Welcome to Gaia! ::

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius. 0.12738853503185 12.7% [ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant! 0.28343949044586 28.3% [ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis. 0.063694267515924 6.4% [ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore. 0.14649681528662 14.6% [ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball. 0.37898089171975 37.9% [ 119 ]
Total Votes:[ 314 ]
<< < 1 2 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 56 57 58 > >>
calamitynexus
Methcalarjalope
vipr230
Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.


See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.
Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.


God or no God ID is still an idea based upon "higher power" or mystical forces.

And wht parts of evolution aren't testable? The only issue we can't povide evidence for is crawling out of the primordial soup.
I don't view it as a case of a "higher power." It seems that something in our cells have the power. eek
Methcalarjalope
Feyre
calamitynexus
Feyre
calamitynexus


Not necessarily. ID evolutionists believe that evolution happens in tangent with some master plan. Someone all powerful looks at the planet and says, "Hmmm, those horses need to be bigger." Then, over x number of years, horses evolve from being the size of a dog to the horses we know today because a great designer said so.

That's just still ridiculous and unscientific.


I agree, but its how they roll. And at least ID evolutionists aren't claiming carbon dating is off by plus 70 million years

None of this negates the fact that many creationists hide behind the ID label.
conceded.

This is not my use of the term. ID for me is not creationism and it is not disproving evolution but is a new way of viewing genetic selection and mutation based on a kind of interior dynamic that is self driven in a way we don't understand. It appears to be designed or self designed or to be "intelligent." If it helps try thinking of artificial intelligence.

There's no reason to support that over Darwinism.
Methcalarjalope
vipr230
Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.


See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.
Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.


"organic evolution"? Oh, you mean abiogenesis. Anyway only "parts" of any theory are testable, it's not like we can mass the amount of hydrogen needed to have it collapse on itself to form a protostar, but that doesn't mean we can't validate the theory as a whole. Every aspect of abiogenesis is testable, we can test the affinities of the molecules for each other, show they can in fact combine in the necessary ways, and show the step by step progression to life... all that's left really is self-replicating RNA. It's a hell of a lot more empirical than "something did it instead". So abiogenesis is falsifiable, show that the chemicals really couldn't have affinities for each other or that RNA can't catalyze (although ribosomes kinda threw that out the window recently) and you falsify abiogenesis. ID however isn't testable at all, or falsifiable, you can't provide a single hypothesis to be tested for it. That's because it's creationism in a cheap tux, it's "god" or "something" that made life rather than a simple process of chemicals interacting with known affinities. However, because ID also states that all life was created in their present form with their major features in place, it REALLY is creationism in a cheap tux and violates evolution AND abiogenesis. Look up cdesign proponists. ID is simply creationism relabeled. But yeah, there's nothing scientific about it, whether your claiming "this designer made the first cell" or "the designer made all major animals with their major features intact, birds with feathers, fish with fins, etc."
Methcalarjalope
vipr230
Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.


See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.
Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.
It can be tested. My post on the matter was to show just how many components need to be discredited. To remove common descent you need multiple finds that simply do not make sense: fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, humans before dinosaurs. Then you would need to show that the gene frequencies are no longer changing over time [or perhaps if the gene frequencies are changing in a way that cannot be explained by current selection ideas]. There are multiple independent pieces that support evolutionary theory and to really take it down you need to knock down each pillar. It is a formidable task but it is technically possible. Another potential way would be to show that the Earth or universe is far too young to accommodate orthodox evolutionary hypotheses [which would be to all speciation of populations and common descent].

The problem is that people talk about evolutionary theory as if it were only one hypothesis. It is multiple theories that interlock. This is a sign of how strong they are, it is not a weakness or something that makes it all unscientific.
Methcalarjalope
calamitynexus
Methcalarjalope
vipr230
Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.


See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.
Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.


God or no God ID is still an idea based upon "higher power" or mystical forces.

And wht parts of evolution aren't testable? The only issue we can't povide evidence for is crawling out of the primordial soup.
I don't view it as a case of a "higher power." It seems that something in our cells have the power. eek


The "power" in our cells is ATP. Go look it up, it's a rather important molecule.
Jaaten Syric's avatar

Liberal Zealot

Methcalarjalope
Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it.


I'm going to assume you mean naturalistic evolution instead of my brethren's assumption of abiogenesis. If I'm wrong in this, no matter, I believe they have dealt with it sufficiently.


