Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 4 of 142 (575499)
08-20-2010 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
08-17-2010 5:10 PM


A few comments:
1) Your point here is probably understated. As was revealed in the Dover trial Intelligent Design began as a relabelling of creationism specifically to get around a court ruling keeping it out of science classes.
Dembski once wrote an article alleging that Intelligent Design must be taught in schools to recruit people to do the research to back it up which seems to be a pretty clear case of putting the cart before the horse.
(So far as I can tell this essay is no longer online).
2) The DI asserts that the Wedge document was a draft fund-raising document. Which rather suggests that it accurately describes their aims - otherwise it would be fraudulent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 5:10 PM Fiver has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 22 of 142 (588950)
10-29-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 8:54 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
quote:
The Biblical creationist ID argument boils down to whether ample verifiable evidence for that record exists supportive to that record. The more supportive evidence that can be reasonably verified, the more credible that record becomes and the more susect becomes the methodology of established secularistic minded theory.
The rest of us don't find fraud and falsehood and misrepresentation to be very credible. Neither do we consider it to be science.
The leaders of the ID movement would agree with us at least as far as pointing out that your arguments are not scientific (even those that some of them might believe) - and they do NOT use any of them in their "scientific" literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 8:54 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 25 of 142 (588973)
10-29-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 11:33 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
quote:
Perhaps this is why they fall short of aired corroborating evidenced data in this area.
ROTFL ! No, if they used your "evidence" they would look even worse than they already do - even more dishonest and even more obviously unscientific and religious
quote:
Leaders like ICR, do btw, apply some of this evidence that secularists consider non-scientific. Their hypothesis premise, for example, relative to their research would not be considered scientific in the EvC science fora.
The ICR is a YEC group. Here is what an ICR leader says about the ID movement:
But the ID people (creation by Intelligent Design) insist that these are two different systems and that Intelligent Design is certainly not Scientific Creationismespecially not Biblical Creationism. They feel it best to leave the Bible and the Biblical God out of the argument entirely
Later in the article he accuses the "Intelligent Design Theorists" of "ignoring God".
The ICR is not a "leader" of the ID movement - and agrees with me that the ID movement tries to avoid using religious apologetics like yours altogether.
Edited by PaulK, : Added link
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 33 of 142 (589058)
10-30-2010 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 8:49 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
quote:
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.
In other words the criteria for the inclusion in science class would be "Buzsaw likes it" - regardless of whether the item in question was true or not. It's a very good thing that you are not in charge of education, to keep your falsehoods and misrepresentations out of the system.
quote:
The ID hypothesis, especially that of the Biblical record must debate with half our brains/evidence quietly hid behind our backs.
By which you mean - for example - having to stick to what the Bible actually says rather than what you want to pretend that it says.
quote:
A number of years ago, here at EvC I debated the highly esteemed physicist member, Eta Carena on what if the sun were relatively suddenly created?. My argument was that if the sun were relatively suddenly created as per the Biblical record, it would appear to be over 30 million years old because, as I understand, it takes that long for the average protostar to become a full fledged star.
Nobody here will be the slightest bit surprised to find out that this is not true. Eta Carinae repeatedly pointed out that there were age indicators that you were not considering (some are listed in Message 228).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 8:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024