|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 0/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 1559 days) Posts: 18 From: Pittsburgh Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biased accounts of intelligent design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jedothek Junior Member (Idle past 1559 days) Posts: 18 From: Pittsburgh Joined: |
I tried to insert the following protest on the discussion page for the Wikipedia article on intelligent design, but discussion is closed; so I vent by preaching to you folks. I have not altered my original wording at all.
I have to protest the biased and ridiculous first paragraph of this article (as I have protested the similar lead of the Stephen C. Meyer article) even though no one here is listening. As with the Meyer article, it is unprofessional to include the controversial term "pseudoscientific" in the definition of a theory; it belongs rather in the discussion in the article under "Scientific criticism." Further, the paragraph makes itself contemptible with its failure to understand a distinction relevant to the issue, when its calls ID "a form of creationism." An encyclopedia that cannot distinguish design from creation (who designed the Saturn V rocket? Was it the same set of persons who built it?) has no business offering any remarks concerning these subtle questions. Further, the first paragraph asserts, as an uncontroversial fact, that "ID ...offers no testable or tenable hypotheses," without the writers apparently having glanced at testable hypotheses easily accessible in such articles asA Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design | Evolution News The issue is not whether you, the reader, like intelligent design. The issue is whether Wikipedia comes across as a source of knowledge or as a swamp of dogma. -- John Harvey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3983 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Biased accounts of intelligent design thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
In your own words how would you state the ID hypothesis and how would you test it?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
The relevant Talk Page provides useful context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1664 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Welcome to the fray, Jedothik
The issue is not whether you, the reader, like intelligent design. The issue is whether Wikipedia comes across as a source of knowledge or as a swamp of dogma. It is rather obviously a source of knowledge. Here's the first paragraph:
quote: Sounds accurate to me, unlike the article you linked (it makes several logical errors). The best way to show ID is not a pseudoscience would be to do some actual science based on this concept. This step has not been taken. Please see Is ID properly pursued? for my take on ID (note signature). Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 Edited by RAZD, : stby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
With others here I'd like you to spell out exactly what ID is, especially as compared with creationism, or Young Earth Creationism.
Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I don’t think they are coming back
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Nah, it's drive-by spam. If he doesn't come back it should be deleted.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Nah, it's drive-by spam. If he doesn't come back it should be deleted. I prefer the term from Mrs. Doubtfire: "It was a run-by fruiting!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Too bad. I've never been very clear what the differences are between ID and YEC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Faith writes: Too bad. I've never been very clear what the differences are between ID and YEC. ID is pretend science but even pretend science could not sign up to a young earth, so my guess would be that there ain't no YEC IDists. If there are, their heads are in a very bad place.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That tells me absolutely nothing. I wonder if the author of the thread can offer something more illuminating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jedothek Junior Member (Idle past 1559 days) Posts: 18 From: Pittsburgh Joined: |
ID is the doctrine that the world (e.g., the genetic code or the values of physical constants) exhibits signs of having been designed by intelligence. A strong form would be: the world MUST be (partially) designed; a weak form would be the balance of evidence supports design rather than mindless genesis.
Opponents of ID say, AHA! You’re REALLY trying to sneak God into this! I can even show that ID proponents A and B are *gasp* Christians! This is , of course, a fallacy. The religious affiliations of proponents are as logically irrelevant as, say, a Hindu physicist’s religion is ordinarily taken to be when it comes to criticism of a paper he has published. ID proponents such as Meyer and William Lane Craig do not cite scripture, they cite evidence. I even heard one ID person say that it’s possible that life on Earth was designed by extraterrestrials. ( I know that sounds like an infinite regress, but this point would require a separate discussion.) Creationism says that the world , or more often , living species were brought into existence by some voluntary act rather, than say, by evolution. Some ID proponents will tell you explicitly that they think living species have evolved; they might add that the first organism must have been designed ( so far as I know, C . Darwin never said that life came into existence by evolution, whatever that would mean), or that evolution has received some intelligent guidance along the way. A key question here is whether natural selection is adequate to account for evolution. Young earth Creationism holds that the world was made about 6 thousand years ago. I don’t encounter many people who say this. The Christian philosopher William Lane Craig whom I mentioned seems to accept that the universe was created about 13.8 billion years ago ( I never heard him take a position on when planet earth was formed).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jedothek Junior Member (Idle past 1559 days) Posts: 18 From: Pittsburgh Joined: |
See my statement elsewhere on this page of ID. For testing, I have nothing better to offer at the moment than the tests suggested in the article I have already indicated,
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design | Evolution News
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If the main thing is that *things* look like they were designed by an intelligence, what are the options: a creator God or extraterrestrials? Anything else? I don't see how you can avoid the Creator God myself and doesn't that automatically raise the specter of religion?
So those IDers who accept evolution merely postulate the Intelligent Designer as the initiator of the process? By the way, I'm a YEC. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024