Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
55 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK (2 members, 53 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,061 Year: 9,809/23,288 Month: 824/1,544 Week: 216/322 Day: 1/69 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
DWIII
Member (Idle past 310 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 200 of 336 (637485)
10-16-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 2:12 AM


Re: ID and Creationism

Definition of Intelligent Design
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.

Tell me, do they ever do what actual scientists do, such as seeking evidence against their own theories?


The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Well, this is amazing arrogance on the part of cdesignists. Frankly, I know of no other "scientific" theory which brazenly incorporates its own positive assessment of itself inside itself, such as saying "is the best explanation". See what sort of Google hits you get when you search "scientific theory" AND "best explained by": virtually all of them refer to intelligent design.

An actual scientific theory is, at its best, not contradicted by nonconforming evidence, and would be subject to revision or elimination if such actively-sought evidence were found (as opposed to outright ignored).


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:12 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Chuck77, posted 10-16-2011 5:42 AM DWIII has responded

DWIII
Member (Idle past 310 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 207 of 336 (637511)
10-16-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Chuck77
10-16-2011 5:42 AM


Re: ID and Creationism

Tell me, do they ever do what actual scientists do, such as seeking evidence against their own theories?

Tell ME, how they get variation within a kind (i.e. finch beaks) as evidence of the TOE? Not evolution but the TOE? What is the evidence other than variation and natural selection at work? Natural selection is animals adapting to their environment from already existing DNA.

So you admit that some variation happens. Since any degree of biological variation (given sufficient time) is compatible with the theory of evolution, your question makes no sense. How does this help intelligent design, which makes the stronger (and so far unsubstantiated) claim that variation goes only yea far and no farther? Where is the evidence that such boundaries exist, or have always existed?


Well, this is amazing arrogance on the part of cdesignists.

Hahahahahahahahahahahah...pot...kettle...black. Yuh, and the ID'ist are arrogant...LOL

Frankly, I know of no other "scientific" theory which brazenly incorporates its own positive assessment of itself inside itself,

Have you ever heard of the "theory of evolution"? Saying that natural selection is the mechanism to TOE is like saying because I can flap my arms like a bird eventually i'll be able to fly.

No evidence whatsoever to back up that claim.

You totally missed the point here (not surprising). Unlike the so-called "theory of Intelligent design", the theory of evolution does not include any such statement that it itself is the best explanation for biological diversity. It simply details the various mechanisms involved and will stand or fall or be subsequently modified on the evidence, nothing more.


An actual scientific theory is, at its best, not contradicted by nonconforming evidence,

LOL. Have you ever looked at the contradictory evidence against the "theory of evolution?" The entire theory is one huge assumption based on variation within a species. The Bible explains it perfectly as we see animals producing after their own kind. What exaclty are you seeing? Something different?

How does "producing after their own kind" differentiate intelligent design from evolution? This happens in evolution, too.

Really, if your only goal in life is to denigrate a theory which you (admittedly) take no trouble to even learn about, you are succeeding admirably. How about sticking a bit closer to the subject, for a change? Which version of "I Hate Evolution" would you prefer to be taught in schools: Intelligent DesignTM, or CreationismTM?


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Chuck77, posted 10-16-2011 5:42 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

DWIII
Member (Idle past 310 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(2)
Message 333 of 336 (638245)
10-20-2011 9:29 PM


My specific problem with creationist thinking (summation)
In my opinion, the beauty of most genuine scientific explanations is that they are, on the surface, counterintuitive. In other words, you would not have expected it to be this way. Creationist/designist explanations utterly lack this interesting property, mostly due to their overt reliance on appeals to incredulity.

Science is all about challenging our preconceptions about how we think the world works; and, as often happens, those preconceptions turn out to be completely wrong. Creationist/designist so-called "science" does nothing of the sort, since it consists of nothing but preconceptions and the desperate desire to hold on to them in the face of any and all evidence that might go against them. In other words, cdesignists have fallen so deeply in love with their own "theory" that falsifiability (a critical requirement of the scientific method) goes out the window.

This is why I brought up those points (messages 200 & 207) to Chuck77 regarding the Official Definition of The Theory of Intelligent DesignTM; namely that (1) cdesignists are loathe to search for evidence that would falsify their so-called "theory", prefering to search for confirming evidence only, thus explicitly relying on confirmation bias; and (2) the love that cdesignists hold for their "theory" by explicitly stating "is best explained by" smack in the middle of their Official Definition. I was genuinely hoping that Chuck77 would honestly respond to these two specific points. However, by going completely off-topic, he has utterly failed to do so.

Edited by DWIII, : typo-fix


DWIII

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020