ID and the bias inherent in human nature

quote:

---

1) I'm sure you've discussed or heard the distinction between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism - your argument presupposes that these are perforce conflated.

​

What evidence have you that they are ?

---

Yes I'm sorry I didnt make a distinction, ontological naturalistic evolutionists are Darwinists, not necessarily methodological. Although I think there is a strong correlation between the two when it comes to the origin of life.

quote:

---

2) "Non-materialist evolutionist" still covers a lot of ground, and would seem to include characters as diverse as the Buddhist evolutionist, the Catholic evolutionist, the Unitarian evolutionist, and some categories of agnostic non materialist evolutionist.

---

Yes, there are alot of us. So when my Buddhist roomate tells me he was called a "creationist" at school for talking about ID, what should I call him instead? What is he? My friend Walt is a Catholic who does not believe in YEC, yet does not accept Darwin. He believes God directed evolution. What is he? The media says he is a "creationist." Do you see my point? When you label one side, you define the other.If you oppose mainstream science in this issue, you are a creationist according to the media, right? Where is the diversity in the media?To the media I say quit lumping us all up together as 'creationists' who only want to get creation in the classroom, and we will quit lumping you all up as Darwinists...fair enough?This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 01:09 AMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 01:12 AM

"What is Darwinism, Alex!"Jeopardy. Whats the question?

quote:

---

In fact there is no problem between Creationism and Evolution.

---

Is that so? Well, maybe I'm missing something here. Could you define creationism and evolution for me?

quote:

---

But then you didn't know that Young Earth Creationism was a valid form of ID either. So I strongly suggest that you find out what you are talking abnout instead of making claims that have no basis in reality.

---

A 'valid form of ID'? Oh, wow! We have a valid form of ID now! Cool!I think you mean a creationist worldview is compatable with ID, just as a multitude of worldviews are compatable with ID. I cant really think of any that arent compatable, except atheism it seems. Since science is atheistic, we have a conflict. If science serves only one master worldview, it will produce results consistant with ONLY that worldview, and as such it is flawed as a tool of all Humanity. Do we want our descendants to become spiritually bankrupt Borg Drones?

quote:

---

I'm pointing out that scientists have no reason to be attached to evolution more than any other theory in the sciences...

---

You must be joking.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 03:59 AMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 04:00 AM

quote:

---

I am a Creationist and also know for a fact that Evolution happened.

---

Then you are a Theist-evolutionist, not a Darwinian. You are not a naturalist, because you admit a supernatural cause to evolution. Right? Life has a cause, a purpose in your worldview, right?So why does it seem as if you are in the Darwin camp?This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 04:50 PM

quote:

---

Except that science isn't atheistic. Just like plumbing, accounting and county fairs, science takes no position one way or the other on God.

---

Its like you seek to disembody the ideals of science, let them rise above the mere mortal men and women who collectively make up the scientific community.Religion did that.The problem was, mortals dont live up to them. They pull them down.

quote:

---

Like Jar and some other evolutionists here, I believe in a God who created existence. What I don't believe is that the Bible is an accurate account of how God created. I believe Genesis records one of the Middle East's early creation stories.

---

Well then we have something in common.

quote:

---

Science deals with the world of the senses, the spirtual deals with the world of God and the soul.

---

This is one of the disembodied ideals scientists try to live up to, but fail.

quote:

---

I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science to free people from superstition. Lest there be any doubt about what Steven Weinberg here means by superstition, he adds, this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make. [Weinberg, a Nobel laureate physicist, is well-known as an ardent evolutionist. He has debated Phillip Johnson on a number of occasions on this topic. Note that the demise of religion is for Weinberg the most important contribution of science.]
Steven Weinberg, Free People from Superstition, 2000

---

When a scientist says something like this, they destroy the ideals science is supposed to live up to.

Jar, I believe that the Darwinian camp has no real grip on its philosophy, has no consistant basis for their belief, and upon examination the reasoning for thier worldview falls apart or becomes inconsistant with anyone who is not a strick philosophical naturalist or atheist. The only thing binding them together is hatred of religion.I can see many people whose worldview is ultimetly inconsistant with naturalism/materialism/Darwinism, such as yourself, yet they support the status quo.They join the Darwin camp not because of shared belief, but because of their common enemy: organized American religion.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 05:22 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 05:24 PM

quote:

---

Don't you think you're overgeneralizing? Scientists are a varied group. Some are religious, some aren't.