Anyhow...Explain. We've tested the hell out of pretty much everything the theory states, and it's come out without a scratch. We can show how species branch off through reproductive isolation, sexual selection, and genetic drift. We can show common ancestry through comparing DNA, and we even find a few surprises there (like human chromosome #2), we can trace the development of physical features through the fossil record, and observe the vestiges of our shared past through comparative ontogeny and structural homology. What the hell is left?

Quote:
As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked.


The hell are you on about? It would be amazingly simple to bring the entire theory of evolution crashing down. All you'd need to show is that genetic mutation plays no role in an organism's 'fitness' and that these traits are not heritable. That's it. That is literally all you need to do to falsify evolution.

Quote:
ID is not creationism.


How is it not? The judges say it is, scientists say it is, hell, ID textbooks say it is. How is ID discernibly different from creationism?

Quote:
ID is about cell life.


No, it isn't. ID does not state what you think it does, as all the links I have provided for you show quite clearly.

Quote:
I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.


Dembski, Nelson, Meyer, Johnson, et al. would like a word.
GunsmithKitten
Methcalarjalope
GunsmithKitten
Looks like Noora isn't going to answer me.....guess i"m on her s**t list again....
No way!!! Never ever never! What did I miss? biggrin


I asked this...

If I were a math teacher, I suddenly tell my students during lessons "2+2=5" and "the number 9 does not exist". I am reprimanded and threatened to be removed from my teaching position from various directions. I coutner by saying that my first amendment rights allow it, and I ask why they want to restrain mathematical science by preventing me from teaching alternate theories. Would you back me?
Arithmetic at this age level is not theoretical mathmatics and you would be inappropriately instructing young pupils with regard to their math facts. However, if you have an overarching theory and can explain why 2+2 = 5 to adult peers then I would support you. I am not sure why you are saying this as it is not analogous to anything I have stated here. I am posting as Methcalarjalope and mrsculedhel. Those are the only posts I, Noora, am responsible for on this thread.
Methcalarjalope
calamitynexus
Methcalarjalope
vipr230
Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.


See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.
Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.


God or no God ID is still an idea based upon "higher power" or mystical forces.

And wht parts of evolution aren't testable? The only issue we can't povide evidence for is crawling out of the primordial soup.
I don't view it as a case of a "higher power." It seems that something in our cells have the power. eek

*facepalm*
power
magic
chakra
vodoo
whatever
call it what you will, its still unexplainable aka mystical
Methcalarjalope
GunsmithKitten
Methcalarjalope
GunsmithKitten
Looks like Noora isn't going to answer me.....guess i"m on her s**t list again....
No way!!! Never ever never! What did I miss? biggrin


I asked this...

If I were a math teacher, I suddenly tell my students during lessons "2+2=5" and "the number 9 does not exist". I am reprimanded and threatened to be removed from my teaching position from various directions. I coutner by saying that my first amendment rights allow it, and I ask why they want to restrain mathematical science by preventing me from teaching alternate theories. Would you back me?
Arithmetic at this age level is not theoretical mathmatics and you would be inappropriately instructing young pupils with regard to their math facts. However, if you have an overarching theory and can explain why 2+2 = 5 to adult peers then I would support you. I am not sure why you are saying this as it is not analogous to anything I have stated here. I am posting as Methcalarjalope and mrsculedhel. Those are the only posts I, Noora, am responsible for on this thread.


Except they can't explain why 2+2=5 to adult peers, because they can't provide any empirical evidence, or even a testable hypothesis, to support their views. They're just saying "2+2=5, the proof? Umm... none? But I want it to be!"
vipr230
Methcalarjalope
calamitynexus
Methcalarjalope
vipr230
Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.


See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.
Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.


God or no God ID is still an idea based upon "higher power" or mystical forces.

And wht parts of evolution aren't testable? The only issue we can't povide evidence for is crawling out of the primordial soup.
I don't view it as a case of a "higher power." It seems that something in our cells have the power. eek


The "power" in our cells is ATP. Go look it up, it's a rather important molecule.
Okay! 4laugh I will go look it up! I have a number of things to look up!!! Thank you everyone for helping me with my thread. Your posts have made all the difference. Thank you, thank you and good night! I will be back tomorrow. Please post anymore links that you have for me to consider. The film was fun and I urge you to see it so that you can refute it all the better or find what was there to enjoy! ttl heart
I am disturbed by this movie. I also saw it tonight, after doing a lot of research on the movie, as well as having a fairly good idea of the research and information on both sides. My dad is a high school biology teacher, and one of the benefits is having a group of teachers that share information, so I have been able to watch lectures of famous evolutionary scientists on DVD that may not be easily available to the general public.

