|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
I'll agree with that definition. It is debateable whether ID is creationism or not.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by blitz77:
ID is not creationism. Gene, how could you make that mistake? It isn't young earth creationism or even progressive creationism. Of course it is creationism because it implies a creator. The common idea behind all forms of creationism, wheither it be YEO, OEC, or ID is a creator. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ***************************** ID posits an intelligent designer that engineers all biological life on the assumption that what we observe is too complex to have arisen naturally. This requires that said designer is responsible for the creation of all life, operates outside observable natural laws, and hence it is creationism. This does not necessarily mean it is Christian creationism. However, it posits an intelligent designer that created all life. It is not science because it is 1) an assumption based on an inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed 2) presents no testable hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
No problem. I'll just change it from (neither Christian or creationist) to (non-Christian IDist).
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ****************** But then you would be excluding the Christian IDists..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: Blitz, I took a list of the books at the Discovery Institute (the driving force behind the ID movement). Here it is
Discovery bookstoreIf you really look at some of the books it becomes immediatley apparent that the site is a creationist site. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz [This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 10-21-2002] [This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 10-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Especially this one; Creation Hypothesis, TheScientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer http://www.discovery.org/...ks/creationHypothesis/index.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: Did you note that of the four main areas that the book addresses that only ONE deals with evolution. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Why should anyopne care what a conservative mathematician has to say about an issue in biology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: And barely even that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Mammuthus
Your proclamation that ID is not science is crucially flawed Mamuthus: You said:
quote: Clearly your claim of our 'inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed' presumes that they are natural before they are proven to be that! You have not proven the origin of genomes. Of course they now work naturally and are submitted to evolutionary processes but you have not proved how the genomes arrived. Your second point is also plain incorrect. Both detailed ID and YECism provide testable predicitions. IDers predict that it will not be possible to find plausible paths between major novelties. YECs make numerous predictions that the flood will ultimatley explain the fossil record or that ancient DNA will be shown to be only thousands of years old for example. But I agree that these theories are not as clear in their predicitons as gavitation. Just imagine the sceanrio of aliens turning up on our doorstep saying: "We designed those genomes you guys! The creationists almost had it right." And you'll say 'but it was unscientific'. And they'll accuse you of assuming something before it was proven. And they'll label you as unscientific. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
TB, a couple of points before I crash.
1) The origin of genomes, at least where you appear to be defineing it, will likely occur in a blurred area between abiogenesis and evolution. Namely in an area between a series of patterns in chemical copying and true life forms. Problem is I think that the closer that we get to that area the more that it will become blurred; and people think that virus's are hard to define in this respect, they ain't seen noth'in yet. 2) W.R.T. defininitions in science and the basis for science. Neither ID nor any creationism based "science" meet any of the philosophical interpretations for a science as far as I am aware. Definitely not Popperian (although I do not subscribe to a strict Popperian interpretation, a looser ony w.r.t. ability to disprove a theory is accurate IMO) and not Baconian/Inductive/Deductive either. When one of the leading lights (as it were) of ID admits in print that ID is not falsefiable then it is time for ID to hang up its pretenses of being science. I am refering of course to M. Behe and his admission in "Mere Creation" Sorry for any typos, but I am too beat to do more than a cursory spelling check. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^
ID may be hard to falisify but I don't think it's unfalsifiable. Falsifiability will always creep over time so it is not a good definition for science, even if it is typical of science. What is not falisiable now may be falisifiable in the future. Definitions of science? If having studied genomes and mechanisms of evolution one comes to the conclusion that both abiogenesis and the last 500 million years of evolution is unlikely is that unscientific? No, of course not. The last step to creationism? If you want to call that unscientific go for it. I will call it logical and I would call it consistent with the science at the very least. Abiogenesis vs evolution? I don't really agree. Genomes have advanced a lot under the heading of evolution since prokaryotes. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
TB:
Your proclamation that ID is not science is crucially flawed Mamuthus: M: You will have to demonstrate this TB. My original quote:You said: quote: TB:Clearly your claim of our 'inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed' presumes that they are natural before they are proven to be that! You have not proven the origin of genomes. Of course they now work naturally and are submitted to evolutionary processes but you have not proved how the genomes arrived. M: Yet again, TB, you demonstrate another fault in your understanding of science. You do not "prove the origin of genomes"...how many time have you been told this? In any case, I stand by my point. Your and Behe et al. inability to understand complexity is hardly supporting evidence for creation. It is merely supporting evidence for your lack comprehension. And I was careful in my wording "inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as OBSERVED". An example of this was your claim that hemoglobin popped out of thin air because you could not imagine bacteria developing such a gene yet there it is in bacteria. Arguements from disbelief are hardly supportive evidence for your own ideas. TB:Your second point is also plain incorrect. Both detailed ID and YECism provide testable predicitions. IDers predict that it will not be possible to find plausible paths between major novelties. M: My second point is fatal to ID. Your comment above states that ID is based on the prediction of the inability to find something. However, plausible paths between major novelties is common. Experiments, particularly with Drosophila, also demonstrate the types of mechanisms involved. Since "plausible paths" are constantly studied i.e. hox genes that kills your proposition regarding a prediction of ID. But the real issue is what is the testable hypothesis of ID? What are the observations and experiments that can be done to demonstrate 1. a designer 2. its intelligence? Please provide a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID.1. ID would be falsified if? 2. supporting data for ID? 3. testable predictions based on ID? TB:YECs make numerous predictions that the flood will ultimatley explain the fossil record or that ancient DNA will be shown to be only thousands of years old for example. But I agree that these theories are not as clear in their predicitons as gavitation. M: Because none of them are theories. None of your "predictions" is a hypothesis of YEC. You are merely claiming that ultimately the flood will explain the fossil record. The second issue of aDNA is your wish but not a testable hypothesis of YEC. Neither of your statements shave been supported nor would they lead to supporting data for YEC. If all aDNA studies turned out to be wrong...why would that "prove creationism"? And you already gave an example of an aDNA study that is incorrect i.e. your 250 MYA bacteria As with ID.1. what is the testable hypothesis of YEC 2.How do you falsify YEC? 3. What testable predictions (not your wish list) can you make based on YEC? 4. Where is the supporting data? TB:Just imagine the sceanrio of aliens turning up on our doorstep saying: "We designed those genomes you guys! The creationists almost had it right." And you'll say 'but it was unscientific'. And they'll accuse you of assuming something before it was proven. And they'll label you as unscientific. M: Good job TB! You use science fiction to justify non-scientific ideas ...or maybe the aliens come and say "Hey, there is no god, have a nice day". YEC/ID is not science....it is barely good fiction cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
keith63 Inactive Member |
I'm not sure which part of the constitution says you can't teach anything religious in public schools. The so called establishment clause says that congress shall pass no laws that establish a religion. I don't think showing an alternative to evolution is establishing, lets say christianity, as the only state sponsored religion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024