Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
 5 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

EvC Forum Science Forums Intelligent Design

# Intelligent Design vs. Real Science

Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 13 of 142 (588894) 10-28-2010 10:15 PM Reply to: Message 11 by Reveal10-28-2010 9:50 PM

Re: So were here by chance? accident?
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are10^40:1
[according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981].
This implies that the coding and structure of DNA was carefully assembled and put together by a designer; an intelligent Creator.
The problems with those calculating odds against some form of evolution are many. First, mathematics can be used to prove anything, but is only meaningful when it is attached to the real world in some way. And Fred Hoyle, as a biologist, was a good astronomer.
Here is another of the problems: if you have to roll the dice and get 50 sixes, how would you do it? Mathematicians would tell you that you'd be there for centuries. A biologist just might roll all 50 dice, then roll any that didn't show a six. He'd be done by lunch with plenty of time for a long mid-morning break.
This seems to be more of the way evolution works. As such, I don't pay a lot of attention to those posting such huge odds. Especially since there was one creationist on another website who kept posting the odds against evolution as 1720. He couldn't understand why those of us who had studied some science were laughing at him.
There dosent seem to be anything that accurately explains "accidents" and "just because" that seem believable.
Is it possible for biotic life to emerge from abiotic life?
It looks like that is possible. There is some evidence that points in that direction. On the other hand, there is as of yet no scientific evidence for supernatural creatures. Every claim for the supernatural that has been successfully tested has concluded that nature could suffice. Examples: Thunder created by Thor's hammer, disease caused by evil spirits, and the earth being the center of the universe.
Did we invent Artificial intelligence by accident? the CPU by accident? Even if we did we were THERE to make it happen, even if by accident.
Bad analogy. Has no meaning in the real world.
There are seven days in a week, seven colors in a rainbow, seven layers of the atmosphere, seven continents, seven seas, seven miracles that Jesus Christ performed in the gospel of John. Seven seems to be God's favorite number since He rested on the seventh day.
Means nothing. You also have the trinity, and 40 days used in a lot of places.
Living breathing organisms have DNA, a double helix; rocks do not.
Again, meaningless.
Our world is so beautiful, it was created for us. We have dominion over every living thing on this planet. The sky is blue and the trees and herbs are green. Those two colors, pyschologically, are the two most soothing colors to the eye(in the visible spectrum)
Again, meaningless.
You are letting religious belief cloud your thinking to such a degree that you are ignoring real world evidence.
As a test, what is your position on a global flood about 4,350 years ago and the age of the earth? Your answers to these questions could confirm my thoughts in the above sentence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 11 by Reveal, posted 10-28-2010 9:50 PM Reveal has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 (1)
 Message 31 of 142 (589035) 10-29-2010 9:02 PM Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw10-29-2010 8:49 PM

Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
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.
When you start watering down science, where do you draw the line?
You apparently want to redraw the line such that science education will include magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.
No thanks.
This follows through in the field of education. In the science departments, one must follow the secular line for employment. Thus the evidence for ID is never known by the young impressional empty minds waiting to be filled with knowledge. They graduate with their minds programmed by the assembly line of secularism.
In the science departments students are expected to learn science. If they want to learn religion and other such subjects, shouldn't they be elsewhere?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 36 of 142 (589303) 11-01-2010 1:42 PM Reply to: Message 35 by Taq11-01-2010 1:28 PM

Re: When ID Becomes Scientific (never)
Then let's use this as an example of what I am talking about. What evidence, if found, would falsify your proposal? What observations, if made, would falsify the sudden creation hypothesis? If you are incapable of producing the null hypothesis THEN YOU HAVE NO HYPOTHESIS. No hypothesis = no science.
Let's ask this a different way: What evidence would cause biblical literalists to admit that the bible is not inerrant?
Not only is there no null hypothesis, fundamentalists who believe in the inerrancy of the bible will exclude any evidence to the contrary.
That's certainly not the same approach taken by Real Science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 35 by Taq, posted 11-01-2010 1:28 PM Taq has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 40 by Taq, posted 11-01-2010 5:28 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 49 of 142 (600753) 01-16-2011 11:55 PM Reply to: Message 48 by Dawn Bertot01-16-2011 11:39 PM

