Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 426 of 438 (519602)
08-15-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by Theodoric
08-13-2009 1:13 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
Why would this matter to a non christian? You keep on claiming no religious motivation, but you are the one that keeps bringing a religious bent to everything.
You misunderstand or just don't understand where I am coming from. This could be my fault as I haven't explained some of my views thoroughly.
Once again, everyone has motives. All the people who post on this forum have motives.
The motives behind someone who wishes to teach or perpetuate ID is based on either religion or the pursuit of truth or science. The motives behind someone who wishes to teach or perpetuate Darwinism could be based either on religion, antireligion, pursuit of truth or science.
What do you have left when works and rituals are taken out of religion? You have faith and beliefs. Since ID does not tell us what kind or religious rituals to perform, all that is left is belief.
If you wish to define science as something that doesn't pursue the truth and ID is something that does pursue the truth then, I won't argue with you. Although, ID can be placed into scientific framework that allows it to be a casual competing explanation for origin of life and the origin of what is beyond life.
Motives behind perpetuating Darwinism could easily come from the faith of antireligion or atheism. (I'm not accusing you of the following.) Darwinism could also be an attempt to build a cocoon or a bubble around your psyche in order to shield yourself from the realities of life or religion. I'm not asking anyone here to be upfront and honest with me. Bubble worlds are somewhat personal and this particular one may require introspection for people to see it within themselves.
As a trader I have learned that shielding myself from the realities of the world can easily be injurious to my bank accounts. I may not like realities as I suspect many Darwinists don't but, I have to learn to deal with reality. Building a bubble world and isolating myself from it isn't a good way to do this in my opinion.
I wish to bite the bullets of complexity. Stephen Jay Gould seemed to I have a trait that I admire. He seemed to engage what may not have been comfortable. He attempted to bite the bullets of complexity.
Darwinism, symbiogenesis, biological self-organization models, natural genetic engineering, intelligent design, assemblism (my hypothesis) and creationism can be categorized from the most natural to the most supernatural explanations that attempt to explain life.
When you think about it, Darwinism and young earth creationism are the extremes. I think the answers are there somewhere between the middle in some form of a chaotic mixture.
I hope I didn't ramble too much.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2009 1:13 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-15-2009 11:41 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 432 by Percy, posted 08-15-2009 12:07 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 427 of 438 (519605)
08-15-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Huntard
08-13-2009 1:23 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
I would have agreed with you if it wasn't his last comments starting at 6:12. Why is he thanking Creationists? He is thanking them for the 11% drop in the amount of Christians in the US. I took him seriously. I guess you think that he was attempting to be facetious. If that is the case then I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
As you might expect, I have researched the nylon eating bacteria in various ID sites on the net.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2009 1:23 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Huntard, posted 08-15-2009 11:29 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 429 of 438 (519608)
08-15-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Wounded King
08-13-2009 2:20 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
You picked a good science site in an attempt to provide support for your debate. I can use your site as well as you will see here.
NCBI - Not found
I looked at a those Edzard Ernst links. As far as I know, professions such as homeopathy and chiropractic are not part of intelligent design. They are independent from original design. Substances such as minerals and phytonutrients are part of the grand design.
Now type in these search terms on your site. "selenium cancer double blind" You will see that #6 shows a statistical decrease of cancer incidence of 25% by just supplementing with 200 micrograms of selenium. Do you know of an over the counter drug that can claim the same benefits? How about seaching for the 20 or so other minerals your body needs to play parts in enzyme functions? How about supplementing selenium as well as other minerals in your diet? I wonder how much cancer incidence would decrease if other minerals were used as well.
I can use whatever search term I want. How about "phytonutrient cancer"? Click on the first study that you see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Wounded King, posted 08-13-2009 2:20 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Wounded King, posted 08-15-2009 1:37 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 430 of 438 (519610)
08-15-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by Huntard
08-15-2009 11:29 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
But nothing came up that you could counter it with? What a surprise. Or, if you think you do have something, you probably still haven't.
You assume too much. Not a good practice for someone who wishes to hunt for the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Huntard, posted 08-15-2009 11:29 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Huntard, posted 08-15-2009 1:36 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 433 of 438 (519617)
08-15-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by DevilsAdvocate
08-15-2009 11:41 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
And how is pursuing research in biological evolution religious if this is what I am construing from your statement?
It isn't necessarily religious. I'm just leaving some room for religious pathways such as forms of new age who may wish to embrace Darwinism. Interestingly, Kenneth Miller says that Darwinism reinforces his faith in Catholicism. I suppose his thinking is based on the hierarchal structure of this religion and the steps people should take to ascend up the ladder of evolution to sainthood.
Where do you derive this from? Who is proposing this? So are you saying that ID trumps science? What exactly are you trying to say here?
I'm saying science does not directly pursue the truth. It attempts to explain through falsification and testable methods. It attempts to compare competing hypotheses and theories to each other. Traditional scientific explanations automaticall resist or disqualify any inference to designers that cannot be found through empirical means. "You can't put God in a test tube", they say. I say, "You can't put Attila the Hun in one either."
So now you are proposomg ID as science? You just said you agreed that science 'doesn't propose the truth'. So than in your logic, ID shouldn't reflect reality either.
I think that science does reflect reality many times but not in all senarios that attempt to explain reality. Maybe taking something written from Michael Behe can help explain it.
"Intelligent design makes the cathedrals but Darwinism decorates the spandrels." - paraphrased from Behe
You do realize many of us are previous Christians (I was one for over 20 years). We have just decided to take a hard, rational look at all the evidence and determine for ourselves where this evidence leads. Do you also realize there are many Christians and other religious people (including Christian scientists) that have no problems with biological evolution and incorporate this into there worldview (it's call Theistic Evolution, look it up).
That is cool with me. Maybe I would seek to listen to their reasoning instead of listening to reasoning from people like Richard Dawkins.
Again double-edged sword that can be used against all people including religious people themselves.
That doesn't bite the bullet of complexity.
How did God create DNA? Can you explain this with science? If not than it is not science.
That is probably the best simple refutation that ID is not science that I have seen. But I will state it again here. Why does ID have to break natural laws and be something totally inclusive of the supernatural? Obviously, when people design objects from intelligent processes, they didn't have to break natural laws or evoke the supernatural.
I think good rational, logical and non-emotional interchanges like this are the only ways to bridge these two worldviews.
That is a good way to end this debate for now.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-15-2009 11:41 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-17-2009 10:13 PM traderdrew 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