for such a long time. But that doesn't mena the entropy is not building up. Life could be areound for lot longer than that, for 10 billion years, 20 billion years, or 100 or more billion years, and than vanish in a genetic meltdown. The time life is going to go on depends on the efficiency of selection. But however efficient it is, it inevitably has to experience geentic meltdown. The only way it wouldn't is if selection was infinitely efficient. Which we know is not. And after all this time your answer ranges from non sequitur to nonsense! You first throw out the "what if" of questioning the long duration of life on earth. (I figured from the beginning you were coming from a belief in biblical literalism.) That "what if" does nothing to dispute that long age, estimated at over 3.5 billion years. Unless you can provide some evidence that life has not been around that long your response is both meaningless and a non sequitur. Then you finally admit that genetic entropy is nonsense. "Well, it hasn't killed life off after 3.5 billion years, but just you wait! It'll get you yet! It'll get you all!" (Sounds like a line from a B movie.) In spite of your belief in biblical literalism, doesn't it ever occur to you that this genetic entropy concept is just wrong? That it isn't going to happen as you have been telling us in this thread? That it is a religious belief based on "the fall" rather than a scientific concept based on evidence? Or are you so committed to biblical literalism that you just can't entertain any idea that contradicts the bible? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The more time passes, the genetic entropy increases. All populations are getting worse, not better. Because theri biological functions are degrading.
So in another 3.5 billion years we're in real trouble, eh? Or is it 10 billion years? 20 billion? I'm not about to worry about something that is going to happen in 20 billion years (if then) when the sun will consume the earth in a quarter that time. You keep making these claims but you have yet to quantify "genetic entropy" in terms that mean anything. Nor are you able to support it from mainstream science. When the only support for an extreme claim is from a scientist who is also a fundamentalist or a creationist, I tend to want a second opinion. And you have yet to convince me that your "belief" in genetic entropy is based on something from science and not biblical literalism, i.e. the fall and a young earth. Belief in those two concepts would certainly alter your perception of reality and contribute to your contra-scientific faith in this genetic entropy. What is this, the third or fourth concept that you have pushed here -- all the while claiming they are based on science -- when mainstream science says the exact opposite and the only real source that agrees with you is the bible? Are we in for a thread on a flat earth or pi=3 next? How about the flood? Let's do the flood next -- that is one area I have some good data to share with you. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But is Intelligent Design the same as the "ID Movement"?
In the US, and currently -- yes. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Dembski is a Christian. So what? That has nothing to do with ID. A person can accept ID with or without being a Christian. Dembski is a Christian, again, so what?
ID was cooked up as a scheme to sneak Christianity, and in particular, Christian fundamentalism, back into the schools after the Edwards Supreme Court decision. The record is extremely clear on that. ID has been pushed as a political movement nearly 100% by Christians. The Discovery Institute, the single most prolific proponent of the modern ID movement, was caught out with their Wedge Document planning a dishonest scheme to push ID in the guise of science. A couple of relevant quotes:
"Wedge Strategy" writes: 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. ... Governing Goals --To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.--To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. I, for one, would not like to have to do science as mandated by "Christian and theistic convictions" and enforced by some reincarnation of the Inquisition. But, that's exactly what the Dishonesty Institute is looking to promote here. Check out their funding for this ID nonsense; they have had some folks funding their efforts who want to have this country governed by biblical principles. And that's what is behind the ID movement in the US. No thanks. The Enlightenment showed us that we don't have to kowtow to the shamans any longer; there is no going back to those Dark Ages, as much as many fundamentalists would like to. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Well that seems quite a limited view of things to me. Can you show that it is wrong? I worded it very carefully.
We could refute all the purely Christian creationist arguments about floods and what-not and still never touch any of the arguments of ID which are, in princile, applicable to any supernatural designer one can conceive of. Floods and what-not are not a part of ID. ID is just a cover story, creationism stripped to it's barest essentials. It has to be that way to keep up the pretense that it is science.
I think, in terms of arguments and evidence, ID needs to be tackled in it's own right regardless of the current conflations of Western biblical creationists. The evidence is clear that the modern ID movement in the US started after the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was "designed" to replace creation "science" and get Christian fundamentalism back into the schools in the false guise of science. This was shown in detail in the Dover decision. If you disagree, show where this is incorrect. But be prepared to show how the Discovery Institute, and their tame creationist scientists, are promoting actual science instead of a narrow brand of fundamentalist Christianity. What is their research budget? Where are their laboratories? Do they employ any scientists who are not dedicated creationists first? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So showing that all creationists support ID is the same as saying that all IDists are creationists? Is that what you are saying?