Of course, I don't propose to know everything about evolution or intelligent design. However, if there is one thing I do know is how to make a propaganda film, and Expelled definitely delivers. I'm disturbed by the fact that after the movie was over, half the audience in the theater applauded. I just wish that I could talk to them afterward...

Anyway, as has been said before, ID is not science. They repeatedly say in the movie that this shouldn't be a debate of facts, not the "evil organization of atheist scientists" versus the ID folk. I say bring it. Show me some scientific evidence, and I'll listen. Then I'll compare the immense volume of research pointing toward evolution versus the new research on ID.

However, they're never going to "bring it" because it is impossible to do scientific research on something involving an undefinable, unprovable supreme being.

Anyway, I have more, but my brain isn't working right now... Shin Chan is on, and I can feel my IQ dropping...
Responses to pages 5-11. I'll continue in the morning.

mrsculedhel
Intelligent design does not hypothesize "who or what" the creator is, it is only looking for evidence of an intelligent designer.
But it posits that the designer was supernatural. Thus, it's identical to the watered down forms of creationism that don't directly rely on the bible. So it's certainly not science and does mesh with Creationism.

Lady_Imrahil
The question is, is Darwinism testable?
I dunno. Mostly because I don't know what "Darwinism" is. If it's the mashup of completely unrelated topics, then no. It's complete bullshit and no one actually believes it. If you want to ask if Darwinian evolution is testable, then yes, it is.

Lady_Imrahil
Expelled shows that science is not open. Watch the documentary for the evidence.
But science is open. I just went to a conference two weeks ago (I'm an astronomer btw) and we even allow advanced amateurs to present work and ideas. What we're not open to is nonsense that doesn't follow the scientific method. And we've already addressed the "evidence". It's beside the point given that ID isn't science in the first place to be silenced.

mrsculedhel
If he was misquoted or if the film was clipped to make it look like he was saying this unusual hypothesis then Dawkins will be able to bring a lawsuit against the film and its makers.
I'm willing to bet he had to sign a release saying he can't.

mrsculedhel
I don't think Dawkins felt as if he were being ridiculed at the time of the interview as he spoke with much candor with Stein.
You're right. Because he was told he was being interviewed for a different film. Oh... that was a lie too....

mrsculedhel
On the one hand people are saying that no one has lost their jobs for proposing ID as a working hypothesis, but on the other hand people seem to be saying that people SHOULD lose their jobs and be repressed from exploring ID as a working hypothesis. So which is it?
The question, as I've stated before, is if scientists should lose their jobs if they abandon the scientific method (as supporting ID does). This is much like asking if an airline pilot should lose his jobs for abandoning FAA regulations. The answer is obvious: YES!

But the amazing thing I've repeatedly pointed out now, is that not a single one has!

mrsculedhel
[Expelled] ... provides a good vehicle for discussing science with people who are not normally aware of this.
No. I don't think it provides a good vehicle at all since the very first thing that must be done with people who have seen it, is to disabuse all the lies and logical fallacies it has introduced. As a scientist and a science educator, I'd much rather work with someone who had a solid foundation in the scientific method than someone who was completely confused on the issues thanks to a propaganda piece.

mrsculedhel
It is science not philosophy as I had once believed and as I have frequently posted on other threads. I learned something new today.
Did you really "learn" this? Or did you just swallow it wholesale? If it really is science, then you should be able to explain what sort of testable predictions ID makes. I've seen several people ask for this already, and you've yet to do so. Thus, I think you're overstating your case more than a little.

mrsculedhel
I didn't know that it is as valid a working hypothesis as evolutionary theory.
Again, how can this "hypothesis" be tested? If it can't, it's not a hypothesis.

mrsculedhel
It doesn't pose that Abraham's God created the universe or life on this planet. It is hypothesizing that there is an intelligent designer.
Who even the chief advocates admit is God and ID is just a sham to "introduce students to the Gospel."

mrsculedhel
No one is saying who/what an intelligent designer might be.
Except every single ID proponent....

mrsculedhel
Maybe there is some information coming from DNA.
Define "information" in a useful and quantifiable way please.

mrsculedhel
I learned more about cell biology today than I learned in college
Really? What did you learn? From what you've said, it sounds like all you picked up on was "Wow! It's really complex!"

Did they bother teaching you about how many different evolutionary pathways have been discovered to develop those systems? Did they bother teaching you how similar those systems are to species evolution predicts we are related to?

