Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8936 total)
119 online now:
Faith, GDR, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 116 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: martygraham
Post Volume: Total: 861,917 Year: 16,953/19,786 Month: 1,078/2,598 Week: 1/323 Day: 1/51 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 121 of 133 (861590)
08-23-2019 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Jedothek
08-23-2019 12:12 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
My point was not that the evidence for ID was overwhelming but that Wikipedia's beginning its article on ID with the term "pseudoscientific' was biased and juvenile.

First the evidence for ID is not just *not overwhelming* it is blatantly non-existent.

Second the term pseudoscientific was both logical and accurate.

The majority of ID arguments are from personal incredulity while their few attempts at some "science" have been incompetent, insubstantial and demonstrably fake.

ID is the poster child for pseudoscience. And all your religious butt hurt cannot change that.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 12:12 PM Jedothek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 2:49 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20120
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 122 of 133 (861598)
08-23-2019 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by AZPaul3
08-23-2019 12:47 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
ID is the poster child for pseudoscience. And all your religious butt hurt cannot change that.

You think it is worse than astrology?


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 121 by AZPaul3, posted 08-23-2019 12:47 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by AZPaul3, posted 08-23-2019 2:53 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 124 by AZPaul3, posted 08-23-2019 3:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 132 by AZPaul3, posted 08-24-2019 9:33 AM RAZD has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 123 of 133 (861599)
08-23-2019 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
08-23-2019 2:49 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
Before I answer that I will need to check my charts.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 2:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 124 of 133 (861602)
08-23-2019 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
08-23-2019 2:49 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
quote:
Aug 23, 2019 - Spend time with someone you love today, Pisces, but keep things light and easy. Don't go too deep, and don't expect others to necessarily feel the things you feel. You might feel slighted when others don't give you the attention that you think you deserve. Don't take it personally. Others may be unfocused and short of attention. Don't expect any major commitments or deep conversations right now.

Hmm ... keep things light and easy. Don't go too deep...

Well, I guess today's not the right day to answer this, RAZD. Maybe tomorrow.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 2:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 125 of 133 (861604)
08-23-2019 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jedothek
08-23-2019 11:44 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
The fact that you reject the classification of ID as pseudoscience seems to indicate a good deal of trust (as does referring to an article written by Casey Luskin).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 11:44 AM Jedothek has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20120
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 126 of 133 (861608)
08-23-2019 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Jedothek
08-23-2019 12:12 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
That's what I began by doing. See the post that started the thread. My point was not that the evidence for ID was overwhelming but that Wikipedia's beginning its article on ID with the term "pseudoscientific' was biased and juvenile. The discussion of whether ID is science should have appeared ( as it did , in addition , to an inadequate degree ) in a separate section such as "Reaction form the scientific community."

Here's the first paragraph:

quote:
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Note that evolution is not just natural selection, but it involves mutations as well. It is typical of anti-evolutionists to neglect to mention one or the other of this two-part system.

Here is how I might edit this paragraph:

Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID was developed from creationism and to date it lacks empirical support and has offered no testable or tenable hypotheses. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

How would you edit the first paragraph to remove your objection?

Note that further down the article it says:

quote:
Reaction from the scientific community

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.[8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[98] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[74] Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.[99] More recently, in September 2012, Bill Nye warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.[100][101]


For another take on the presumed bias against ID see Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ..., ... along with a couple of examples of what they have so badly gone wrong while pretending to be "experts" and knowledgeable science type peoples.

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 119 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 12:12 PM Jedothek has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 127 of 133 (861614)
08-23-2019 5:54 PM


Simple definition of ID
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by JonF, posted 08-23-2019 6:07 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 130 by jar, posted 08-23-2019 8:26 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 128 of 133 (861615)
08-23-2019 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by WookieeB
08-23-2019 5:54 PM


Re: Simple definition of ID
We all know the official line. Most of us know far more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by WookieeB, posted 08-23-2019 5:54 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 129 of 133 (861616)
08-23-2019 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Jedothek
08-23-2019 12:12 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
Jedothek writes:

My point was not that the evidence for ID was overwhelming but that Wikipedia's beginning its article on ID with the term "pseudoscientific' was biased and juvenile.

In case someone hasn't already pointed this out, here's how the Wikipedia article on Astrology begins:

quote:
Astrology is a pseudoscience that claims to divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

Here's how the Wikipedia article on Homeopathy begins:

quote:
Homeopathy or homœopathy is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), a claim that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific.

Wikipedia's introduction to its Flat Earth article includes this:

quote:
Despite the scientific fact of Earth's sphericity, pseudoscientific flat Earth conspiracy theories are espoused by modern flat Earth societies and, increasingly, by unaffiliated individuals using social media.

Describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience makes perfect sense, which Wikipedia typically seems to do right in the introduction.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 12:12 PM Jedothek has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31288
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 130 of 133 (861621)
08-23-2019 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by WookieeB
08-23-2019 5:54 PM


Re: Simple definition of ID
WookieeB writes:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Yet there is no evidence of any "Intelligent Cause" and lots of evidence of an undirected process such as natural selection. But ID is fun to laugh over. The possibility of an Inept Designer or Incompetent Designer or ******** Designer or Inelegant Designer is certainly supported by all the evidence.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by WookieeB, posted 08-23-2019 5:54 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 9:09 PM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20120
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 131 of 133 (861622)
08-23-2019 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
08-23-2019 8:26 PM


Variations on a theme
... The possibility of an Inept Designer or Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inelegant Designer is certainly supported by all the evidence

Or a Silly Designer ...

... certainly not an engineer/architect designing with empathy for people. Perhaps an artist who sometimes likes to shock?

If we work backwards from purported design to what the designer is like ...

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 130 by jar, posted 08-23-2019 8:26 PM jar has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 132 of 133 (861630)
08-24-2019 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
08-23-2019 2:49 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
ID is the poster child for pseudoscience. And all your religious butt hurt cannot change that.

You think it is worse than astrology?

Today's chart:

quote:
AUG 24, 2019 - You've been so absorbed by your own life lately that some of your friends may be wondering whether something is wrong with you. There's no law against having your head in the clouds once in a while, but be sure not to leave the people you care about in the lurch. Make sure you follow through on an upcoming social commitment—it will give you a chance to show them that you're doing fine and you're just as eager to hang out with them as ever.

Hmm ... can't leave you in the lurch, I do have the social commitment to answer, yeah this is good. I can answer today.

Yes.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 2:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2019 12:03 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20120
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 133 of 133 (861633)
08-24-2019 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by AZPaul3
08-24-2019 9:33 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
quote:
AUG 24, 2019 - You've been so absorbed by your own life lately that some of your friends may be wondering whether something is wrong with you. There's no law against having your head in the clouds once in a while, but be sure not to leave the people you care about in the lurch. Make sure you follow through on an upcoming social commitment—it will give you a chance to show them that you're doing fine and you're just as eager to hang out with them as ever.

Hmm ... can't leave you in the lurch, I do have the social commitment to answer, yeah this is good. I can answer today.

Yikes, how do they know? ... Works for me (fellow Piscian traveler). Been hard a work on new back porch, and we have guests for dinner tonight ...


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 132 by AZPaul3, posted 08-24-2019 9:33 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019