I think you are taking my comments beyond what I actually stated. I personally know people who if you ask them "is there evidence of design in nature?" will say quite possibly yes. Yet they would cringe in horror at the idea of being classed as Christian creationists. How do you reconcile that with your absolute assertion that the ID and Christian creationism are identically the same thing? They obviously are not. Whatever political fight you need to have pretending the two are evidentially the same serves no-one but the liars and evidence deniers that I would hope me and you are both against. If you go back upthread, here is my comment:
But is Intelligent Design the same as the "ID Movement"? In the US, and currently -- yes. If you'll note, in this comment anyway, I have made no claims about "all creationists", or "Christian creationism." ID was found throughout William Paley's Natural Theology (1802), but that has nearly nothing to do with the current ID movement. Paley's ideas were sleeping peacefully, mostly forgotten and largely ignored, until the late 1980s. The current movement dusted off some old ideas, such as Paley's, and started a political push to disguise creationism/creation "science" in still another garb in an effort to sneak it back into the schools after the Edwards decision. Given this, I stand by my comment -- in the US, and currently, intelligent design is the same as the "ID Movement." The differences are insignificant. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
OK fine. But do you think that refuting the Christian notions of biblical creationism invalidates the evidential basis of ID as a whole? There is no evidential basis for ID. It is religion pure and simple, with a "sheep's clothing" of science draped poorly over the top.
Or do you think that the claims of ID need to be logically and evidentially refuted in their own right? The few actual claims that have been made in support of ID (e.g., design "theory," IC) have been shown to be incorrect. Generally laughably incorrect. Recall Behe on the witness stand at Dover? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So if we can show ID as so evidentially bankrupt why do we need to conflate it with biblical literalism in order to show it it's woeful intellectual and evidential bankruptcy? We don't need to show that. They do a magnificent job of showing that for us. Currently, in the US, the separation between biblical literalism and ID is minimal to virtually non-existent. See the Dishonesty Institute's various activities as evidence for this, as they are the primary proponent for ID. Particularly, look at the many ways the Mighty Casey [Luskin] has struck out.*
The answer is we don't. Let the creationists conflate the two. Let us show the evidential bankruptcy of each.
I'm not interested in showing anything concerning creationism and ID until it is claimed that that belief either constitutes science, or is supported by science. Examples of this are the global flood at about 4,350 years ago and a young earth. You can include ID as a third example, as that is essentially what it is -- religious belief purporting to be science. When creationists make such claims they are subject to disproof. ----------- * Sorry ;-) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I didn't see the sarcasm tag on your post. An oversight?
Because I certainly hope you don't expect us to take any of that seriously ??!!!? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
To clarify: if we allow that design implies a designer, then the design we see points not to one perfect designer, but rather to numerous incompetent ones in direct competition with one another.
All of it. Which part of that doesn't sound serious? The theory of evolution covers this quite well without having to abandon all of science and the evidence supporting it and propose instead invisible and imaginary deities of various stripes. There is a lot more evidence to support the idea of space aliens being involved somewhere than these invisible and imaginary deities. (Anything is greater than absolute zero.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Your singlemindedness is interfering with your clear thinking. Because I point at comparisons to a Gnostic model, you reject my logic, while at the same time opening the door to an aliens model, the only real difference between the two being that one is already at the root of what is wrong with the creationist appeal to design while the other is a more modern nonsense fantasy. Von Daniken's gods are no better than Marcion's or Matthew's.
It's getting late and I am not following this very well. The fact that none of this stuff can stand up to evolution is a fine viewpoint. But from a "design" standing, fundie creationism can't even stand up to its own ancient enemies. This is important. The Intelligent Designer is even more clearly a false idol than the historical Jesus or the omni-Trinity or the pantheon of Catholic saints. Even if you grant its pseudo-scientific premises, it still doesn't say what they want it to say without their direct immediate supervision to keep it out of trouble! Could you rephrase this into simpler terms and I'll try again in the morning? I would appreciate that very much. I don't think I can do this justice right now. Thanks! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Smoothie writes: Nuggin writes: ID is a Christian political movement created because the term "creationism" wasn't winning court cases. The Discovery Institute and the "cDesign Proponentsists" that work with it, including Dembski, are actively pushing a Creationist agenda. They've even published the Wedge Document which OUTLINES their strategy. They are all Creationists. Everyone who knows anything about the history of the modern ID movement knows this is not true. From Wiki:
quote: And also from Wiki, concerning the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture:
quote: Not a lot of science there, eh? Sounds like Nuggin was right. ID is a religious movement pushed by Christian fundamentalists who want all the rest of us eventually to live under biblical rule. You may prefer to deny the religious basis for ID, but it certainly is not being pushed by science! The few real scientists who espouse ID seem all to be creationists first and scientists second. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024