Re: When pigs fly
ID is an intial examination of obvious order, the likes of which are necessarily the product of design. No other or more involved examination is required to produce this very scientific fact
However, if one does choose to examine closer or over and over the results will be the same
You have no model. You have nothing but a priori belief.
We have asked creationists masquerading as IDers time and time again to provide the method for determining what is designed and what is not designed. We have yet to receive an answer that fits the scientific model. All we get is "I know design when I see it" (akin to a former Supreme Court Justice's method for identifying obscenity).
You even admit this yourself by your quote above. "Obvious order" is what you say it is, not something for which you can devise a set of rules to differentiate from "obvious disorder" or "naturally occurring" etc.
If you disagree, just provide a set of rules to identify this "obvious order." If it is to obvious it should be easy for you to do.
Remember, your rules have to differentiate between "obvious order" and natural occurrences, and those rules must be consistent and highly accurate or they are useless.
To deny that ID has a model is to deny that you yourself have a model, because ours is no different, just not as involved
All you need to do to demonstrate that ID is not scientific is to prove that we do not have a method or model
I just offered you a way to demonstrate that ID is scientific. Show us the method, the rules, for differentiating design from non-design.
Until you start to follow the scientific method you have no claim to be doing science.
(Actually, what you are doing is the exact opposite of science. You are assuming your answer based on scripture and the like and rejecting anything that does not conform. That's the opposite of science! And you're not fooling anyone who knows something about how science works.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-16-2011 11:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 11:15 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 54 of 142 (600818) 01-17-2011 11:41 AM Reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot01-17-2011 11:15 AM

Re: When pigs fly
I'm not missing the point at all.
You have been asked time and time again to provide any consistent rules for differentiating design from non-design. You can't do it.
Until you can show some method for distinguishing design you are at the "I know it when I see it" stage.
And that's not science, that's religious belief.
Now either present some rules for distinguishing design or stop pretending ID is science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 11:15 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 56 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 12:01 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 58 of 142 (600828) 01-17-2011 12:11 PM Reply to: Message 56 by Dawn Bertot01-17-2011 12:01 PM

Re: When pigs fly
clear, obvious, observable and demonstrable order are not "I know it when I see it"
So how do you know? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
What rules allow you to predict, with accuracy and confidence, what is designed and what is natural?
Face it, you have nothing resembling science. You have belief so strong that you can't even see what you are doing. But belief is not science--it is the opposite.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 56 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 12:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 12:22 PM Coyote has not replied Message 61 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 2:37 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 (1)
 Message 61 of 142 (600858) 01-17-2011 2:37 PM Reply to: Message 58 by Coyote01-17-2011 12:11 PM

Re: When pigs fly
...if mine is not a model then show how
A. It is not an examination
B. Show why that examination process is not a model
C. Show why the conclusions of that examination oand model do not follow the same rules as your model
D. Show why the conclusions of the ID model arent as valid as any reached by the SM
A. Show us the examination! In science we start with observation, and when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact. Is this what you mean by "examination?" What facts do you have? And how do you evaluate and confirm those facts? You claim something is designed? How do you confirm that fact? How do you tell what is and what is not designed? What rules or criteria do you use? Without a formal process for confirming observations as facts you have nothing.
B. Your "examination" is far from a model. Once you have a body of verified facts, then you can propose hypotheses to explain them. Once those hypotheses have been tested, the surviving ones begin to take on explanatory power, and may eventually end up as what we call a "theory." A model is not a theory; it is more akin to an hypothesis:
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process
C. You have no verified facts from which to draw conclusions. You only have "I know design when I see it." That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.
D. Same as C.
This is where we came in. Until you can determine reliably what is designed and what is not designed you have nothing. You're at the "I know design when I see it" level and that isn't science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 58 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 12:11 PM Coyote has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-19-2011 3:33 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 77 of 142 (601218) 01-19-2011 9:21 AM Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot01-19-2011 3:33 AM

Re: When pigs fly
Dawn, your own writings show that when it comes to science and the scientific method you have no clue.
I'm not going to waste any more time with you for a while.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-19-2011 3:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 91 of 142 (601335) 01-19-2011 9:55 PM Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw01-19-2011 9:49 PM

What do geophysicists say caused the phenomenon?
Anyone interested in science knows what caused that.
What does either the ID or creationism model say caused it, and why?

