It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 20
1
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
The very existence of a scientifically observable order in Nature is a logical proof that life CANNOT have evolved through a random process of selection based on contingency, or with species having "what it takes" to survive. Order does not creates itself on its own.. the patterns you can see in a leaf, snowflake, cell structure and what else It are not mathematically ordinate just because of random natural process... saying that is nonsense. Evolution theory explains parts of evolution, but it's not a finished, definitive answer.



[edit on 27/8/06 by Echtelion]




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
mattison, the link you gave contains papers that attempt to disprove evolutionary theory.

Completely false. Did you actually read any of these papers? Which ones?

You certainly couldn't have read this one: John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

John A. Davison describes in detail past evolutionary progressions, and pretty much accepts them as true. He doesn't however believe the process occurs by random variation and NS. That is he describes why the evidence better supports his model, and ID based model than evolutionary based one.

I bring this one up in particular because you seem to be confused. You seem to think that offering support of another model is somehow disproving evolutionary theory. It's describing why someone thinks a different model is a better fit than evolutionary theory. So what? What do you expect, do you expect that ID will somehow offer models that don't stand in opposition to evolutionary theory. What would be the point of having a new idea if it didn't offer competing theories?

The ID movement is obligated to state why they feel the evidence is more consistent with their model, it's what any new idea must do. Do you really believe that scientists who first popularized the Big Bang Model, didn't mention Steady State Theories in their work? They had to, it was the predominant idea.

ID is obligated to make a case for itself. Don't ask for something, then whine about it when you get it.

Please describe in detail how this article: W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

is an 'attempt to disprove evolutionary theory?' You can't. Two reasons, the biggest is because it doesn't, it makes a case for mutation not being a random undirected process, but an adaptive process, and the second, but no less significant is because I'd be willing to bet you didn't read it.


do you not understand my question?

I understood it quite well. I'm still willing to bet that all you did was visit the link and read the abstracts, which btw, are not the actual published abstracts, and didn't so much as download and read even a single page from one of those articles.

Would you care to elaborate on the evidence that chromosome rearrangements are in fact random process and not somehow directed as is implied in the latter article I mentioned.

I suppose you could interpret that article as being 'anti-evolution' as it states the process isn't random, but again this is the point of new ideas... to better explain existing ones.

Please explain why these authors are wrong. Please explain how chromosome rearrangements and Transposable elements are evidence for a random process like evolution, vs. ID.


i want to know where evidence that independently supports ID theory exists. i want a paper that does not so much as reference the term darwinist.

As I mentioned, those are not published abstracts, they are synopses of evidence with comparisons and contrasts to the predominant paradigm. Your request, insisting that 'evidence for ID' be free of mention of the currently accepted paradigm is unreasonable and absurd.


i don't care if evolution is right or wrong, i care about scientific integrity. ID needs independant support.

Something you'll never find if you don't bother to read it.


so far, ID is a house of cards, not one piece of evidence can independantly support it.

Oh you mean sort of like your completely uninformed and unsubstantiated posts in here in the O&C forum?

[edit on 27-8-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
They can research all they like, no-one is stopping ID research, the fight takes place on the benches and in journals, not in the political arena.

Do you really think this is true though? Take me for example. I work in mainstream science, and my only ID outlets are online. I don't talk about this stuff at work, etc. If I were to start trying to publish ID based stuff under my real name, what are the chances that anyone would consider me seriously for funding? Certainly lessened by and ID based perspective; history has demonstrated that the mainstream science community isn't kind to ID sympathizers.

You follow the forums, Mel, you know this is true.


The DI has massive amounts of funding, why don't they do some lab work?

It's an interesting point, and one that I've pondered myself for sometime... they certainly do offer fellowships, but they historically haven't been 'wet-lab' fellowships. To be completely honest with you, I am unaware of their funding. What do you mean by 'massive amounts?'


Some grant money has been offered to do research on ID, but no applications were made.

I would imagine that you are referring to the grants offered by the Templeton Foundation. Mel... seriously. You're an up and coming scientist. As an up-and-coming scientist (assuming you were pro-ID, but wanting to maintain mainstream acceptance at least prior to tenure), would you accept grant money from an agency whose mission is ""to pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and science..." it's career suicide and you have to know this.

