Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 177 (544019)
01-22-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
01-22-2010 8:44 PM


Varia
Your post is far to long to reply to, so I'll address only a point or two:
If it’s specifically defined as only naturalistic, the religious community can legitimately question if it’s criteria for study is an exercise in atheist philosophy, rather than legitimate science.
Science does not deal with the non-material. The religious community can study whatever subjects they want, in whatever way they want, but perhaps they should just leave science alone.
We all know what the real issue is here -- science contradicts a lot of religious beliefs. The solution, on the part of the religious community, seems to be to either discredit science or change it until it is no longer science. (See Behe's comments on the witness stand at Dover.)
I have a better idea. Why don't you just leave science alone? If your methods of investigation are superior, stick with them. Knock yourself out! Follow them to wherever they lead, and wherever you want. But just leave science alone.
My claim that Darwinism conflicts with open inquiry isn’t because of its content, it’s because of its establishment. If ID were accepted as science, it wouldn’t replace Darwinism, it would compete with/supplement Darwinism. The two views together, in scientific study, would be the most complete form of biological open inquiry.
How are you going to have ID accepted as science when it doesn't follow the scientific method?
It is, in fact, the exact opposite of science. It starts with a conclusion (creationism) and seeks to cherry-pick any data that might be stretched or manipulated to support that conclusion. Further, it operates in the political arena, not as a scientific discipline. The Discovery Institute is a prime example of this. Check out their staff and their funding. They have far more lawyers and PR flacks than anything else, and any science "fellows" are creationists first and scientists second; they are window dressing to a massive PR effort. Also, check the wiki article on their funding and note the biblical literalist who provided a huge amount of money a few years back -- the one who wants this country run according to strict biblical principles. Not a whole lot of science there either, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 61 of 177 (544036)
01-22-2010 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:04 PM


ID as science?
This is what I wish someone would rationally explain to me. Why is it always claimed that a scientific acceptance of ID somehow causes some naturalistic aspect of science to be removed? Where does the "give up everything else" claim come from?
ID does not follow the scientific method.
If something does not follow the scientific method, it can't claim to be science. It's that simple.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 62 of 177 (544038)
01-22-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:26 PM


Your post
Sorry, there is nothing in your post worthy of a reply.
ID simply is not a science, and all the text you can produce won't make it one, for a simple reason -- ID does not follow the scientific method.
Edited by Coyote, : speelling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 63 of 177 (544040)
01-23-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by marc9000
01-22-2010 11:16 PM


The Enlightenment
Oh no, the Darwinist/ atheist stranglehold on science will have to be reigned in, and no one but an outraged general public will ever be able to do it. Until then, no challenges to Darwinsim will ever see the light of day. Ask Michael Behe. His work was not fairly judged, it was emotionally shouted down. Darwinism is a financial/social empire, many lifelong careers are dependent on it. It is far more socially entrenched today than religion was in 1859.
Back a couple of centuries we had this event, now called The Enlightenment.
Basically, it means that we no longer have to kowtow to the shamans, of whatever stripe, for fear of being burned at the stake or some other unpleasantry.
Further, it means the religious stranglehold on science, that lasted for centuries (otherwise known as The Dark Ages), is done with.
And no amount of moaning and groaning is going to put Humpty back together again.
Science has busted loose of religious control, and there's no going back short of an absolute theocracy. Is that what you want? (With your crowd in charge, of course?)
Otherwise, better get used to science going where the data lead whether fundamentalists say yea or nay.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 11:16 PM marc9000 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 99 of 177 (544517)
01-26-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:03 PM


Re: Explanatory power
By worship, I really mean accepting something without question, similar to the way religious people do.
You are thinking of dogma. That is the antithesis of science.
I think what you are reacting to is the body of established science, hundreds of years of trial and error, experiment, theory, data, and all the rest. Some of that doesn't need to be questioned at every step. Some of that is now well-established.
Scientists except that body of established science because it has been established and because no evidence has been produced to contradict it. Produce evidence and things can change, although not always turn on a dime. Two examples: continental drift and the channeled scablands of Washington. Both theories were resisted until the evidence was conclusive, then they were accepted.
That is the problem with religious dogma when it tries to masquerade as science: it has not, so far, brought the body of scientific evidence that would cause it to be accepted. Religious believers accept it without question but scientists want evidence.
Atheists, and others as well, seem to automatically accept what the scientific community tells them. A lot of politics involved, global warming comes to mind.
Perhaps it is because there is evidence there (once you can ignore the politics). And unfortunately, politics can overwhelm science in the short term, but in the long term the facts will win out.
But I would guess that you are not concerned so much about global warming or many of the other things science is working on as about your religious beliefs not being either accepted or confirmed--or, horrors, being contradicted--by science.
Would that be correct?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:03 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:48 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 112 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:31 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 101 of 177 (544523)
01-26-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:09 PM


