Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
43 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,885 Year: 18,921/19,786 Month: 1,341/1,705 Week: 147/446 Day: 43/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6686
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 391 of 438 (518909)
08-09-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by traderdrew
08-09-2009 1:38 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Although you do have some points in some of your posts, I think we agree to disagree and there is no point in further arguing with our disagreements. I will let you have the last word.

So you are not willing to provide any backing for the arguments you presented? That is very dissapointing. I guess I have to question all of your arguments and assertions if you are not willing to defend them.

Oh, I don't disagree. Until you can provide some evidence for your assertions, I think the logical conclusion is you are wrong.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by traderdrew, posted 08-09-2009 1:38 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 12:16 PM Theodoric has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 392 of 438 (519216)
08-12-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Theodoric
08-09-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Creation
WTF? Faith? The Theory Evolution has no basis in faith, its basis is in scientific evidence. Please show this faith of which you speak.

Copied from post #369:

No,... evolution is not a religion but people can treat is as such. When someone says, "Evolution hasn't explained everything." that means that it falls within pure science.

When someone says something to the effect as the following quote does: "Evolution hasn't explained everthing but, I'm sure that one day the answers will be found and Darwinism will be able to explain it someday." That seems like faith to me.

You are not going to ask me for a person who stated this are you?

Is anyone trying to get Dawkins taught in school?

Is atheism science? I think ID is science. If ID is not science it is a metascience.

Id and its proponents claim an Intelligent designer started it all and designed(created) the species of the world. This is supernatural. You believe in a supernatural designer.

How do you know that it is supernatural??? Supernatural belongs to Creationism. People didn't employ the use of supernatural powers to design sophisticated machines.

You claim to be a follower of druidism. Which flavor do you follow? Druidism can mean many things. Ultimately follows of druidism believe in a god or gods. SO I think it is easy to see how your belief in ID is influenced by your religious beliefs.

Religion can be a powerful motif. Everyone has motives including scientists and people who post on the evcforum. Motives DO NOT automatically render statements as invalid. So why not stick to the subject matter and leave things like motives and atheism and religion out of it?

Now, where are your other questions? I am still going to let you have the last word.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 12:49 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 12:21 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 396 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2009 1:10 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 402 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 4:39 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 393 of 438 (519218)
08-12-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Theodoric
08-09-2009 2:05 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
I think I am starting to understand you now. Work with the facts because the facts talk and the rest of it walks. Is that how you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 2:05 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 4:34 PM traderdrew has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 394 of 438 (519219)
08-12-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by traderdrew
08-12-2009 12:11 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Is atheism science?

No.

I think ID is science.

What you think is irrelevant. It doesn't follow the rules of science, therefore it is not. If I walk onto a football field and start playing tennis, would you insist that I was in fact playing football?

If ID is not science it is a metascience.

Say what now?

How do you know that it is supernatural???

Ok, what designed us then? In the case you say aliens (that are then even more complex than us) where did they come from? Other Aliens? Is it Aliens all the way back? Where did the very first life of the universe come from then? A supernatural designer you say? Oh dear, that's religion...

Supernatural belongs to Creationism.

Really, then what is the designer?

People didn't employ the use of supernatural powers to design sophisticated machines.

We're not talking about machines or people, now are we.

Religion can be a powerful motif.

And the prevailing one.

Everyone has motives including scientists and people who post on the evcforum.

Of course, that's why we have the scientific method, to eliminate motifs infecting the results.

Motives DO NOT automatically render statements as invalid.

Not as is. However, they can be telling when it comes to the validity of the statement. Of course, science is set up to eliminate motifs.

Now, where are your other questions? I am still going to let you have the last word.

I've one for you. Who/what is the designer? Aliens all the way back?


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 12:11 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 12:51 PM Huntard has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 395 of 438 (519224)
08-12-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Huntard
08-12-2009 12:21 PM


Re: Creation
This is the second time you have stuck your nose between me and someone else. As far as I was concerned, those others had it coming.

