Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:36 AM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
20Next
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2354 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 181 of 297 (549871)
03-11-2010 8:20 AM
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. 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.

Science is without religion. Science and religion mix as well as oil & water. They are 2 different things. Science deals with reality, religion with the supernatural. They are mutually exclusive. Science with religion is not 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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:26 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 182 of 297 (549872)
03-11-2010 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by marc9000
03-10-2010 10:00 PM


Re: The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
quote:
The scientific community’s success in shouting down ID so far has been to declare it religion, and disregard it without addressing the scientific challenges it provides to naturalism.

Some of the founders of ID declared it religion themselves. Some of them invented it specifically to counter materialism.

ID self destructs if religion is left out of it. If life was designed, then the designer must have been a complex entity. Applying design detection to that entity will inevitably show that it too must have been designed. And so on, infinitely.

The only ways out of this are

- some designer came to exist without design
- an ultimate designer has always existed, by necessity, who needs no explanation.

The first disproves ID, or at least makes it completely naturalistic. The second is a religious statement.

There's no way out of this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:00 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:32 PM Peepul has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 183 of 297 (549883)
03-11-2010 9:39 AM
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. Miller writes it exactly the same way an atheist would.

He also writes the multiplication table the same way an atheist would.

If church and state are separated, atheism and state also should be separated.

They should be and they are. That's exactly how courts interpret the First Amendment. There is a wall of separation between the state and atheism.

But only actual atheism, not "atheism" in the non-sense of "science that conflicts with marc9000's religious beliefs".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

nlerd
Member (Idle past 1769 days)
Posts: 48
From: Minnesota
Joined: 03-03-2010


(1)
Message 184 of 297 (549885)
03-11-2010 9:59 AM
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. Miller writes it exactly the same way an atheist would.

Which religion should science take into regard when being taught to students? If it takes one into regard it would have to do the same for all, wasting time that could be spent looking into something that has a basis in science. Should they teach about Norse gods, Hindu beliefs, Scientology? You seem to be saying that students aren't getting exposed to religions in science class but I am willing to bet that you only want one religion to be taught there. Religions are personal, they have no place in the classroom beyond history class.

Not teaching about religion is not the same as teaching that there is no religion. Would you want other personal beliefs such as UFOs, Bigfoot, or ghosts to be taught as science?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:37 PM nlerd has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 185 of 297 (550745)
03-17-2010 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by marc9000
03-10-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hi marc9000, sorry to take so long replying.

“I noted that abiogenesis fit a definition as science”? Where did I do that?

It was much earlier in the thread:

Message 93: So the study of abiogenesis that I'm seeing so far here falls under your one-sentence description in your Message 73;
quote:
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

This is the general definition that I started with, and have then compared to old definitions of science to show that it has not changed in the last 182 years in order to exclude ID but have already allowed abiogenesis.

Do you agree that this 1828 definition includes abiogenesis in the same way that it "falls under" the definition above?

Message 125: The above site also provides the 1828 definition of science (my bold for emphasis):

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...

quote:
SCI''ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]

1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.

2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.

A principle in science is a rule in art.

3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.

Science perfects genius.

4. Any art or species of knowledge.

No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.

5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.

[Note - Authors have not always been careful to use the terms art and science with due discrimination and precision. Music is an art as well as a science. In general, an art is that which depends on practice or performance, and science that which depends on abstract or speculative principles. The theory of music is a science; the practice of it an art.]


Here we see that the term science is applied to subjects founded on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy at this time meaning the study of the natural world.

So far we haven't found an old definition that would fit the current status of ID, so the claim that the definition has been changed to keep ID out is spurious assertion without merit.

If you can't show that ID meets these definitions then you will need to agree that the definition has not been changed to omit ID, rather that ID just has not stepped up to the plate yet, and that it is not the fault of the science community that ID has not stepped up to the plate.

Note for reference, that there are a couple of threads I have dedicated to the question of abiogenesis:
see RAZD - Building Blocks of Life, Message 2,
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part II

I’d like to see some documentation on that. I’d like to see the date when abiogenesis was declared to be science, and what science it had “done” to gain that status.

