|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| WookieeB | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 18246 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
But this YEC creationist activity is unrelated to ID or the Wedge Document of the Discovery Institute. I think one of the reasons that neither YEC creationism nor ID is mounting a focused effort at the present time is that they're still regrouping after the defeat at Dover. It was only a defeat for ID, YEC creationism having already been dealt several significant legal defeats in the past, but YEC creationism had been sitting on the sidelines hoping ID, which they don't really buy into, would help tear down the barriers to religious viewpoints in science. They hoped that once ID was in the classroom that YEC creationism wouldn't be far behind. But the defeat leaves significant obstacles for either viewpoint making significant progress. Efforts promoting ID had the side-effect of throwing into stark clarity the progression from banning evolution to promoting creation science to promoting ID, each just going one step further in removing obvious religious associations from an inherently religious viewpoint. ID also made visible efforts at distancing itself from creation science, tacitly conceding the obvious religious associations for what religious fundamentalists had been arguing for literally decades was science, placing that alternative in even greater shame. ID often came across as, "Well, sure, creation science was actually religion, but this time with ID we're talking actual science!" Yeah, sure. The credibility cost has been enormous, not so much with the general public as much as in terms of increased awareness of the obvious religious associations of creationism and ID by school boards, legislatures and text book publishers. Not telling you much you don't know, just an opportunity to make these particular points. --Percy
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 2187 days)  Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
You continually go on and on about the scientific merits of I.D., but yet you seem incapable of even meeting one of the first steps of the scientific method. I mean, you really seem to enjoy writing tomes about I.D., and I realize I'm asking for only a sentence or two...but what do you say, Beretta...why not give it a whirl. Only one or two sentences should do it. You think you could limit yourself to so little...and finally answer the question?
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member  Posts: 6349 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: What were you expecting? An ostrich? If we were to get an ostrich out of a petri dish of bacteria reproducing for a week, then that would completely destroy evolutionary theory as we understand it. You're changing the goalposts. This is a typical creationist tactic. Insist that X has never been seen and when shown that X is seen (and quite often, at that), insist that it isn't an example of Y and hope to high heaven that nobody notices that you didn't ask for Y in the first place. Of course it's still a dish of bacteria. Evolution doesn't claim you'll get an ostrich from bacteria in a week. Anybody who thinks evolution claims you can clearly doesn't understand how evolution works. But here's the thing: It's a different "kind" of bacteria. According to creationism, you cannot get a new "kind." But we just did. Now, are you asking for evolution beyond a new kind? We've got that, too. It'll take a bit longer and requires more equipment. You will remember the constraints on the lab experiment I mentioned at the beginning of the description: It's cheap and easy and can be done by the typical high school student. If you want to see speciation, then you're going to need more time, more equipment, and understanding of biological processes at the college level if not beyond. But we've seen those, too: Observed Instances of Speciation Ishikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K. Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T. Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S. Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM. Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV. Stackebrandt E, Schumann P. Garner MR, Flint JF, Russell JB. Ping W, Zhou D, Sun J, Fan C, Ding Y. Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV. Steyn PL, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, Sandra P, Kersters K, Joubert JJ. You will notice that we have gone well beyond mere speciation. We have new genera, new families. Have you heard of a "ring species"? It's the most intriguing thing that shows you exactly how evolution works writ large. It's when you have a species that is distributed geographically over a large area but where the ends meet, like a ring. From the starting point of the ring heading in one direction, adjacent species can interbreed. However, when you complete the ring and return to your starting point, you can no longer interbreed with your original group. There is a gull ring species running around the Arctic circle. The two ends of the ring are in England. But if you head West, the gull genus of Larus has species that can interbreed with the next population heading West. But when you make your circle back around to England, you find that L. argentatus and L. fuscus cannot interbreed. Speciation right before your eyes. quote: No, that's called "evolution." Variation is part and parcel of evolution. The very fact that no organism ever reproduces perfectly every single time means that evolution necessarily has to happen. If you allow variation, you cannot help but have all the rest of evolution coming along for the