Is atheism science? No.

That was not a question for simple inquiry. The question was offered as a counterpoint in an attempt to elucidate another point.

TD: If ID is not science it is a metascience. Huntard: Say what now?

There is physics and metaphysics and there is science and metascience. I got the term from Robin Collins.

Ok, what designed us then? In the case you say aliens (that are then even more complex than us) where did they come from? Other Aliens? Is it Aliens all the way back? Where did the very first life of the universe come from then? A supernatural designer you say? Oh dear, that's religion...

ID doesn't identify the designer. Maybe when we die we will meet the one who did it and that would be Master Yoda.

What are abstract concepts of morality? Are these concepts traceable to personal religious or antireligious views?

TD: People didn't employ the use of supernatural powers to design sophisticated machines.

Huntard: We're not talking about machines or people, now are we.

That wasn't my point. Are you even trying to get it? Aren't you hunting for the truth? Why does a creator have to use supernatural powers to create life? Aren't scientists conducting genetic engineering experiments in the lab?

Who/what is the designer? Aliens all the way back?

Of course I just answered this here. Are you asking me who designed the designer?

Something like this is in "Signature in the Cell":

Why do we need water? Because it is hot out there. Why is it hot out there? Because the sun is out. Why is the sun out? Because it isn't cloudy. Why isn't it cloudy? Because there is a lack of water in the atmosphere. Why is there are a lack of water in the atmosphere?

Do you see where this is going? It is as though every question about a designer renders the previous one as invalid.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 12:21 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 1:51 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 403 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 5:08 PM traderdrew has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 396 of 438 (519227)
08-12-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by traderdrew
08-12-2009 12:11 PM


Re: Creation
If ID is not science it is a metascience.

Dembski and the folks at the Discovery Institute are not pushing ID because it is a science, and because it follows the scientific method. They have no interest in following the data where it leads, as it leads in directions contrary to what they believe.

They are pushing ID because they think they can fool some folks, particularly in school boards and state legislatures, into accepting ID as science--when everyone else clearly knows it is not. It is creation "science" lite, dropping references to deities in favor of the thinly disguised Christian deity, now known as "The Designer" for convenience in putting across their deception.

The correspondence between creation "science" being tossed out of schools by Edwards v. Aguillard and the rise of the ID movement is pretty hard to ignore, don't you think? Especially as both are pushed by pretty much the same crowd, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 12:11 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 1:22 PM Coyote has responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 397 of 438 (519229)
08-12-2009 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Coyote
08-12-2009 1:10 PM


Re: Creation & ID
Dembski and the folks at the Discovery Institute are not pushing ID because it is a science, and because it follows the scientific method. They have no interest in following the data where it leads, as it leads in directions contrary to what they believe.

If you really want to show people that ID is wrong, you can start by commenting on post #390. If that isn't enough, I can post more of what I believe.

I don't think an ID explanation should be used just for the sake of using it. I think naturalistic explanations should be used in an attempt to explain phenomenon.

As I have explored some topics on this forum, I get the impression that some people around here (not you) seem to think that we think that everything is designed. That is just silly. Although, this might be unscientific, I think chaos is part of the unified order. How would you disprove that scientifically?

Especially as both are pushed by pretty much the same crowd, eh?

Whatever man... I have never tried to push it into the education system. I never signed anything that says it should be. It would be hard to pass it through the liberal NEA. (I'm not trying to get into politics here.) I say, let the people exercise their minds with the debate as it has surely has stimulated my thoughts.