These threads show the ongoing scientific investigation of the possibilities of life forming through natural laws from available chemicals, including several different options and including the PAH hypothesis, and that show that this subject is "founded on experiment and observation" and meets the 1828 definition as well as the general definition above.

These threads only touch the surface of the volume of ongoing scientific study into the possibilities of life forming through natural means from available chemicals.

If we can include natural philosophy that forcefully excludes the supernatural (atheism) art, agriculture, navigation, arts, painting, sculpture, why can’t we include mathematical challenges to Darwinism? Why is it religious to challenge Darwinism to the concept of irreducible complexity?

Except that the 1828 definition does not "forcefully excludes the supernatural (atheism) art, agriculture, navigation, arts, painting, sculpture" does it? Rather it distinguishes between difference between natural science, art and philosophy, notably including metaphysics.

... why can’t we include mathematical challenges to Darwinism? Why is it religious to challenge Darwinism to the concept of irreducible complexity?

Curiously, mathematical (and philosophical) challenges are not facts, and fact is what you need to challenge science. Scientific theories and hypothesis are only falsified by facts that contradict them, not by contrary theories and hypothesis (which is all mathematical and philosophical deductions can be).

Science is naturalistic because it relies on facts from the natural world as the basis and foundation of all hypothesis and theories to invalidate false concepts.

Why is it religious to challenge Darwinism to the concept of irreducible complexity?

It isn't religious to propose the concept of irreducible complexity, where it gets religious is in the assumption that if an observed instance of irreducible complexity cannot be explained by evolutionary processes that the default is that some god or other was involved.

Interestingly, the Irreducible Complexity Hypothesis has been falsified, yet the IDologists refuse to discard it as would be done in any proper scientific investigation. Several proposed instances of IC were explained at the Dover trial for instance. There are also instances where mechanisms that fit the definition of IC have been observed to evolve, thus demonstrating that no supernatural explanation is required to explain IC in the natural world.

This doesn't "forcefully excludes the supernatural" but explaining the natural world without having to resort to it based on observation and testing in the natural world. Gravity is also "forcefully excluded" from the scientific investigation of biological functions, not because there is a god of gravity, but because it is not necessary to the explanation of the observed and tested functions and processes.

It had plenty of points that were relevant, but it’s easy to see that the godless scientific community can oppose anything it wants, simply by going down a different path, and loading it with complexities that nothing outside the publicly established realm can hope to compete with, especially while it's defending itself against something else, something political.

In other words, your would rather have your pet peeve rant undisturbed by fact and relevant discussion.

Note that it is a policy of this forum that we do not debate websites, but points that are brought from websites by people willing to discuss them and defend them if necessary.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/PresentHTML.cgi?action=ht...

quote:
5 Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

6 Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.


If you cannot defend the points of a website, then it would appear that you would not have the understanding of the subject to know whether what the website is saying the truth or an elaborate fabrication intended to delude the more under-informed and gullible people, telling them what they want to believe, and relying on confirmation bias.

Your curiousity should diminish when you add up the instances when abiogenesis was on the receiving end of an ACLU lawsuit, vs that of the ID community.

Poor baby. Gotta have that persecution complex or you're not happy.

ID is not recognized as science because it is not a testable hypothesis based on observation and testing of the evidence found in the natural world. It currently is political trash-talk at its worst, and philosophical hypothesizing at its best. Fascinatingly neither is considered the pursuit of science.

Message 166:
quote:
The Discovery Institute stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community.[18][19] Nevertheless, Biever was able to discover that The Biologic Institute is working on "examining the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds" and computational biology.[4]

It’s understandable that how ID research is released is something that must be done very carefully, considering the emotion and personal attacks by the scientific community over Michael Behe’s work, as well as Dembski’s mathematical applications concerning probabilities in biology. The scientific community’s success in shouting down ID so far has been to declare it religion, and disregard it without addressing the scientific challenges it provides to naturalism.