 This message is a reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 9:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 10:06 PM Coyote has replied Message 98 by Kapyong, posted 02-28-2011 4:45 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 (1)
 Message 94 of 142 (601343) 01-19-2011 10:31 PM Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw01-19-2011 10:06 PM

I am interested. I Googled but did not know what to call them so didn't get hits. You tell me. Perhaps then I can give an objective answer to the questions. What's the big secret? You''re the geophysicist.
No, I'm an archaeologist/physical anthropologist.
But I want you to apply the ID/creationist model and tell us how you would arrive at the answer.
That is what scientists had to do--apply the scientific method.
But creationists/IDers claim to be doing science, so how would they find out this answer, and any others involving design/non-design?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 10:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 100 of 142 (612909) 04-19-2011 11:55 PM Reply to: Message 99 by Dawn Bertot04-19-2011 11:08 PM

Re: When creationists talk sense
No taq you misunderstand the nature of a conclusion in these respects. the conclusion of evolution is not evolution, but must be the conclusion of, was created or is the result of soley natural causes.
False. The theory of evolution does not deal with origins, but with change over time.
The evolutionary model regaurdless of how complicated you describe it is but an examination of physical properties. The truth or falsity of evolution has nothing to do with the validty of ID. If evolution were true, it would not invalidate ID. ID stands on different ground, but uses the same process for its conclusion.
Science is not involved in a search for "truth." This is why:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
One would need to demonstrate in logical form why IDs process is not science, since it employs the self-same methods for its immediate conclusions concerning order and law
ID does not employ the same methods as science. Just for a start, ID avoids peer-reviewed journals like vampires avoid garlic. Rather, they try to con school boards and other weak-minded groups. The "premier" ID group is the Discovery Institute -- they employ hoards of lawyers and PR flaks, but have no real scientists, no laboratory, and no research budget. The bible has done their research for them, so they don't need anything more. See the Wedge Document for the sordid details.
reality and rational thinking explain what ID and creationism are, not websites
Reality and rational thinking are the exact opposites of ID and creationism.
Of course scientist dont use ID, its a conclusion of a process. They ofcourse do use the procees and model established by order and law in the natural world, which is the process for ID.
Correct, they start with a conclusion--derived from the bible, "divine revelation," superstition, folklore, and myth. They do not use the scientific method to arrive at that conclusion. The scientific method in fact comes to conclusions that are exactly the opposite of those of creationism and it's illegitimate offspring, ID.
What physical experiments could let you know for sure, it is not the result of a designer. Of course you could conduct no such test, which means one of sevearal things
You are incorrectly evaluating the IDs methodology
You are requiring of IDs methods something you dont for yours, because:
You are confusing the conclusion of ID with your process
You are misapplying the principle of falsifiabilty to ID, when it should be applied to its process
Your ignoring the fact that some physical principles (order and law) dont need to be continually retested if theve been demonstrated to be true and valid
Your ignoring the fact that order and law are as valid as change and natural selection to any conclusions concerning the origins of things
And finally you are ignoring the fact that any processes (models) that accurately (by scientific examination) explain the causes for the natural world and its origins, are scientific and should be taught in the science arena
Since the ID process (model) follows any logical and scientific examination process, it would follow logically that it has nothing to do with religion and should be taught as science.
Wrong. Just wrong.
You are arguing as most creationists and IDers do. You know the truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH, and TRVTH. But you know it from sources other than the scientific method. So sure are you that you and only you know creationists/IDers know the truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH, and TRVTH that the scientific method is an impediment, to be discarded if it does not show the same results as you believe to be the truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH, and TRVTH.
As a result you flock to the internet to convert the heathens with your scientific acumen, and--totally ignoring the warnings of St. Augustine--spout nonsense. Here is the advice of St. Augustine. Please apply it as needed:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 99 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-19-2011 11:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-20-2011 1:48 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 105 of 142 (613176) 04-22-2011 10:33 AM Reply to: Message 104 by Dawn Bertot04-22-2011 9:33 AM

Re: When creationists talk sense (i.e., never)
Peter they dont want Design taught, not because it cant be accurately demonstrated, but because they are afraid the flood gates would be open for any religion to tout their claims and they percieve it as a step backwards
Scientists don't want design taught because it is not science. It's that simple. It is dogma pushed by PR flacks and lawyers, such as those at the Dishonesty Institute using the corrupt methods exposed in the Wedge Document.
And it is a step backward, as is all religious dogma. Science looks at the real world and tries to figure it out. Science follows where the evidence leads.
Religion begins with dogma and twists, misrepresents, or ignores any evidence that fails to conform to that dogma. That is the exact opposite of science and claiming it isn't is just foolish.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-22-2011 9:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2011 4:12 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 110 of 142 (613268) 04-23-2011 8:40 PM Reply to: Message 106 by Dawn Bertot04-23-2011 4:12 PM