ride. quote: There is no difference between the two. "Macroevolution" is nothing more than a whole bunch of "microevolution." If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to change anymore? What stops it? quote: Incorrect. Science tells us bacteria can mutate as much as you like, to the point where you don't know what it is anymore and you have to classify it in a new taxon. We've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. Why would you want us to lie about that? quote: Even if we've seen it happen? Why would you want us to lie? Serious question. If you respond to anything in this post, I would request that this be the first thing you respond to: When was the last time you were in a science library, reading biology journals? If you haven't done the research, if you haven't paid attention, if you haven't done the work required to keep up on the state of the science, what makes you think you have any ability to say what the state of the science is? Behe had this problem in his book, Darwin's Black Box. He insisted that nobody had ever done any work on the molecular evolution of the blood clot cascade, for example. The problem is that there were literally dozens of papers on the molecular evolution of the blood clot cascade. He simply didn't bother to look them up. A simple PubMed search would have turned them up in less than a minute. But Behe didn't do that search. He simply declared that it had never been studied and since he couldn't figure out how the blood clot cascade could have evolved, that meant that it was impossible for it to have evolved. It never occurred to him that his inability to figure it out simply meant he wasn't clever enough to figure it out and that perhaps he should have done the work to find out if someone else had figured it out. Since we have seen, right before our very eyes, the very things you say have never been seen, why do you want us to lie about it? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6349 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: Are you saying there's a conspiracy? You do know that if you were to overturn the dominant paradigm of all biology, we'd be talking Nobel Prize-winning stuff, the world would beat a path to your door, and every journal in the world would be begging you to let them publish it. Every university and laboratory in the world would be clamoring to get you to join their staff and you could write your ticket for the rest of your life. What on earth would stop someone from publishing such important work? quote: Then what on earth are you doing holding back? I'm reminded of one of my math profs back as an undergrad. He refused to publish. One of the most brilliant minds in math, but he didn't want to publish. He had the papers and if you were to come to him for assistance with your project, he'd pull out something from his file cabinet showing that he'd already done what you thought was new work, perhaps you could expand on it...but he'd never publish. People jokingly said they were waiting for him to die so they could get their hands on his filing cabinet. What are you waiting for, Buz? If you have the evidence that overturns the dominant paradigm of all biology, why are you keeping it a secret? Publish, for crying out loud! quote: Ah, you mean there is a conspiracy. So why does Behe manage to get published? Oh, he never manages to get his "irreducible complexity" past review, but he does manage to get his other molecular biology stuff through. It isn't that he is incapable of the science. It's that he doesn't do it with regard to this one subject. In his book, he made claims that nobody had ever done any study into the molecular evolution pathways for various biological processes. But it turns out that people had. There were literally dozens of papers on the subject. That is part of the point behind review: To make sure that you have done the appropriate survey of what information currently exists and addressed how your findings fit in with what others have found. For him to say that nobody had ever done any work on the subject when the simplest of PubMed searches would have turned up dozens of papers shows that Behe was exceptionally shoddy in his work. So help us out, Buzsaw: Why is it those who try to get ID past peer review always seem to fail? Is it a conspiracy? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6349 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: I've asked this before and I have yet to have anybody answer. How's this for a method: Every year, we analyze the various biology journals for their articles regarding the diversification of life on this planet. We'll break it down by those articles that advocate evolution and those that advocate ID, creationism, what have you. Whatever breakdown we find, that's what we'll teach in school. If only 70% of those articles are advocating evolution, then we'll spend only 70% of the time spent on diversification on evolution. The rest will break down to the other proposed mechanisms. Is that good enough? Or are you going to say that there is a conspiracy? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
achristian1985 Inactive Member |
The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation. There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member (Idle past 148 days)  Posts: 6117 Joined: |
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
achristian1985 Inactive Member |
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member  Posts: 19729 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Is done by starting a new thread. If you actually have something worth saying you will get responses. Enjoy.
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