I note that you have ignored the several opportunities that ID had been given, both from the Discovery Institutes pet research facility and from Templeton Foundation (Message 149):

As for funding, try this little piece of news:

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

quote:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.


There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.

Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.

There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):

quote:
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.


This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?

I have falsified several of your claims, particularly that the definition of science has been changed in order to exclude ID, that ID is just as scientific as abiogenesis, and that ID is unable to find funding to do science, so it seems that all you have left is repeating your pet peeve rants in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:57 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 5:24 PM RAZD has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 186 of 297 (551161)
03-21-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Coyote
03-10-2010 10:53 PM


Re: Theistic science?
Coyote writes:

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.

Wow, you must be really OLD! (sorry, couldn’t resist) Seriously, claims about the prehistoric past are not facts. More on that below.

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?

Neither. It’s based on the double standards applied to the fledgling field of abiogenesis vs the comparably fledgling field of Intelligent Design.

Atheist speculation? And what is that? Is that defined as anything that contradicts your religious beliefs, or what? And you want it all suppressed?

Atheist speculation is the claim that some event from millions or billions of years ago to be a “fact”. A fact is something in the present that can be clearly proven to anyone of any worldview.

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?

Let me repeat a paragraph from my message 97;

quote:
I don’t want religion taught by the state, never claimed that I did. I like the U.S. foundings just as they are, and don’t want my Protestant Lutheran views taught as science. 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. (Stenger/Dawkins) If its founders (Morris, Johnson) were Christians, it’s no different than abiogenesis proponents (Huxley, others) being non religious. The generation differences between Huxley/others vs Johnson/others doesn’t matter.

What I’ve posted since then goes along with that paragraph exactly. I am not forwarding my “particular brand of religion”, I promote the a ‘reigning in’, a 'critical look', at a public establishment of atheism that is things like abiogenesis, and since they've been entrenched in science for too long for that to be possible, the next best thing is to give an alternative view like ID a measured amount of equality, for balance. Not religion, but studies of the evidence for possibilities of design in nature.

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!)

Not “suppressed”, just kept from being 100% publically established.

Coyote writes:

marc9000 writes:

There have been societies in the past where militant atheism ruled.


Non-sequitur.

No, it’s a sequitur! While religious societies can burn people at the stake, and atheistic societies can supposedly be places of extreme scientific knowledge and peace and love, history tells us that that the complete reverse of both of those things can be true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2010 10:53 PM Coyote has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 187 of 297 (551170)
03-21-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
03-11-2010 2:45 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
PaulK writes:

marc9000 writes:

I’d like to know the date, and research established on that date, when abiogenesis was first accepted as science by the scientific community. I don’t think you’ll be able to produce it, because no one really has that information. Its acceptance was automatic, and no one knows when that was.

Now let us remember that most of what ID objects to is evolution rather than abiogenesis, as I pointed out. And I should also point out that you aren't giving any details of what is actually taught.

Because acceptance is an informal consensus and because it is based on a body of research looking for a specific date would be foolish.

It’s not an informal consensus when it comes to ID, is it? ID has to conform with many formal requirements that abiogenesis and the SETI institute never had to, doesn’t it?

But let's look at what Wikipedia - a popular and easily accessible source has to say.

Wikipedia puts the real start of modern abiogenesis in the 1920s when Oparin and Haldane put forward serious ideas on how abiogenesis might have happened, according to the scientific knowledge of the time. (This is already a step beyond anything that ID has managed).

That it’s a step beyond anything ID has managed is only your opinion. ID has also put forward some serious ideas.

If we follow the link to Oparin we see that he performed experiments which supported some of his suggestions (the article on Haldane doesn't talk about abiogenesis at all, probably because his other accomplishments were considered more important). By the 50's we have the Urey-Miller experiment and Fox had started work.

“Experiments that supported”? It says;

quote:
“While Oparin himself was unable to do extensive experiments to investigate any of these ideas, scientists were later able to. In 1953, for example, Stanley Miller performed what is perhaps the first experiment to investigate whether chemical self-organization would have been possible on the early earth..."