Unless the Templeton Foundation is prepared to support you for whole career that is. Maybe I'd apply if they had some 25 year funding programs or something...


Most scientific theories earn their 'footing', why should ID just gain equality with ToE when there is little of substance in the scientific arena?

It shouldn't



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Goodness, I had no idea that this - which I started - would go on for this long


But at least there have been some cogent, intelligent, and articulate arguments set forth.

I applaud that.



Originally posted by Sonata
If godlike entities exist they only care about the end product of life not the in between parts.

That assumption is based on the perception that there does not appear to be any Ascended beings that could be considered godlike.

ID leaves room for the possibility of the ID-er not being around anymore.

As well as the possibility of an entrance at a future timeframe.

A scary thought to many...if not most.





posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Do you really think this is true though? Take me for example. I work in mainstream science, and my only ID outlets are online. I don't talk about this stuff at work, etc. If I were to start trying to publish ID based stuff under my real name, what are the chances that anyone would consider me seriously for funding? Certainly lessened by and ID based perspective; history has demonstrated that the mainstream science community isn't kind to ID sympathizers.

You follow the forums, Mel, you know this is true.


I think if IDers can produce some decent research then the climate may change. Most of the problem is just the lack of substance. Although, the political activity of the DI is not helping ID's case. Behe is obviously doing some theoretical work, you seem to have ideas for lab work, I'm sure he is quite capable of acquiring the funds from the DI and taking on a post-doc and a couple of grad students. Until some basic research is undertaken, ID goes nowhere.



It's an interesting point, and one that I've pondered myself for sometime... they certainly do offer fellowships, but they historically haven't been 'wet-lab' fellowships. To be completely honest with you, I am unaware of their funding. What do you mean by 'massive amounts?'


From what I gather the DI is bankrolled by at least one multi-millionaire christian, a bit like the new 'faith schools' are in the UK. Philip Anschutz could readily provide a million bucks if Behe needs it to gather evidence for ID.



I would imagine that you are referring to the grants offered by the Templeton Foundation. Mel... seriously. You're an up and coming scientist. As an up-and-coming scientist (assuming you were pro-ID, but wanting to maintain mainstream acceptance at least prior to tenure), would you accept grant money from an agency whose mission is ""to pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and science..." it's career suicide and you have to know this.

Unless the Templeton Foundation is prepared to support you for whole career that is. Maybe I'd apply if they had some 25 year funding programs or something...


I understand this, but funding is funding. My PhD supervisor had funding from a psychoanalysis-based institute, Freudian theories are generally sneered at in scientific psychology, but every penny helps. Behe could have easily taken the cash to fund some fundamental lab work, it wouldn't effect his standing at the moment.

Ultimately, people are going to have to stick their necks out and do some lab work for ID to get out the starting blocks.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think if IDers can produce some decent research then the climate may change. Most of the problem is just the lack of substance. Although, the political activity of the DI is not helping ID's case. Behe is obviously doing some theoretical work, you seem to have ideas for lab work, I'm sure he is quite capable of acquiring the funds from the DI and taking on a post-doc and a couple of grad students. Until some basic research is undertaken, ID goes nowhere.

I can't disagree with anything you've said here... other than pleading ignorance with respect to the availability of funds from the DI... I would imagine they could fund Behe, but I can't say for sure.



From what I gather the DI is bankrolled by at least one multi-millionaire christian, a bit like the new 'faith schools' are in the UK. Philip Anschutz could readily provide a million bucks if Behe needs it to gather evidence for ID.

Apparently, the DI rec'd grants and gifts amounting to $4.1 million in 2003, which sounds like a lot, but after salaries and stuff are paid... it's doubtful that there would be much leftover for research.



I understand this, but funding is funding. My PhD supervisor had funding from a psychoanalysis-based institute, Freudian theories are generally sneered at in scientific psychology, but every penny helps. Behe could have easily taken the cash to fund some fundamental lab work, it wouldn't effect his standing at the moment.

It certainly wouldn't affect Behe's standing, and in fact might help him to earn back some credibility. And while you're point re: your PI's funding is well taken, the idea while perhaps antiquated and lacking modern appeal is not (to my knowledge at least) played up as complete pseudoscience, an argument from incredulity, and literally a danger to science as we know it.