---

If scientists are a varied group, then let them take varied approaches. When science takes one approach, and evicts other approaches, science speaks with ONE voice. I dont see why this is so hard for you to understand.Want science to speak with more than one voice? So do I. ID is that other voice.

quote:

---

I think most evolutionary biologists, like myself, are quite dispassionate about religion. It really doesn't enter into the equation of how we go about testing what is a good explanation of life processes and what isn't. Many are actually Christians that view evolution as God's mechanism of creation.

​

I would contend it is the other way round. The only thing binding creationists together IS their religion. So what if its wrong? They don't have a scientific method, or any analogous mechanism to collect or evaluate evidence. They only have 'faith'. Isn't there a chance they are wrong ?

---

You seem to think that the public should share your insider perspective on mainstream science. I hope someday you will realize how unreasonable this expectation is.For instance, do you share an insider perspective on being a celebrity? Or do you share the publics perspective on hollywood? Do you have an insider perspective on what it means to be an officer in the military? Or do you share the publics perspective on the military?If you asked military officers about a military issue, you would get varied opinions, I'm sure. Yet the military acts as one from the public perspective, and they speak with one, united voice to the public. In this reguard its the same with science.And I would like to apoligize for using this phrase: "The only thing binding them together is hatred of religion."What I should have said was, "The only thing binding them together is a shared political agenda."This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 07:31 PM

quote:

---

Shouldn't we all strive for a balanced perspective of the landscape regardless of what side of a window we are on? Objective information is freely available everywhere today.

---

This, in my view, is what the ID leadership is trying to do in the scientific landscape.

quote:

---

Objective information is freely available everywhere today.

---

Objective? I disagree. Information is spinned from each side. Let me give you an example. Take this paper on evolutionary psychology.Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John ToobyIn this excerpt it seems to support design:

quote:

---

The pattern of results elicited by social exchange content is so distinctive that we believe reasoning in this domain is governed by computational units that are domain specific and functionally distinct: what we have called social contract algorithms (Cosmides, 1985, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992).

​

There is, in other words, design evidence. The programs that cause reasoning in this domain have many coordinated features that are complexly specialized in precisely the ways one would expect if they had been designed by a computer engineer to make inferences about social exchange reliably and efficiently: configurations that are unlikely to have arisen by chance alone. Some of these design features are listed in Table 1, as well as a number of by-product hypotheses that have been empirically eliminated. (For review, see Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; also Cosmides, 1985, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 1989; Fiddick, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1995; Gigerenzer & Hug, 1992; Maljkovic, 1987; Platt & Griggs, 1993.)

---

To avoid a design inference, the following 'spin' phrase is deftly added:

quote:

---

By illuminating the programs that give rise to our natural competences, this research cuts straight to the heart of human nature.

---

(Emphasis in original)Dont bother with a line of reseach into the appearance of design, simply slap in the word "natural", emphasise it, and PRESTO! Mystery solved. An interpretation consistant with Darwin. No fuss, no muss, no rocking the boat, no being labeled a 'pseudo-scientist', their career is safe, and the status quo goes on...and on...and on.The Human brain screams design.Now, it may be that a "natural" explanation is at heart. That is beside the point. The point is objectivity isnt there.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 01:14 AM

quote:

---

They are apparently "reevaluating" their two major design arguments (irreducible complexity and CSI) despite the fact that it is clear that neither has even been properly completed, and it is clear that as they stand both are abject failures.

---

Oh? I didnt know that. Could you provide a link to this information?

Yes, I saw that when it first came out. Are you an Orb abuser? heh

quote:

---

At the moment, we[...]are in the midst of the first major cycle of proposed refutations

---

I take this to mean that they are working on it. Im not sure if anything will come from it, I guess we wait and see. Maybe it would go quicker if the IDists in the scientific community came out of the closet. With all the hoopla they are probably scared. Its like a witch-hunt.Not only that, but I have a suspition that somewhere there are scientists working over-time behind the scenes to completely discredit ID once and for all.Whatever happens, my personal faith is safe. I'm not here to prove or disprove ID. Im here because I believe on principle science should follow the evidence wherever it leads, reguardless of the philosophy behind the scientific method.Since I am religious, I believe ID is real, and I believe that God is offering Mankind this one last chance to open its heart to Him. He knows that Mankind has grown distant from Him, and He is offering us just enough evidence to get the worlds attention, but not enough to convince all outright.He wants to see if Humanity CHOOSES to look for him, or if we turn away from the possibility of finding him. We still have a choice...still have free will about it. Seek and ye shall find, right?If we choose to uphold science as our Guiding Light, and in the process turn away from a real live opportunity to find Him, then as far as He is concerned, we have made our choice.Call it a hunch.I want Mankind to make the right choice, but I suspect it won't. It never does, lol.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 05:24 AM