Dembski and Behe haven’t released any extensive experiment to investigate any of their ideas either, but that doesn’t mean no one possibly can 30 years from now, at least to the feeble extent that Miller did for abiogenesis. Yet abiogenesis was science when Oparin was only forwarding his “ideas”, wasn’t it?

Then we need to talk about where it first appeared in school textbooks and what those textbooks said if you want to say that that preceded acceptance of abiogenesis as valid science.

Abiogenesis IS considered science – I’m saying it has been there since long before the politics of today, long before separation of church and state, long before the ACLU. There’s nothing to suggest that it was legally prohibited from being in science textbooks 90 years ago. If it was limited in science textbooks 90 years ago, (as I suspect it was) it was because of school board decisions, not legal action. ID’s content in science textbooks should equally be determined by school board decisions, not legal action as it is today.

PaulK writes:

marc9000 writes:

Again, it's hard to forward the talk of research while defending against the screams of religious accusations.

It's even harder when you haven't got the research to talk about. I'm not screaming at you, so if this research exists, where is it ?

As we now see, abiogenesis didn’t start with research, it started with ‘ideas’ (Oparin) One book called “The Design Revolution” by William Dembski (2004) has enough ideas about ID to compare with a couple of decades of abiogenesis ideas by Oparin and several of his friends, I’d venture to say. But I know that’s never good enough. The scientific community constantly clamors for evidence of “research” for ID, as if to imply that if the research is good enough, thorough enough, scientific enough, then it will welcome ID into the scientific community with open arms. As we clearly saw with Behe, it doesn’t matter what the ID community comes up with, when it releases anything, the scientific community goes into destroy mode.

And why are you ignoring the many serious criticisms of ID ?

For the same reason that evolutionists ignore the many serious criticisms of abiogenesis! Did you notice this on the above Oparin link;

quote:
Oparin sometimes is called "Darwin of the 20th century.

How can that possibly be? I’m constantly told that evolution and abiogenesis don’t have a thing to do with each other!

PaulK writes:

marc9000 writes:

So you can give me examples of when abiogenesis status as science was challenged in court?

So you want me to find evidence that supports YOUR claim ? If no challenges have been made then there's no evidence of any "free pass".

Hahaha – IF NO CHALLENGES WERE MADE, THAT IS EVIDENCE OF A FREE PASS! One thing is for sure - the scientific community doesn't have the market cornered on logic!

Might I ask why the reaction to the publication of popular books putting forward a view you disagree with needs to be any more than writing popular books putting forward an opposing view (as, for instance, Francis Collins has done) ?

Because of the differences in reaction of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY to popular books – the way it embraces the authors and ideas of atheist books (Stenger/Dawkins), and tries to discredit the authors of books that scientifically challenge evolution. (Behe/Dembski)

PaulK writes:

marc9000 writes:

There is no proposal to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview by “enforcement”, the proposal is to reverse it by “open inquiry”

Yet you have proposed giving ID unearned privileges, by government action based on the strange idea that the First Amendment requires "affirmative action" to support religious beliefs that can't stand up to open inquiry. Can you try to be more consistent ?

Not by government action, by government INACTION, the same inaction that abiogenesis got 90 years ago. Why do you put the words “affirmative action” in quotes, as if I said them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2010 2:45 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2010 4:58 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 188 of 297 (551172)
03-21-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
03-11-2010 7:39 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Percy writes:

Scientists are members of all religions, come from all cultures, and are citizens of all nations. Scientists are a very diverse group. IDists, on the other hand, are primarily evangelical Christians.

But when 90+ percent of them oppose religion, or “fundamentalist Christianity”, they all have one huge thing in common, the worldview of naturalism. That all of reality can be defined and explored in terms of two words; TIME and REARRANGEMENT.

IDists, on the other hand, are primarily evangelical Christians.

All traditional Christian denominations, both Protestant and Catholic, believe that there is a realm beyond time and rearrangement – one where the supernatural can create and destroy, where the supernatural is outside of time. Scientists (humans) cannot create nor destroy, nor can they directly comprehend or observe creation or destruction. That’s why they’ve created all these elaborate constructs about how rearrangement can account for all of reality. Evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, it’s always about rearrangement.