By the way, ID does have merit. It is useful. I recently shared a new hypothesis with a scientist. (I'm not going to tell you what it was.) He told me good thinking and wanted us to brainstorm ways that we could prove it. I never would have thought of it if I was thinking from random mutations. I was thinking from design but my hypothesis was completely compliant with Darwinism. "Signature in the Cell" also briefly wrote about the work Jonathan Wells is doing on cancer.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2009 1:10 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2009 1:47 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 400 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2009 2:13 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 404 by Wounded King, posted 08-12-2009 5:24 PM traderdrew has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 398 of 438 (519230)
08-12-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by traderdrew
08-12-2009 1:22 PM


Re: Creation & ID
Your post #390 was almost entirely a criticism of "Darwinism" (whatever that is).

You briefly mentioned ID in terms of "it would have predicted..."

But there is no body of science or scientific study making up ID. Nor does it, in practice, follow the scientific method. In fact, ID is rarely seen anywhere where it is not associated with religion, or pushed by religious activists.

Look at Dembski's courses in ID at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

AP410 This is the undegrad course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

AP510 This is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

AP810 This is the D.Min. course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade).

Do you see any science in there anywhere?

Sorry, ID is religion lite, everyone knows it, and there is no way to put the cat back in the bag.

They'll just have to think of some other way to disguise their religion so they can get back into the schools; this one didn't work any better than creation "science" did.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 1:22 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 5:30 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 406 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 10:36 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 399 of 438 (519231)
08-12-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by traderdrew
08-12-2009 12:51 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
traderdrew writes:

This is the second time you have stuck your nose between me and someone else. As far as I was concerned, those others had it coming.


Well excuse me. You don't have to reply, you know. But thank you for doing so.

That was not a question for simple inquiry. The question was offered as a counterpoint in an attempt to elucidate another point.

Ok, I'll leave it at that then.

There is physics and metaphysics and there is science and metascience.

Since metaphysics isn't real physics, "metascience" then isn't real science (it's a made up word in fact). Thank you for proving our point.

I got the term from Robin Collins

He's an ID'er. So no wonder he makes up words.

ID doesn't identify the designer.

Ok, but follow this logic with me. There are only two possible designers. Aliens, or supernatural beings right?

Maybe when we die we will meet the one who did it and that would be Master Yoda.

Wait, that sounds like....yes! Religion!

What are abstract concepts of morality? Are these concepts traceable to personal religious or antireligious views?

We're not talking about them. We're talking about your designer.

That wasn't my point. Are you even trying to get it? Aren't you hunting for the truth? Why does a creator have to use supernatural powers to create life?

He doesn't. But then where does this natural designer come from?

Aren't scientists conducting genetic engineering experiments in the lab?

They are. Where did the natural designer come from?

Of course I just answered this here. Are you asking me who designed the designer?

In essence, yes. If the aliens evolved by natural means, you just set it all one step back. If something supernatural created them, it's religion. So, which is it? Evolution is true, yet occurred one step before us. Or it's religion.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 12:51 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 10:54 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 400 of 438 (519235)
08-12-2009 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by traderdrew
08-12-2009 1:22 PM


Re: Creation & ID
I get the impression that some people around here (not you) seem to think that we think that everything is designed. That is just silly.

Why is that "just silly?" Which of these things are and aren't designed in ID Land?
Escherischia coli
asteroids
humans
snowflakes
molecules of glutamic acid
protostars in the Orion Molecular Cloud


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 1:22 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 10:56 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6686
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 401 of 438 (519251)
08-12-2009 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by traderdrew
08-12-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
I think I am starting to understand you now. Work with the facts because the facts talk and the rest of it walks. Is that how you think?

I have no idea what the hell that means.

But do think that facts are very important. Evidence is very important. Subjective feelings are not worth much. Everyone has different ideas and impressions of everything. We nee to look at the underlying reality, the facts if you will, in order to figure out what is what. The scientific method helps us to do this.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 12:16 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 10:58 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6686
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 402 of 438 (519252)
08-12-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by traderdrew
08-12-2009 12:11 PM


Re: Creation
Is atheism science? I think ID is science. If ID is not science it is a metascience.

