Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID and the bias inherent in human nature
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 105 (208872)
05-16-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
05-16-2005 10:13 PM


Re: And now for something completely different
quote:
What connection is there between Darwinism (whatever the hell that is) and being religious or non-religious? You keep saying stuff like that that simply makes no sense.
To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, because they insist that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature-by God, for example.
Darwinists cannot accept that evolution, their pride and joy, can now be interpreted as by design through ID.
They dont want to share evolution, they want to keep the battle as it was: creationism vs evolution.
So, a distinction has to be made between naturalistic evolutionists (Darwinists) and non-materialist evolutionists (IDists / Theist-evolutionists)
You can no longer simply be called evolutionists, and we can no longer simply be called creationists. Wake up and smell the media spin.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:38 PM
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:39 PM
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 10:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 10:55 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 63 by paisano, posted 05-16-2005 10:58 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 65 by zyncod, posted 05-17-2005 1:15 AM Limbo has replied
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2005 2:18 AM Limbo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 105 (208880)
05-16-2005 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Limbo
05-16-2005 10:37 PM


Re: And now for something completely different
Well, that sure does sound pretty silly.
In fact there is no problem between Creationism and Evolution. There are many of us that are Theists and Evolutionists and also think ID is something with no meaning, no sense, no theory, no foundation, no definition, and certainly no supporting evidence.
Evolution, Darwinism (whatever the hell that is) or the TOE are entirely compatible with belief in a GOD.
The problem with ID is that there is no substance yet to ID. Maybe there will be someday, and if that ever happens, ID will be able to compete but until then it's smoke and mirrors.
Nope, even those of us that believe this Universe was created are not IDists.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 10:37 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 2:00 AM jar has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 63 of 105 (208882)
05-16-2005 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Limbo
05-16-2005 10:37 PM


Re: And now for something completely different
So, a distinction has to be made between naturalistic evolutionists (Darwinists) and non-materialist evolutionists (IDists / Theist-evolutionists)
Well, this raises a couple of questions.
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 ?
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.
Yet, ID as constructed by the Discovery Institute types seems to be pushed primarily to advance an Evangelical Protestant agenda, with a few Catholic fellow travelers overly influenced (IMHO) by Evangelicalism.
Why this lack of philosophical diversity ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 10:37 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 12:49 AM paisano has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 105 (208916)
05-17-2005 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by paisano
05-16-2005 10:58 PM


Re: And now for something completely different
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 AM
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 01:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by paisano, posted 05-16-2005 10:58 PM paisano has not replied

  
zyncod
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 105 (208920)
05-17-2005 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Limbo
05-16-2005 10:37 PM


Re: And now for something completely different
Darwinists cannot accept that evolution, their pride and joy, can now be interpreted as by design through ID.
They dont want to share evolution, they want to keep the battle as it was: creationism vs evolution.
I'm sorry, but this is another bottleneck that I keep coming up against in ID/creationist arguments. Do you have any idea how many 'Darwinists,' even among working scientists, there are for whom 'Darwinism' is only an incidental belief? I work in immunology, and although a belief in Darwinism is required for my work (otherwise I'm just torturing mice - since by ID, you could in no way know whether results in mice transfer to humans), it's not fundamental for me the way that ID apparently is for IDists. It's only one of many, many truths that I believe.
Most Darwinists have absolutely nothing riding on this debate, personally. Either they believe in God or they don't. Proving/disproving evolution will change their belief system not at all. IDists, however, have a belief system where the Creator made manifest his autograph in his works, and to disprove ID might be said to disparage the creator. If anybody were to be behind some sort of conspiracy, it wouldn't be the scientists, who have nothing riding on the debate, tend to be pretty open in general, and for the most part lack the kind of social adeptness required to carry on a conspiracy.
The only thing scientists have riding on this is that they have dedicated their life's work to pursuing truth, and to see somebody willfully turn their head away from truth is infuriating. If there were some group out there that, despite all evidence to the contrary, insisted that DNA was synthesized in the 3'->5' direction, and furthermore insisted that we teach this in schools and consider this a valid branch of 'science,' scientists/evolutionists/ polymerasists would be equally as up in arms. We DON'T CARE a whit about 'evolution' being true, as we don't care whether Newtonian/quantum physics is true. We care only about truth.
P.s.-
Besides, if we really were created by a God/alien/whatever, do you know how COOL that would be? Everything, absolutely everything, about life would be anthropology, writ large. Biology would no longer be able to tell us how the environment shaped life, but every little system in every organism would point to the methods/motives of the creator. It would be like machines in a postapocalyptic world trying to discern what humans were and why they did what they did (the intelligent designer did not necessarily have to be more intelligent than us). But there is no evidence for this and we ought to relegate this concept to science fiction stories.
This message has been edited by zyncod, 05-17-2005 01:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 10:37 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 1:39 AM zyncod has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 105 (208925)
05-17-2005 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by zyncod
05-17-2005 1:15 AM


