Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
21 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (4 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,770 Year: 16,806/19,786 Month: 931/2,598 Week: 177/251 Day: 6/59 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 117 of 219 (529957)
10-11-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Buzsaw
10-11-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Buzzsaw writes:

1. The generic word/term creation/creationist need not nessitate that everything discussed and debated relative to creating/making something involves religion as per your first response.

2. What is considered science need not exclude intelligent design relative to something created/made.

It is true that semantically the term "creationism/intelligent design" by themselves do not require them to include a religious ideology in the same way that scientific theories and constructs such as biological and cosmological evolution do not require a materialistic and/or atheistic worldview.

However, typically the creationists and intelligent design MOVEMENTS and those that advocate them ARE motivated out of a desire to justify and promote their religious worldviews.

The issue the scientific community has with creationism and ID is not because they believe in God or the Bible or any other religious worldview, because many of those same scientists have religious worldviews themselves. The issue is that many of the Creationism and Intelligent Design advocators are pushing their religious agendas as valid and proven scientific theories even to the level of primary schools when these proposals are clearly not scientifically proven.
I and many scientists have no problem with various facets of ID such as irreducible complexity, privileged planet, special creation, etc as hypotheses and proposals but they are not proven and tested scientific theories.

It would be like if someone was trying to push an astrology movement into the scientific community and schools without having it go through the scientific-method process of experimentation, testing, analysis, and peer review to determine if their claims are valid.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 9:13 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 11:27 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 122 of 219 (530064)
10-12-2009 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
10-11-2009 11:27 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Good to par with you once again Buzzsaw

It is nice to debate with a rather intelligent though maybe misguided Creationist than some of the wackos we have had on here recently (yes, Smooth Operator and Calypsis4, I am talking about you).

Buzzsaw writes:

I don't think it's fair to classify intelligent design with astrology. That's as illogical as classifying a Model T Ford with a 2009 Cadilac.

Can you show me exactly how the "theory" of intelligent design has followed the scientific method and should be classified differently than other pseudoscience?


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 11:27 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019