ID is not religious
The subject of ID is not religious. If it’s used as a weapon against atheism, it’s no different than science used as a weapon against religion.
From the Wedge document, the famous internal memo of the Discovery Institute. They are, if you recall, the leading proponent of ID.
A few passages:
quote:
Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. ...
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.
This document was produced by the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. It apparently was an internal fundraising memo that was somehow leaked to the internet.
But we can look at their funding to see what's there:
From Wiki:
quote:
In 2003, a review of tax documents on GuideStar showed grants and gifts totalling $1.4 million in 1997. Included in the supporters were 22 foundations. At least two-thirds of these foundations stated explicitly religious missions.[92]
In 2001, the Baptist Press reported, "Discovery Institute ... with its $4 million annual budget ($1.2 million of which is for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) is heavily funded by evangelical Christians. Maclellan Foundation of Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, awarded $350,000 to the institute with the hope researchers would be able to prove evolution to be a false theory. Fieldstead & Co., owned by Howard and Robert Ahmanson of Irvine, Calif., pledged $2.8 million through 2003 to support the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture."[93] ...
In 2005, the Washington Post reported, 'Meyer said the institute accepts money from such wealthy conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." '[94]
Given all of this by the leading proponents of ID, I would doubt that you could make a legitimate case that ID is not religious. The religious nature of ID, incidentally, was also confirmed by a federal district court in the Dover decision.
ID seems to be explicitly religious, and explicitly anti-science and anti-materialistic in nature. It certainly is not science!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:09 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:39 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 103 of 177 (544528)
01-26-2010 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:48 PM


Re: Explanatory power
A study of ID being permitted to be on the same level as SETI won't forward my personal beliefs at all. It will do one thing - challenge the current godless evolution establishment, and they NEED a challenge!
Then bring evidence. That's all you need.
No comments on the rest of my previous post?
Edit to add: Or #101, above?
Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:48 PM marc9000 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 115 of 177 (545465)
02-03-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by marc9000
02-03-2010 7:31 PM


worldviews
It is probably off topic, but...
The naturalist/Darwinist worldview is that evolution indicates a practically unlimited vision of improvement in humans/human nature, while the Judeo Christian worldview recognizes humans as sinners, not able to achieve perfection - having limits on what they can achieve.
I regard the concept of original sin as about the most evil thing every dreamed up by humankind.
If you want to debate this, start another thread and let me know.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:31 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:57 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 135 of 177 (547702)
02-21-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by marc9000
02-21-2010 7:51 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID no
Here’s the evidence — that ID is the only thing ever proposed as science to be hauled into court by a heavily funded special interest and politically defeated.
Don't forget creation "science" before that. It too was legally (not politically) defeated as religion falsely masquerading as science.
Why don't you folks just keep your preaching in your churches, and leave the public schools alone, eh? Quit trying to find newer and more devious ways of prosthelytizing when you get caught.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 7:51 PM marc9000 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 145 of 177 (548545)
02-28-2010 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by marc9000
02-27-2010 7:55 PM


Re: Theistic science?
Not necessarily to favor religious beliefs, but to challenge a previous establishment of atheistic beliefs, which violates the first amendment.
From the Wedge Document:
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.
And just how can you justify calling this nonsense science? It would seem to be the exact opposite of science.
And how would you plan to enforce this "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions?" A theocracy? The Inquisition? Censorship of all sciences that do not conform to some shaman's ideas?
Sorry, not going to happen. For your enlightenment look up...The Enlightenment. It means that we no longer have to kowtow to the shamans. After thousands of years we are finally free to tell them to go jump.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2010 7:55 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:15 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 168 of 177 (549812)
03-10-2010 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by marc9000
03-10-2010 9:15 PM


Re: Theistic science?
Science that disregards religion completely is what students are being taught.
I should hope so! That is what science is.
Miller writes it exactly the same way an atheist would. He doesn’t avoid religion as he should, he makes positive assertions about nature (including abiogenesis) that contradict it.
So the facts that science is turning up don't confirm your particular religious beliefs, and even contradict them, eh?
So rather than questioning your beliefs, you want science and science books to suppress those facts? Is that what you are asking for? You want science suppressed for the convenience your personal whims and beliefs?
Better get your pitchfork and torch because that's the era your longing for, when religion ruled and heretics were burned at the stake. They called them the Dark Ages for a reason.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:15 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:35 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 173 of 177 (549826)
03-10-2010 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by marc9000
03-10-2010 10:35 PM


Re: Theistic science?
So the facts that science is turning up don't confirm your particular religious beliefs, and even contradict them, eh?
They're not turning up facts, they're speculating on things like godless abiogenesis. Atheist philosophy, nothing more.
Not so. There are millions of scientific facts that disprove one religious claim or another. I have turned up facts in my own archaeological work that disprove the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago.
Young earth has similarly been disproved by a lot of different scientific fields.
But it seems you have a particular problem with the fledgling field of abiogenesis. Is this problem based on scientific data or some narrow religious belief?
So rather than questioning your beliefs, you want science and science books to suppress those facts? Is that what you are asking for? You want science suppressed for the convenience your personal whims and beliefs?
I want atheist speculation suppressed, to restore the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Atheist speculation? And what is that? Is that defined as anything that contradicts your religious beliefs, or what? And you want it all suppressed?
You realize that to suppress any science that disagrees with your particular brand of religion will require a theocracy, with your brand of thugs in charge, don't you? And you realize that those thugs will have to resort to the tactics of the Inquisition? (Can you say, Dark Ages, boys and girls? I knew you could!)
Sorry, we're not going back. The Enlightenment, remember? That showed us that we don't have to kowtow to the shamans any longer.
Better get your pitchfork and torch because that's the era your longing for, when religion ruled and heretics were burned at the stake. They called them the Dark Ages for a reason.
There have been societies in the past where militant atheism ruled.
Non-sequitur.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:35 PM marc9000 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024