Percy writes:

marc9000 writes:

They don’t even seem to bother to separate the vast differences between atheistic speculation of billions of years ago...

It is evidence gathered from the natural universe, not speculation, that leads scientists to the consensus that the earth is 4.56 billion years old and the universe 13.7.

And what was happening 13.8 billion years ago? Will we figure it all out someday in terms of still more time and rearrangement, or does there come a time when we acknowledge that there was a start of something from nothing that our limited realm can’t comprehend? If there is, and we keep applying only time and rearrangement to it, we’re not ‘doing the best we can’, or ‘doing science’, we’re GETTING IT WRONG.

Again, abiogenesis has no specific theory regarding how life began. There is very little we know about the origin of life. The only assumption abiogenesis makes is that life began through natural processes, an assumption that underpins all of science. Origins of life research, indeed any research, that follows scientific methodologies, requirements and assumptions is considered valid science.

ID leaders like Dembski have put forward ideas about how design in biology can be detected by scientific methods. There should be a difference between the understandable opposition to it by atheists, vs the open inquiry of it by valid science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 03-11-2010 7:39 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2010 5:08 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2010 6:03 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-21-2010 6:08 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 189 of 297 (551174)
03-21-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Dr Adequate
03-11-2010 8:05 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Dr Adequate writes:

marc9000 writes:

Maybe we’re getting somewhere, you’re right, my problem IS with science, because it’s controlled by atheists!

Interesting. Is this, in your opinion, because the only people smart enough to do science are atheists, or because anyone who learns enough science becomes an atheist as a result of this study? Do expand a little on your fantasy.

Science is a much larger world to an atheist. In addition to actual nuts-and-bolts, present day experimentation and application, it’s a philosophical reinforcement to their worldview, including almost unlimited speculation about what happened millions or billions of years ago, and therefore attracts more non-religious or undecided students. As time has progressed and more and more non-religious people teach it, of course they’re going to influence students to follow their own non religious philosophy.

But there are many such practical goals which are equally elusive, and yet working on them --- and with hope of success --- is indeed considered science. Gene therapy, nanotechnology, a cure for HIV, manned interplanetary travel, high-grade automated translation, economic cold fusion, the abolition of polio, economic nuclear fusion ... are these scientific endeavors to be deemed unscientific because they are as yet incomplete?

Yes, because ID is deemed unscientific because it is yet incomplete. Speculative subjects with ideas (abiogenesis has them – ID equally has them) should be treated equally.

Physics is incomplete. Chemistry is incomplete. That's why people are still working on them. Are these not to be considered scientific endeavors? Is no field of science to be considered science until all the answers have been found?

Not if ID can’t be considered science until all its answers have been found.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2010 8:05 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 190 of 297 (551176)
03-21-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by bluescat48
03-11-2010 8:20 AM


Re: Theistic science?
Science is without religion. Science and religion mix as well as oil & water. They are 2 different things. Science deals with reality, religion with the supernatural. They are mutually exclusive. Science with religion is not science.

That’s how it should be, but it’s not how it is. Science is WITH religion, when it tries to challenge it, oppose it, replace it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by bluescat48, posted 03-11-2010 8:20 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by bluescat48, posted 03-21-2010 11:05 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 191 of 297 (551178)
03-21-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Peepul
03-11-2010 8:20 AM


Re: The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
Some of the founders of ID declared it religion themselves. Some of them invented it specifically to counter materialism.

That doesn’t matter, because some founders and promoters of abiogenesis declare it to oppose religion. To disregard ID because of that shows a double standard.

ID self destructs if religion is left out of it. If life was designed, then the designer must have been a complex entity. Applying design detection to that entity will inevitably show that it too must have been designed. And so on, infinitely.

That’s only if you restrict that entity to time and rearrangement. ID does not self destruct if religion is left out, any more than abiogenesis/evolution self destruct if religion is included.

The only ways out of this are
- some designer came to exist without design
- an ultimate designer has always existed, by necessity, who needs no explanation.

