ID is a bit troublesome in that regard because it is certainly religious in nature, and narrowly religious at that. That makes it's rightful place a narrowly tailored, religious class, which requires the government to support some religions over others.
an even bigger dilemma is that the bible is not a science book and does not teach the subject...sure there are a few instances where the bible touches on science indirectly, such as the creation account/the water cycle/matters of geology etc, but it doesnt provide any specific details
so to try and apply the bible in science is like trying to apply a cooking book to agriculture
quote:they are only threatened by it because they dont understand the bible enough to be able to defend it.
The problem I see is that they've become so tangled up in dogma and bad interpretation and bad translating that their understanding is completely out of harmony with known facts ie, 24hr creative day, earth at center of universe etc
Well, that is one way of looking at it. I don't quite agree with you here. You seem to be suggesting that any fault in the Bible ust be a translation or interpretation error. To my mind, that is vainglorious nonsense. the Bible was written by fallible humans and it is littered with errors. Some of them are likely to be attributable to translation errors or poor understanding, but not all. We are still left with many false statements.
Translation and interpretation aren't going to get you out of every problem. Sometimes the Bible is correctly translated, correctly interpreted and still just wrong. The upshot of this is that sometimes the outlandish claims of creationists do have a solid footing in the Bible, if not reality.
Of course, where there is a conflict between the two, I know which side I'd rather come down on.
Back to the main topic...
quote:im not taking sides here, but if he was able to determine this why couldnt evolutionists determine this
Short answer; they did. On the stand at the Dover trial, Behe claimed that there were few papers on the evolution of blood clotting. He was confronted with around fifty. The truth is that Behe is not interested in knowledge, he is only interested in the gaps. He found a gap in his understanding of blood clotting evolution and - hurrah! - he crowbarred his God in there. Did he do a thorough search of the literature to see if anyone had already answered his questions? Nope. Did he commit himself to searching for a naturalistic answer to his blood clotting quandary? Nope. He went straight for the miracle explanation. That is what makes his approach unscientific.
quote:AND if behe is unable to find the gap, and evolutionists are unable to find the gap, then doesnt this put the evolutionary theory in doubt?
You misunderstand me. Behe did find a gap, but it was a gap in his knowledge. Other scientists, more interested in banishing gaps in understanding, have since demolished Behe's claims, providing convincing models for the evolution of the blood clotting system. What Behe could not explain (and made no effort to explain) has been explained by others. The evolution of blood clotting is no mystery.
But what if it was? What if we had no explanation for blood evolution?
This would be a serious gap in our knowledge to be sure, but it would not be enough to threaten the ToE. There are simply so many independent and mutually supportive lines of evidence for the ToE that our inability to fully describe one single aspect of it is of no great concern. If we can't explain blood clotting, it is simply an indication that we do not fully understand the process. It is not an indication that evolution is wrong and must be thrown out, at least not on its own. If there were many problems such as this, there might be legitimate cause for concern, but there aren't. Even this example has been satisfactorily dealt with (but not by Behe).
quote:and if so, why are evolutionists teaching the conclusion before finding the gap? That is not really the scientific method at work.
As I explained above, you have it backwards. Just to reiterate, science looks for answers. When they find an unknown, they attempt to bring it into the realm of the known. Only the ID lobby look for gaps in knowledge. When they find such a gap, they hold it up for all to see, triumphant at having found a refuge for their little god. They make no attempt to banish the gap in understanding by actually seeking more evidence. That would ruin the game. In truth, they worship these gaps as much as they worship any god.
Mutate and Survive
"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
then when science provides evidence to the contrary, rather then adjusting their understanding and reexamining their translations, they put up a fight and make themselves look like raving lunatics.
This is a big part of the issue. Rather than doing as you suggest, ID attempts to redefine the scientific method.
They also do not peer review anything.
This is what Behe said under cross examination:
Michael Behe writes:
"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred",
As I explained above, you have it backwards. Just to reiterate, science looks for answers. When they find an unknown, they attempt to bring it into the realm of the known. Only the ID lobby look for gaps in knowledge. When they find such a gap, they hold it up for all to see, triumphant at having found a refuge for their little god. They make no attempt to banish the gap in understanding by actually seeking more evidence. That would ruin the game. In truth, they worship these gaps as much as they worship any god.
What a delightfully succinct, elegant way of putting it.
It is abuse to teach a child a fact as a fact, in science class, when you know that it is a falsehood that does not belong there. Children trust their teachers.
I really can't say it better than Coragyps:
Coragyps writes:
Knowingly, deliberately feeding children falsehoods in place of educating them is abuse
Do you disagree?
Peg writes:
Stile writes:
If you follow the scientific method, it certainly is scientific. If you don't follow the scientific method, then it's not scientific.
ok so that brings me back to the question of why the study of nature and the search for design is not scientific. Is it because there is already the presumption that the blade of grass has been designed?
Um, no. The ID "study" of nature and the "search" for design is not scientific simply because it does not follow the scientific method. It's not a particularly difficult concept.
could they not study the blade of grass to explain how the design works and what shows that it is in fact designed?
Sure they could. But if they don't follow the scientific method while doing so, then it's not going to be science. The first step would be to define the word "design" so that objects can be identified. 20+ years and they still can't even define the word they've labelled their own system with.
so i'll go to the book store today and find a book on ID to see what its all about... when i've done so i'll come back and tell you what i think.
Fantastic, it's always best to look into this sort of thing for yourself. There's no need to take anyone's word for it.
Does anyone have any suggestions on a book to start with?
Sorry, I don't know of any. My investigation has already identified ID as a waste of time, so I don't keep tabs on the books they produce. I do recommend reading through the forums here. However, I do understand if you feel this forum is somehow bias. I don't think it is, but I can understand someone else feeling differently.