Re: And now for something completely different
"What is Darwinism, Alex!"
Jeopardy. Whats the question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by zyncod, posted 05-17-2005 1:15 AM zyncod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by zyncod, posted 05-17-2005 2:55 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 105 (208927)
05-17-2005 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
05-16-2005 10:55 PM


Re: And now for something completely different
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 05-16-2005 10:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 05-17-2005 9:33 AM Limbo has replied
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2005 8:16 PM Limbo has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 68 of 105 (208932)
05-17-2005 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Limbo
05-16-2005 10:37 PM


Re: And now for something completely different
Shouldn't that be completely wrong ?
Plenty of people who are not ontological naturalists believe in Darwinian evolution. Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris are two well known examples.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 10:37 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
zyncod
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 105 (208937)
05-17-2005 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Limbo
05-17-2005 1:39 AM


Re: And now for something completely different
I think it's pretty apparent. Why do IDists assume that, in the whole of scientific history, theirs' is the only hypothesis that the entire 'conspiracy' of practicing scientists have tried to stop? In every other paradigm shift in the sciences, as soon as the new hypothesis (eg, the genetic theory of heredity) started getting press, you had converts among the scientists to the new hypothesis and actual research in the area of the new hypothesis. ID has been around for at least 15 years and has no converts among biologists practicing in these fields and no (published) research - please don't trot out those three or four 'published' papers; they don't have any research in them. ID does, however, have plenty of press.
The only assumption on the part of IDists would have to be that there would have to be a conspiracy on the part of scientists/evolutionists to suppress the ID viewpoint, especially in their own ranks. I'm pointing out that scientists have no reason to be attached to evolution more than any other theory in the sciences and am wondering: Given how improbable it is that scientists would pick the ID hypothesis, out of all hypotheses in history, to suppress, is it more likely that there is a conspiracy or that ID is flat out wrong? And is this not ironic, given that every single argument in ID states that highly improbable things don't ever happen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 1:39 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 105 (208943)
05-17-2005 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
05-17-2005 2:18 AM


Re: And now for something completely different
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 AM
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-17-2005 04:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2005 2:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2005 8:46 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 72 by Wounded King, posted 05-17-2005 8:52 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 73 by jar, posted 05-17-2005 9:26 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 75 by paisano, posted 05-17-2005 9:43 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 05-17-2005 10:15 AM Limbo has replied
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 05-17-2005 10:26 AM Limbo has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 71 of 105 (208984)
05-17-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Limbo
05-17-2005 3:49 AM


Re: And now for something completely different
Young Earth Creationism is a "valid" form of ID in that it is accepted as such by the ID movement. Not just "compatible" but part of the ID "Big Tent".
And I note that you don't comment on the fact that Dariwnism doe snot require ontological naturalism at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:49 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 72 of 105 (208986)
05-17-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Limbo
05-17-2005 3:49 AM


Re: And now for something completely different
I cant really think of any that arent compatable, except atheism it seems.
Careful now, you'll have the Raelians and their clone army down on us if you aren't careful.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:49 AM Limbo has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 105 (208992)
05-17-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Limbo
05-17-2005 3:49 AM


Spoting more nonsense
Since science is atheistic, we have a conflict.
There you go spouting nonsense again. Science is not Atheistic.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:49 AM Limbo has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 74 of 105 (208994)
05-17-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Limbo
05-17-2005 2:00 AM


Creation and Evolution
The odds are you are missing something. I am a Creationist and also know for a fact that Evolution happened. In addition, the best explanation of how that happened so far is the TOE.
GOD created the Universe. One of the systems created was that in living things there would be random mutations. Those mutations would then be firltered by Narural Selection.
It's not a new explanation and in fact is the scenario excepted by the majority of Christian Churches.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 2:00 AM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 4:49 PM jar has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 75 of 105 (208996)
05-17-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Limbo
05-17-2005 3:49 AM


Re: And now for something completely different
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.
Well, there's that conflation again. If science is necessarily methodologically naturalistic, this does not imply that it is necessarily ontologically naturalistic.
If you think otherwise, I think at this point you've assumed an affirmative duty to illustrate why with some evidence.
Do we want our descendants to become spiritually bankrupt Borg Drones?
No. Nor, personally, do I want my descendants to become intellectually bankrupt Fundamentalist drones (of any brand of Fundamentalism - Bin Laden's or Falwell's).
But that may be off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:49 AM Limbo 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