“Who needs no explanation” – that’s good enough. Science claims no need for an explanation for what was going on before the ‘big bang’, so ID doesn’t require one for its designer.

The first disproves ID, or at least makes it completely naturalistic. The second is a religious statement.

When science searches for answers to all questions about reality through only time and rearrangement, it is also a religious statement. An atheist statement.

There's no way out of this.

There is if you can unchain your mind from that very restrictive time and rearrangement realm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Peepul, posted 03-11-2010 8:20 AM Peepul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2010 4:41 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 192 of 297 (551179)
03-21-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by nlerd
03-11-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Theistic science?
Which religion should science take into regard when being taught to students?

NONE, including atheism.

If it takes one into regard it would have to do the same for all, wasting time that could be spent looking into something that has a basis in science.

That’s what I’m saying. It needs to quit teaching a godless speculation about what went on billions of years ago, and stick to scientific facts in the present, facts that can be verified by the five human senses of hearing sight, taste, touch, and smell. Proclamations of events of billions of years ago are not facts.

Should they teach about Norse gods, Hindu beliefs, Scientology? You seem to be saying that students aren't getting exposed to religions in science class but I am willing to bet that you only want one religion to be taught there. Religions are personal, they have no place in the classroom beyond history class.

Your bet is the same straw man against me that is common in this thread. I believe the atheism that’s in science should be balanced, but not by religion, by evidence of design.

Not teaching about religion is not the same as teaching that there is no religion. Would you want other personal beliefs such as UFOs, Bigfoot, or ghosts to be taught as science?

Abiogenesis is a scientific subject that strongly implies that religion is false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by nlerd, posted 03-11-2010 9:59 AM nlerd has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Huntard, posted 03-21-2010 4:47 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 195 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2010 4:49 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 197 by Apothecus, posted 03-21-2010 4:59 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2010 6:09 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1808 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 193 of 297 (551180)
03-21-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:32 PM


Re: The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
There is if you can unchain your mind from that very restrictive time and rearrangement realm.

it seems if it is you, my friend, that is chained to this very restictive view. Those of us who actually work (or have worked) in the area of fundemental physics have no such restrictions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:32 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 3:31 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 460 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 194 of 297 (551183)
03-21-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Theistic science?
marc9000 writes:

NONE, including atheism.


Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in gods.

That’s what I’m saying. It needs to quit teaching a godless speculation about what went on billions of years ago, and stick to scientific facts in the present, facts that can be verified by the five human senses of hearing sight, taste, touch, and smell.

But those facts don't show any gods active. Now or in the past. So this doesn't really make sense. We shouldn't teach "godless" things, yet the fats don't show a god. Strange reasoning.

Proclamations of events of billions of years ago are not facts.

Of course they are. Are proclamations of the holocaust not fact because wee can't see, smell, hear, taste it? What about say, King Henry VIII? Nothing to see or smell or taste or hear there either. Absolutely no facts known about him? Do you really want to have this untenable position?

Your bet is the same straw man against me that is common in this thread. I believe the atheism that’s in science should be balanced, but not by religion, by evidence of design.

The best way to do that is to actually show evidence for design. Since nobody so far has been able to do that, why should we even consider it?

Abiogenesis is a scientific subject that strongly implies that religion is false.

So? You're the one who wants to go with the facts. It's not science's fault when they don't support religious belief. There are tons of other facts that don't support religious belief. Say thunderbolts for example. They aren't from Thor. Should we stop examining lightning because it "strongly implies that religion is false"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:37 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 3:36 PM Huntard has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1808 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 195 of 297 (551184)
03-21-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Theistic science?
I believe the atheism that’s in science should be balanced, but not by religion, by evidence of design.

What evidence??? What possible evidence is there of design? Every claim ever made by the ID crowd has been soundly refuted. Do you have anything new?

Is this the "science" of ID? An endless stream of "ooh, ooh, we have another gap into which we can squeeze God"? Utterly pathetic. I can just see God's face-palm each time you guys open your mouths

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019