It's politicized because it's failed everywhere else. The only place left for them to go is to whine to poor, unsuspecting people to see if they can change laws so they will be able to abuse children. Are you sure you want to support such a notion?
abuse children???
how does ID amount to abuse???
Abuse is too strong a term for my taste, but there aren't many things of a positive nature one can say about telling children you're giving them reliable and legitimate information when you're not.
The science taught up to the high school level is very basic and fundamental and consists of the current very widely consensus views within science. Creation science and ID proponents want views taught that are way outside the scientific mainstream, and they're trying to achieve this not by the quality of their research but by the strength of their political efforts before school boards and state legislatures. No other science has ever entered the classrooms of this country through political mandate, and hopefully we all agree that what gets taught in science class should be legitimate science.
That isn't to say creation science and ID are not valid areas of scientific inquiry. Many scientists have serious doubts that such research could ever make any scientific contributions because they seem underpinned by fundamental misunderstandings of both the nature and practice of science, but this is a free country and one can study what one wants. When creation scientists and/or ID scientists begin producing scientific advances then they'll start persuading large groups of scientists and will become part of the mainstream. But that hasn't happened yet, so teaching creation science or ID in science classrooms would not be legitimate at this point. We're not teaching string theory (an advanced and promising physics theory that has not yet been proven) in science class, either.
Do you like to be on the cutting edge of knowledge? The bible has always been years ahead of scientists. It is one of the most advance science books around. In its pages are the answers to the mysteries of life and the invisible laws of the universe.
Abuse is too strong a term for my taste, but there aren't many things of a positive nature one can say about telling children you're giving them reliable and legitimate information when you're not.
Abuse is exactly the word I would use for this case. These people are handicapping their children's intellectual development for their own ideological lies. This is no better than physical abuse.
Do you like to be on the cutting edge of knowledge? The bible has always been years ahead of scientists. It is one of the most advance science books around. In its pages are the answers to the mysteries of life and the invisible laws of the universe.
Cherry-picked propaganda.
How about the "global" flood? That was disproved 200 years ago.
And the "young" earth? That has been disproved for nearly as long.
Cutting edge of knowledge? Perhaps for 1500 BC, but many of us have advanced a great deal since then. And those advances have been particularly rapid since the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the development of modern science--all of which came about because of the attitude that we don't have to kowtow to the local shamans any longer.
Sorry, the cutting edge of knowledge is science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
If they really wanted to fight evolution, then they would want to learn as much about science and evolution as they possibly could, and they would want their children educated as well or even better in science and evolution so that they could carry on the fight. Fighting instead to impose ignorance and gross misconceptions on their own children and everybody else's child is completely counter-productive to their goal of destroying evolution.
Furthermore, they are setting their own children up to become atheists once those children start to learn science and discover how much their own parents had been lying to them. As Kent Hovind quoted a home-schooling advocate in his seminar tape #4 at 42min:55sec:
quote:75% of all children raised in Christian homes who attend public schools will reject the Christian faith by their first year of college. ("Let My Children Go" video by Caryl Matritiano of Jeremiah Films, Access denied
Well, at least they're doing the good work of helping to spread atheism. Somebody say, "Hallelujah!" Amen!
Coyote, just thought you might appreciate a Mexicanism from Mexican President Portillo in a 60 Minutes in the late 70's:
quote:It's been a long time since we've worn feathers.
Furthermore, they are setting their own children up to become atheists once those children start to learn science and discover how much their own parents had been lying to them. As Kent Hovind quoted a home-schooling advocate in his seminar tape #4 at 42min:55sec:
First of all, you're talking to one of those children. Why do you think I feel so strongly about handicapping kids with creationist lies?
I highly doubt the number of children becoming atheists like me is that high. As far as I know, myself and Kelly (a friend of mine) are the only two childhood fundamentalists who broke free of the lies and became atheists. Everyone else we knew since childhood have become christian liars themselves to their children.
Creation science and ID proponents want views taught that are way outside the scientific mainstream, and they're trying to achieve this not by the quality of their research but by the strength of their political efforts before school boards and state legislatures. No other science has ever entered the classrooms of this country through political mandate, and hopefully we all agree that what gets taught in science class should be legitimate science.
ID does appear to be a refutation to evolution... personally i think it is always good to keep opposing views on the table but once politics enters into any debate it becomes corrupted.
Percy writes:
When creation scientists and/or ID scientists begin producing scientific advances then they'll start persuading large groups of scientists and will become part of the mainstream. But that hasn't happened yet, so teaching creation science or ID in science classrooms would not be legitimate at this point.
Im inclined to agree. I would like to see them do more in the area of ID because i think it would be pretty fascinating ... not that i think they will find the creator thru their research...but it will certainly give us an good insight into his creative mind.
I did look in a book store for an ID book, but they didnt have any...i got a steven hawking book instead and its an amazing read. (A Briefer History of Time0
It depends which IDist you're talking to. Michael Behe, arguably the founder of the modern ID movement and the author of Darwin's Black Box, accepts most of evolution. It is only when it comes to the evolution of what he terms irreducibly complex microbiological structures like the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade of biochemical reactions that he believes an intelligent designer must have played a role.
I did look in a book store for an ID book, but they didnt have any...i got a steven hawking book instead and its an amazing read. (A Briefer History of Time)
Hope you enjoy it. I read its predecessor, A Brief History of Time, and like most people enjoyed it a great deal.
It is only when it comes to the evolution of what he terms irreducibly complex microbiological structures like the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade of biochemical reactions that he believes an intelligent designer must have played a role.
well here's a question,
if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion
so why is his study & research not considered science?
is it because he draws a conclusion (designed by intelligence) without physical evidence of a designer?
™ Version 4.2