Re: When creationists talk sense (i.e., never)
Dawn Bertot writes:
Scientists don't want design taught because it is not science. It's that simple. It is dogma pushed by PR flacks and lawyers, such as those at the Dishonesty Institute using the corrupt methods exposed in the Wedge Document.
Perhaps you could post a few of the points that demonstrate this from the Wedge document. Im going to bet, it or them have nothing to do with the process or rational behind ID and creationism. Atleast not in its realistic sense
Anywho lets see it
The Wedge Strategy
Highlights:
INTRODUCTION
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art
The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
See much science there? Any use of the scientific method? Any attempt to go from data gathering to hypothesis to testing and finally to theory?
No?
It's just PR and apologetics, using the fraudulent ID "science" as a cover to push a particular religious belief.
The Wedge Document was an internal fund raising paper that leaked out and gave the whole sordid mess away. But the Dishonesty Institute has gone ahead and tried to con folks anyway. No shame, I guess.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2011 4:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:10 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 122 of 142 (613343) 04-24-2011 7:44 PM Reply to: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot04-24-2011 7:10 PM

Re: When creationists talk sense (i.e., never)
Dawn Bertot writes:
Speaking of the wedge document he provided Coyote writes:
See much science there? Any use of the scientific method? Any attempt to go from data gathering to hypothesis to testing and finally to theory?
No?
Of course not and that is exacally what I predicted, it would be. remember me saying it would not represent the design argument accurately, so I was correct, correct? What you quoted is and was not meant to be an argument, but a statement concerning the affects of humanistic doctrine, not a formal argument
The Dishonesty Institute, authors of the Wedge Document, are the leading proponents of ID. They do not present the design argument as a scientific argument, but rather focus on trying to fool people. They employ PR flacks and lawyers rather than scientists. Their "Fellows" are creationists first and scientists second.
If you have a problem with the quality of their scientific research (of which there is none), perhaps you should take it up with them. Perhaps you could suggest they add a research budget, and maybe open up a research laboratory somewhere. Maybe they could employ scientists who are not pushing creationism in the form of ID and see what the evidence really shows?
But I suspect that's the last thing they want to do. They really know what the evidence shows, and they are in total denial. That's why all the PR flacks and lawyers, eh?
Coyote writes:
It's just PR and apologetics, using the fraudulent ID "science" as a cover to push a particular religious belief.
No its not apologetics, its a formal statement on the affects of humanistic doctrine and its 100 percent correct, in that respect. Does the Wedge document have something of a formal argument concerning design you wish to take issue with
A formal statement? It's a fund-raising memo! They know where their bucks are coming from and they are pushing all the right buttons to get their bucks. If they were serious about ID as a scientific endeavor this is the absolute last thing they would be doing. But now, because someone let this fund-raising memo out, we can see the dishonesty in their own words. We can see that there is no science there, it's just an attempt to push a particular brand of fundamentalism.
Coyote writes:
The Wedge Document was an internal fund raising paper that leaked out and gave the whole sordid mess away. But the Dishonesty Institute has gone ahead and tried to con folks anyway. No shame, I guess.
Unless you could produce something in it that accurately reflects the position od ID as inaccurate as I have presented it ,then Ill let you have your issues with this paper and its exponents.
Accurately reflects the position of ID? This is ID! This is what's behind the scenes in the ID movement. No science but lots of schemes to push their particular brand of fundamentalism. This was shown in the Wedge Document, and again in Pandas and more recently at Dover! There is no science behind the ID movement, but there are plenty of thinly-disguised religious beliefs which IDers/creation "scientists"/creationists are still trying to foist onto any unsuspecting people they can.
Dishonest from start to finish. And you fell for it.
Edited by Coyote, : Spelling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:10 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-25-2011 5:42 PM Coyote has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Newer Topic | Older Topic Jump to:Board Administration     The Public Record     Announcements     Proposed New Topics     Suggestions and Questions Science Forums     The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy     Big Bang and Cosmology     Dates and Dating     Education and Creation/Evolution     Biological Evolution     Geology and the Great Flood     Human Origins and Evolution     Intelligent Design     Is It Science?     Creation/Evolution Miscellany     Origin of Life Social and Religious Issues     Bible Study     Comparative Religions     Social Issues and Creation/Evolution     Faith and Belief     Theological Creationism and ID Side Orders     Coffee House     The Great Debate     Free For All     Post of the Month     Links and Information     Creation/Evolution In The News     The Book Nook     Columnist     In Memoriam     Practice Makes Perfect Archives     Topic Proposals Archive     Showcase Retired Forums     Short Subjects (No new topics or messages)     Welcome visitors