Ultimately, people are going to have to stick their necks out and do some lab work for ID to get out the starting blocks.

I've always said this... someone needs to step away from the keyboard for a bit and grab a pipette. It's unlikely that this will be me, as I have my own research interests, but someone.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
It certainly wouldn't affect Behe's standing, and in fact might help him to earn back some credibility. And while you're point re: your PI's funding is well taken, the idea while perhaps antiquated and lacking modern appeal is not (to my knowledge at least) played up as complete pseudoscience, an argument from incredulity, and literally a danger to science as we know it.


heheh, you'd be surprised, probably not seen as a danger to science, just a source of belly-laughs. Parts of Freud's original theories are still alive and well (the subconscious and motivation) but most of it is deemed pure pseudoscience and is generally laughed at these days.



Ultimately, people are going to have to stick their necks out and do some lab work for ID to get out the starting blocks.

I've always said this... someone needs to step away from the keyboard for a bit and grab a pipette. It's unlikely that this will be me, as I have my own research interests, but someone.


Well, many of us wait with bated breath.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, many of us wait with bated breath.

Interesting choice of words, mel. If I recall correctly, bated breath refers to a state wherein one almost ceases breathing through terror, awe, or anxiety.

Does the thought of ID research really fill you with terror, awe, or anxiety? Why?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, many of us wait with bated breath.

Interesting choice of words, mel. If I recall correctly, bated breath refers to a state wherein one almost ceases breathing through terror, awe, or anxiety.

Does the thought of ID research really fill you with terror, awe, or anxiety? Why?


Nah, more a state of anticipation/suspense. It's almost as bad as waiting for the new season of Battlestar Galactica.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Nah, more a state of anticipation/suspense. It's almost as bad as waiting for the new season of Battlestar Galactica.


Wait a minute... Battlestar Galactica is a show again?!


I've got to turn that TV on a little more often...

I would imagine that Lorne Greene isn't involved


What were those things with the Knight Rider Eyes called... psilons or something?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
Nah, more a state of anticipation/suspense. It's almost as bad as waiting for the new season of Battlestar Galactica.


Wait a minute... Battlestar Galactica is a show again?!


I've got to turn that TV on a little more often...

I would imagine that Lorne Greene isn't involved


What were those things with the Knight Rider Eyes called... psilons or something?


Yeah, it been updated. Pretty good, which was a surprise, a gritty show now. Season 3 starts in a few weeks. Cylons are updated and some are even humanoid, even some of the characters are quite different - starbuck = female.

I had to find something to fill the star wars void till Lucas makes this TV programme.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
As i stated earlier, and linked you too for more detail if needed, the nature of God described in the Bible is "over" or "outside" our universe and thus your 'time paradox' does nothing to refute or debunk Him.
And what does this mean, "It may be some spacetime different than ours, but it certainly has the concepts of "before" and "after"" and how on earth do you know anything about these hypothetical other space/times and their physics? You're seriously arguing how "God's continuum" must be? Based on what exactly? God is eternal, ie 'timeless,' the Alpha and the Omega, the (g)od you describe is not the same.


How do you know that the nature of God is over and outside of our universe? please don't tell me it is because the Bible tells us so. Use something else for a change, because you can't use the Bible in this debate.



It's ok to use infinity to support your world view but not mine... ok i see now, thanks.


No argument.



I posted info that represents the concensus opinion of the cosmological community, re: an oscillating universe. I'll agree it's not completely known but your version is the outdated one with much contradictory evidence. That's why very few cosmologists and theoretical physicists argue for it anymore... it's all string theory/m-theory now not 'bang-crunch,' but i'm certainly no expert... but your argument is a few decades out of date/favor.


The string theory does not exclude the bang-crunch theory.



Ok... warning duly noted, thanks for the heads up.


Again, no argument.



The choice is yours, free will and all that jazz.


How come there is free will, when "every prediction in the bible has come true"?



I believe in the God of Isaac, Abraham, Jacob, and Jesus. I'll tell no man what to believe, only answer for my beliefs when asked... i'm no preacher and i gather you're not really asking, so we can move on. Like i said if this is really your bag i'd check out BTS, lots of these topics over there.


