|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dishonesty and ID | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Barbarian Member (Idle past 6270 days) Posts: 31 From: Dallas, TX US Joined: |
They say that they aren't creationists. But you wouldn't know it by their ethics.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cravingjava Guest |
Yes,it is interesting. Makes ya wonder why evolutionists are so afraid to have the "controversy" taught in school.
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1128
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cravingjava Guest |
quote: I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"? Since you are on the topic of ethics...
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1106
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cravingjava:
[B] I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"? [/QUOTE] JM: Actually, they are not all that different at all. This was part of the point of my original post. ID is simply an old creationist idea dressed up in new (albeit see-through) clothes. There is no good science behind the argument insofaras biology is concerned. The whole point of ID is to get religion back into the classroom disguised as science. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-26-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cravingjava Guest |
quote: Joe,Thanks for confirming that it is true that most evolutionists don't even understand the platform they so diligently oppose. Hehe.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Its not that ID is hard to understand, it simply isn't good science. It makes no testable predictions. If and when the hypothesis puts forth a hypothesis explaining current data, making predicition based on that theory, and testing those predicitions, then it will fall under the category of science. If it is repeatable, passes critisms of peer review (all science, including evolution, must repeatadly and constantly do this), and over time proves itself to be a reliable hypothesis, it may well become a scientific theory. However, tentitive hypothesis shouldn't be taught in schools. ID is not even tentive yet, since it has yet to reach a level of testable hypothesis. That is why it is mocked by scientists and educators.
As much as it must gall most creationists, evolution is a heavily supported theory that has been tested numerous times and been found reliable. It has led to our modern understanding of genetics, which further corraberates its mechanics. It has been revised to reflect new data over time (even the most solid theories are revised to reflect new discoveries and data), and is simply the best scientific theory for biological diversity at this time. Who know, perhaps a hundred years from now it will be tossed out in favor of a better and more accurate theory? Till then, it is the most reliable and accurate theory we have for biodiversity and will be taught as such. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Interesting choice of 'support' for ID ....
quote: Darwinism (as I understand it) is evolutionary theory stemmingfrom Darwin's Origin of Species. Perhaps I am wrong about that ? As such it has nothing to do with the 'Origin of Life'. Evolutionary theory does NOT rule out the possibility of God. Evolution is not concerned with UNDIRECTED natural causes.Natural selection is a NATURALLY DIRECTED cause for diversity. Perhaps before attacking evolutionists for not understandingwhat they are arguing about, you should check that your sources know what THEY are arguing about. quote: ID starts from an ASSUMPTION not an observation. There is nofoundation for this assumption. The second sentence above is the CONCLUSION that is being sought by ID, and so cannot be the BASE starting point of the theory. Randomly place enough scrabble pieces on a board, enoughtimes, and you WILL at some stage get meaningful phrases come out. That's what random means ... any outcome is as likely as any other. The reason for this is that MEANING comes from the OBSERVERnot the OBSERVED.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: Let's look at a quote from Moonie Wells
quote: JM:This makes me think that Wells has not bothered to study the Cambrian 'slow burn' in any detail. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, I find the fallacious and generally pathetic response by the NCSE most interesting. Could you please (in simple terms- remember that I'm a creationist!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Caerbannog Inactive Member |
quote: Oh, we understand it perfectly. ID theory is nothing more than a vehicle used by Dembski and Co. to sell books and tapes to the credulous. In that respect, it's just like those easy weight-loss "diet plans" and "no money down" get-rich-quick real-estate schemes that you see being hawked on those late-night TV infomercials. The most you can say for ID "research" is that it beats working for a living.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cravingjava:
[B]Yes,it is interesting. Makes ya wonder why evolutionists are so afraid to have the "controversy" taught in school. [/QUOTE] It's not "fear", because I would LOVE to have the entire history of Creation Science and it's pseudoscience taught in a comparative RELIGION class in all schools, along with all the other religions and how they interfere with education in favor of indoctrination. It just doesn't belong in a science classroom because it isn't science. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Barbarian Member (Idle past 6270 days) Posts: 31 From: Dallas, TX US Joined: |
I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"? Fact is, they lied. Blatently lied about something very obvious. This is the kind of thing we have learned to expect from the professional creationists. It is, apparently something ID has borrowed from creationism, in the same way they borrowed their religious notions. If it offends you to have people notice this, it would be much more productive for you to encourage ID people to be more honest. Ironically, you linked me to a page in which an IDer attempts to refute science using the same old creationist arguments. You've made my case for me. Let's look at an example from the link you cited: Jonathan Wells:[blockquote]My Question: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds--even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?[/blockquote] NCSE’s Answer: The notion of a missing link is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells’s claim that supposed ancestors are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you! Well's evasion:(a) If the notion of a missing link is out of date, why do biology textbooks continue to use it? When the NCSE launches its long-overdue campaign against misconceptions in biology textbooks (such as calling the origin of life part of evolution, or using homology as evidence for common ancestry), it can add missing link to its list. I get to review biology textbooks; I'm on a committee that checks them out. I haven't yet seen one that even uses the term "missing link", except as a caution about unscientific thinking. If you could find one for me, I'd be pleased to write a nasty note to the publisher. I emailed Wells once, but he must have been too busy to give me an answer. Could you give me one? (b) If Darwin’s theory is true, there must have been organisms in the past that were transitional links between ancestors and descendants--yet most of them are missing from the fossil record. So the notion of missing link is no more out-of-date than evolutionary theory itself. Wells admits that transitional links would be evidence for Darwin's theory. He then admits that there are some found in the fossil record. Then he concludes that this must validate the "missing link" notion. I can only conclude that he imagines that unless we have a fossil of every organism that ever existed, something is wrong with evolution. It appears he has admitted what he wanted to refute. (c) Archaeopteryx is not preceded by fossils showing how reptiles gradually acquired bird-like features. Furthermore, without fossils of the appropriate age, the NCSE has no grounds for saying Wells’s claim that ‘supposed ancestors’ are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. It is true that we do have quite a number of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds, showing different stages in the process. Even though birds don't fossilize well, there apparently were a lot of them, and few are preserved. And it's just as looney to say that a species can't live on for millions of years after a different species evolved from it, as it is to say your uncle can't be younger than you. This is Wells with his back to the wall, making evasions and excuses. Flimsy ones. The others are just as bad and further evidence of the lack of moral fiber on the part of the IDers. I would be pleased to discuss them further here, if someone wants to hear about them. I suppose you are aware that Wells has admitted that before he ever got his degree, that he had a religious mission to "destroy evolution". Or maybe you aren't. Wells doesn't mention that these days. That's an important bit of evidence for the ethical standards of IDers also.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
J, can you say, in say NUMBER's history of the Creationist exactly WHAT old creationist idea it is origin of. I could not figure that out on reading MERE CREATION. This is not a private hook. I want to know. I take the ICR position with respect to ID a little closer to heart.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: "Lack of moral fiber"? Actually, nothing you stated showed that Wells lacked "moral fiber", at most you could accuse him of scientific incompetence. However, the outright lie of the NCSE that fish were not present in the Cambrian seems to be a good indicator of the lack of such "fiber". "I suppose you are aware that Wells has admitted that before he ever got his degree, that he had a religious mission to "destroy evolution". Or maybe you aren't. Wells doesn't mention that these days. That's an important bit of evidence for the ethical standards of IDers also." First of all, this statement constitutes a logical fallacy, that is, trying to discredit information by it's source. Secondly, I don't see how a statement that you wish to "destroy evolution" is an indicator of a lack of moral integrity. Perhaps you could inform me? Thirdly, I think you might find this interesting:
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=607
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024