You claim ID is not religion, but you counter ID with Atheism. Interesting. You do know that atheism and the TOE are not in any way related don't you. But that you counter ID with the opposite of religion shows what you really feel about ID.

I think Huntard did a great job replying to the other pints that could be made.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 12:11 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6686
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 403 of 438 (519254)
08-12-2009 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by traderdrew
08-12-2009 12:51 PM


Re: Creation
There is physics and metaphysics and there is science and metascience. I got the term from Robin Collins.

You do realize that metaphysics isn't a branch of physics don't you. It is a branch of philosophy.

Metascience is just a made up ID word. D you kn \ow what they define metascience as? Try this, the unification of science and religion. Then you mention Robin Collins. But you continue to claim that you and ID have no religious component. All of your sources are religious. All of their arguments are religious. Robin Collins is a professor of philosophy at a religious college.

Here is a quote from a student on the college web page.

quote:
"No matter what class I’m taking, my professors always strive to apply what we’re learning to our spiritual walk."

More from that page.

quote:
Our professors are not only accomplished scholars but also practicing Christians who teach their areas of expertise and serve as role models for in integrating a life of faith with intellectual pursuits.

Collins teachers at a school that all employees and students must follow a covenant that says.

quote:
Students at Messiah College are required to sign a Community Covenant upon entering. The document states that every person is created in the image of God, and that there are certain responsibilities of living in community that must also be assumed in relation to God, others, and his creation.

First and foremost, the Community Covenant affirms belief in God and the Bible.



If you question whether professors must follow this, according to the college website.

quote:
At Messiah College, the Community Covenant, as found the student handbook and referenced in the employee manual, provides a biblical framework and context for our community life and “affirms that life draws meaning from submission to Christ and service to others.”

All of you ID sources are hyper religious, but you continue to claim that religion is not part of it.

Aren't you hunting for the truth?

Ahh here is the kicker. No scientists are not hunting for the "truth". They are going where the facts lead them. The pursuit of the truth seems to be a need of the religious. We will never know 100% about much, but science keeps discovering more and more.

Why does a creator have to use supernatural powers to create life?

If the creator is not supernatural,(I see you switched form designer to creator, is that telling or what) who created the creator. If it is not supernatural it most be aliens. Do you see where this is going? At some point you and the rest of the IDers must present some sort of EVIDENCE. As yet we ain't seen none.

Oh by the way this is an open forum. Anyone can respond to anyone's posts. I do not think Huntard stuck his nose anywhere and of you have a problem with it tough. I welcome his and others input. Maybe you should listen to some of them.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 12:51 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 11:17 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 404 of 438 (519255)
08-12-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by traderdrew
08-12-2009 1:22 PM


Re: Creation & ID
"Signature in the Cell" also briefly wrote about the work Jonathan Wells is doing on cancer.

Creationist/ID publications are about the only place you could find anything out about this. Apart from Wells highly speculative, non research based paper published in 2005 (Wells, 2005) in Rivista di Biologia, the National Enquirer of biology journals, nothing whatsoever has come of Well's fanciful 'Polar Ejection' model for cancer.

Also, when trying to distance oneself from the religious crazies a Moonie who is on the record saying he signed up to do a biology Ph.D. because his spiritual mentor told him to do so so he could challenge darwinism seems a funny choice, see his own words on the matter.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 1:22 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 11:25 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6686
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 405 of 438 (519257)
08-12-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Coyote
08-12-2009 1:47 PM


Re: Creation & ID
Your post #390 was almost entirely a criticism of "Darwinism" (whatever that is).

They truly believe that if they can show faults with TOE, then they have some how miraculously validated ID. They do not understand that even if TOE is proved wrong tomorrow, this does not make ID any more probable.

The whole idea of science eludes them, even the scientists in the bunch. I guess that is what happens when your thoughts are consumed with finding the "truth".


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2009 1:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 11:30 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019