You avoiding answering. I'll ask again: who's God is the right one? Christian, Jew, Allah, Zeus, other?



Creationists (OEers like me specifically) view nature as God's creation .. we try and detect his signature ie, evidence it's not random if you will. All is God for me BTW... he's in you too. Many ID suporters are not Christian and do not speak of creation by God... this is a typical critic strawman that doesn't reflect the community as a whole or the design paradigm being argued... just an easy out so as to avoid the real issues. "Nature did it," cause we said so... *shrug* not satisfing for me, but whatever floats your boat. See there "God did it" in a leisure suit... don't you hate lazy arguments like that.


And how do you know that what you see around you is God's creation? where does it say that?

Actually there is no evidence, it is only in your mind.



Those are the qualities of the God i worship... you brought it up with your ridiculous "proof" that there's no God. Did you want me to describe God based on my visions or something? What exactly are you looking for? You're an atheist, i get it... no answer is good enough, you have no faith.


I want you prove to us God's existence without quoting religion.



Doesn't please me to know that but i realize nothing i could say or do would change that. Like i said, just showing why my beliefs trump your "proof," i didn't expect you to accept it.


Again, no argument here.



We have His word. Where'd you think my verses above came from?


Sorry pal. No proof of religion with religion.



I proved your infantile version of "a god" doesn't exist... don't put words in my mouth. And your, 'it's too complicated God must've did it,' claim is just as ridiculous. Why do people debate subjects they haven't had any experience with... you try and disprove God by making up your own definition and ID by inventing your own hypothesis... real original.


So IDers don't support "it is too complicated God must have did it".
So what do they support?

I challenge you to prove that the complexity argument is not the main argument of ID.



That has too been the most bassackwards "proof" i've ever seen. God is immeasurable, omnipotent... your "proof" is severly lacking all 'round. Regardless of how many times you say it... it's nonsense.


It is as nonsense as ID.



Did this stuff come off a bubble gum wrapper? The philosophy of life according to hubba bubba?


Hey, don't insult the Great Spaghetti Monster! his noodly appendage might get you!



FYI there all false. Unless your arguing against some concept of God i'm unfamiliar with. I gave you plenty of examples of what i meant by God... again i suggest taking these brilliant examples over to BTS.


And leave you here pretending your attempt at conversion is an intelligent debate? no way.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
Funny, a person refutes thoelogical jiberish with logical statements and he becomes a stand-up comedian. Didnt think it was that easy to become one! Oh and ofcourse the core reasoning behind the logic is totally thrown out and replaced with religious nonsense coupled with ill humor. Ill indeed!


I really, really recommend you check out the definitions of strawman

straw man: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
When I read that, I( and i'm assuming masterp as well), interpreted your use of that word in your arguments as a nice little weapon to call logical arguments fallacious without really hearing them.I guess no stand up comedy for you!


Continuing to rely on "we don't know for sure" isn't a debate, it's a cop out.

Actually no, its a sign of growing up for humans and taking it a step at a time without conjuring up bearded dude in heaven stuff. I personally think ID is a cop out. Its like saying "we cant answer for sure right now so why dont we make stuff up so we can get on with our lives and not have to use that brain of ours. Whats this logic thing anyways, is that a tropical fruit that grows in heaven?"

I've met my fair share of quacky mathematicians in my short life and I might have a few things to say about W. Dembski who equates improbability to increased measures of complexity. I dont understand why they call him a "leading logician" sometimes. I guess on a scale of 1-10 of being drunk...they went "out of the box". He seems to keep fine tuning the ideas( shot down by various highly intelligent biologists with plenty of evidence) put forth by the adamantly IC-whoring Michael Behe. Factual examples in nature however refute Dembski's defintions. Complexity points to chance, while simplicity points to design.

masterp, by the way you get my way above vote for having immeasurable patience to sift through childish rants, distasteful sarcasm and plain nonsense to find arguable topics!

I'm out.



Gee, thanks a lot. We need more people like you. We need to stand and fight this war, because it is the most important thing ever. If we are to survive as a species, that is.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
The very existence of a scientifically observable order in Nature is a logical proof that life CANNOT have evolved through a random process of selection based on contingency, or with species having "what it takes" to survive. Order does not creates itself on its own.. the patterns you can see in a leaf, snowflake, cell structure and what else It are not mathematically ordinate just because of random natural process... saying that is nonsense. Evolution theory explains parts of evolution, but it's not a finished, definitive answer.



[edit on 27/8/06 by Echtelion]


No, actually you are wrong. Order can arise out of chaos. See the mathematical theory of Chaos where order arises from it in the form of fractals, and other shapes.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."Source

That's what ID is... regardless of what you'd like to pretend it is [ie, creationism.]


ID is nothing else than creationism disguised as a non-religious affair.

So let's suppose we accept your idea of ID.

WHAT A COINCIDENCE THAT YOUR INTELLIGENT CREATOR HAPPENS TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE CHRISTIAN GOD!

Why don't you support the simulation argument? let me tell you why: because ID is hidden creationism, that's why.



Please review the definition for cult. Report back, thanks. Also are you saying that life is a 1 in 10 shot? If so, care to back that up? Check the link in my signature for a more detailed look at the actual issues/figures.


The universe contains 200,000,000,000 galaxies, each one with 200,000,000,000 stars. Isn't that enough for a test bench?



Have you thought of writing up your 'ten-sided die' hypothesis. Scientists have been working on abiogenesis for well over fifty years now to no avail, you're gonna be famous.


two words: "miller experiments".

What I found extremely amusing is that IDs can not accept that things are not designed, but at the same time their designer can happily be omnipotent, omnisient and whatever omni- they want!

That's brilliant: it is like saying "i am blind, but today it is a shiny day."



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Take Irreducible Complexity [IC] for example, regardless of your opinion on its merit: Does not knowing the identity of the designer make testing IC impossible? Which tenants of ID, specifically, cannot be tested due to a lack of knowledge about the designer? Have you read any ID arguments? Which ones and; did you disregard them based on these issues you have with who/what the designer is?


Irreducible Complexity is another term for 'being so complex it could only have been designed".

There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity". Things that seem to be 'irreducibly complex" are created so by a long process of emulation: one part ends randomly being in a state which forces another part to be developed in a very specific way, then the first part is adapted to the 2nd part.



I'm not calling it a [T]heory... that was the op not me. I got no issues with, or desire to argue about, calling it a hypothesis, paradigm or what-ever-else floats your boat. What would you consider acceptable "evidence" for ID, would anything suffice? I'll ask again: Which ideas (



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Last time. ID is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence.
[edit on 21-8-2006 by mattison0922]


what is 'tangible signs'?

what qualifies as 'tangible' or not?

if you say "preexisting", don't you put a spacetime constraint on it?

how come signs are evidence?



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
And in fact I've described here in this thread how ID can operate perfectly comfortably within that framework you've described above.


Of course you have. There is no way to prove or disprove that an intelligent designer acted upon nature's structures.

Can you at least tell us WHY THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER BUILT THIS MARVELLOUS UNIVERSE?



Completely and utterly untrue once again. In fact, that's what ID is about... an explanation for observed phenomena.


How come ID is an explanation? it does not explain anything, it only offers a conclusion.



The Bible has nothing to do with ID. You're thinking of Creationism.


Hypocrisy at its full effect.



Nope. It's an origins theory. Like any origins theory, it attempts to explain observed phenomena in the most parsimonious manner.


Nope. It is not a theory, because it does not have a logical structure, and it is not only about origins, because an intelligent designer can put his devine hand anywhere.

From the moment we accept the presence of an intelligent designer, all hell breaks loose: "I don't like you and I shot you? that's ok, the intelligent designer told me. He has higher plans, I don't know."



Totally untrue. The idea arose specifically from observed phenomena. In fact, what ID does is exactly this. Mike Behe was an evolutionist for years before becoming an IDist. Why did this happen? What did he somehow lose knowledge re: origins theories? In fact, this is the story in many cases. Often times supporters of the ID movement were in fact once ardent evolutionists, myself included. The science is what brought many people to ID in the first place.


You are a supreme twister of reality! you are fine "snake oil" salesman, sir!

Look, here it goes:

1) it is either that ALL things have a system of laws that allows its creation or

2) no thing has a system of laws.

You can not apply a systemic approach partially. ID does exactly that.



Furthermore, ID based experiments are completely capable of yielding results that have the potential to be interpreted mechanistically. It's the nature of science in general. New mechanisms are often postulated in light of new data; and new types of data are often generated not only by new techniques, but new bases of hypothesis formation.


There is no such thing as ID-based experiments. It is a phrase that does not make sense, because ID is a hypothesis in the first place that is unprovable.



ID doesn't 'assume there was a creator' it hypothesizes design based on the observed evidence. The principles on which ID is based, whether or not you agree with their validity, are observed in living systems, and design is hypothesized as a result of this, not the other way around. Though that is probably the most effective way to spin it.


No, not really. If you hypothesise about design, you are hypothesizing about a creator.



In fact, Michael Denton sums this perspective up quite nicely in Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

“The inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.”



Analogy is not logic. You can not use analogy to reach a logical conclusion. For example:

-"a black person broke into my house"
-"most people in prison are blacks"
-"therefore blacks have a tendency to crime"

The above perfectly analogous argument is bogus, of course.



Please. Design theory has existed in one form or another since at least the Greeks. The concept of design isn't new or foreign.


Nope. Greeks did not embrace the design theory, at all. Not even one of them. Greeks embraced the mechanistic view, that the world is like a clock, and everything that happens is due to some law.

Actually that was the first enlightment of humanity.



Others would claim that the scientific roots of the movement go even further back. Some claim it's roots really begin in 1967, with Michael Polanyi, a physical chemist who stated that

“machines are irreducible to physics and chemistry” and that “mechanistic structures of living beings appear to be likewise irreducible.”
Please see Chem and Eng. News 45(35):54 1967.


Bleh...you are talking about "scientific roots", where at the same time someone pulled an "irreducible" opinion out of his arse.



Well, I can't speak for Rren, but personally I think if Design Theory wants a place in the biology texts, it needs to firstly establish itself as a scientific pursuit, and not just a scientific idea; secondly it needs to demonstrate its tenets experimentally, and win over a significantly greater portion of the science community than it has as of now.


Why should ID be pursuited? at which point and who decides where design stops and mechanism starts? what if someone manages to prove that whatever seems irreducible today might not be as such tomorrow (as it has happened a lot in science)?

And answer me this: WHY THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER STARTED TO DESIGN THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE?



While I don't believe that science should be a consensus pursuit, science books represent consensus scientific opinion. IOW, the reason I support the ID movement is a matter of scientific freedom, but I believe science texts should not be politicized, and I don't support any effort to strong arm anything into the science classrooms.


He he now mr Christian-guy-who-is-not-christian wants to show a higher profile. Nice try, we won't buy it, though.



Furthermore, I don't think origins biology is necessarily an appropriate topic for anything below maybe an honors level high school course. Science education at these levels should be about teaching students the way science is done, and teaching them about the scientific method, etc. I really don't think origins topics are relevant until students have a better understanding of science as a whole.


You are either undermining students or overestimating origins.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Ummm... okay.... so...

No one in this thread is advocating teaching theology in schools. Heck, no one in this thread is talking about teaching ID in schools.


But once we accept ID as true, what else is left? then ID supporters will push it in schools.



Yes, Please do, because ID and Creationism are such vastly different ideas that this sounds like a complete load of bull.


On the surface, they seem different. But, in reality, their essence is the same: "someone outside the universe has created or is creating things".



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
But that seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. If one enters the situatioon assuming that there is a creator, then any evidence found will be subject to a bias that a creator does exist. Not very logical if you ask me.

Well despite that it doesn't seem logical to you, lots of scientists who subscribed to a belief in God somehow managed to make significant contributions to science. People like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Faraday, Boyle, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, all managed to make significant contributions to science, while maintaining a belief in God, that is they assumed a creator. Imagine that.


But those people did not think of 'irreducible complexity' and such bogus things. They tried to analyse the mystery they had in front of them.

At best they believed that they discovered God's formulas. But that is different from ID: God may have set the universe in motion, and then did not manipulate it any more, it let it evolve through a set of laws. Whereas ID supports intervention.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join