Didn't think so. sad

mrsculedhel
You pose it and then try to disprove it.
And how do you disprove it? The quintessential argument is the argument from ignorance. You can't disprove a logical fallacy. Nor can you prove a negative (ie, evolution couldn't have created this). Thus, it's still a non-testable position unless you managed to pick up on something I haven't in the 6 years I've been debating this. If so, would you care to tell me what it is?

mrsculedhel
Creationists want to believe in a limited earth age and dinosaurs being on the arc or something like this.
That's only a particular form of creationism known as "Young Earth Creationism". However, Creationism is a much broader term which just means that a supernatural designer created and that there is evidence for it. Taken in that context, ID is exactly the same as Creationism.

mrsculedhel
So far the academy of sciences is nixing research utilizing this hypothesis.
No. You have to presented a course of study to have written a research proposal. ID has never done this.

In fact, when the Templeton Foundation offered ID supporters money to do research, they were not taken up on the offer. Did you get that? They were offered money to do research!!!

So why didn't they take it? Because ID is not a position that does any real science.

mrsculedhel
If you cannot get funding then it is virtually impossible to do research.
It's also impossible to do research if you make no testable predictions.

mrsculedhel
I think this propaganda movie is going to have a huge impact.
Doesn't look like it. The earnings have been lackluster. Critics responses have panned it. Those that are seeing it though are being loaded with misinformation. Sadly, it's so many lies packed into a short time, it takes a long time to rebut. It's a classic Gish Gallop.

mrsculedhel
The fossil record doesn't falsify it although it has falsified the Dawinian claim that change occurs gradually very slowly over time.
Which is not an integral part of evolution. Evolution just says that there are small changes that are compounded. Not that the accumulation is constant over time.

mrsculedhel
I suppose it would be falsifiable if there was no evidence of a designer
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus again, not falsifiable.

mrsculedhel
A rabbit in the Cambrian or a human in the Jurassic could be anomolous finds. These also occur. They do not disprove evolution.
Yes. They do. If you found a fossil rabbit in the Cambrian, it would destroy the entire phylogenic tree. Rabbits should not be found until much further up. That branching out of species is the heart of Darwinian evolution.

mrsculedhel
Can you define species for us?
Two populations that cannot interbreed.

mrsculedhel
I don't think Voija knows that much about religion, actually or theology in particular.
Well, I grew up Christian, so I'm pretty familiar with that. I've looked into many other religions along the way so I'm not nearly as ignorant as most Americans.

mrsculedhel
When do court cases define science? Answer: Never. Science is outside the jurisdiction of Science.
I think you mean outside the jurisdiction of the courts. And yes, that's true. But still, ID has been rejected by the scientific community as well. And not just evil atheists, but the religious as well.

mrsculedhel
Have you ever read On Origin of Species?
Yes. In fact, I have a copy sitting on my shelf in my apartment.

mrsculedhel
But there are anomolous finds that would refute evolution but they are called anomolous and tossed by the wayside.
Such as?

I know the Piltdown man (a famous hoax) was an anomalous find and was very difficult to try to fit into the phylogenic tree. Fortunately, it was shown to be a hoax.

mrsculedhel
The theory would just be changed to include different evolutionary sequences in different time periods.
No. It can't without collapsing the entire tree. We know when rabbits and many other species made their split from other species. Finding one millions of years off, when there shouldn't even have been mammals would ******** things up a bit.

mrsculedhel
Evolutionary theory can be jiggled around in the same way and has been.
To a certain extent, yes. But not millions of year tears like that.

mrsculedhel
Cranial capacity used to be considered to be linked to intelligence as oldschool Darwinians looked for racial types.
Non sequitor much?

Lady_Imrahil
But that is not the point of Expelled. The documentary shows that academic freedom is very limited, it is not arguing the case for intelligent design.
Nor should "academic freedom" mean you can pretend that anything you pull out of your a** is valid. Especially not in the scientific community. This redefinition of academic freedom is just as dishonest as the rest of the film.

Lady_Imrahil
He's just saying the academic community needs to be a little more open-minded when it comes to their beloved Darwin. 3nodding
And the scientific community is. Which is where people like Gould fit in. What we're not open-minded about is letting pseudoscience get a free pass.
Lady_Imrahil
We're talking about whether adult scientists can try it as a working hypothesis.
As I've stated repeatedly, if you're wanting to do science, no.

Lady_Imrahil
Creationism still exists, and it is not the same as Intelligent Design. That was one of the distinctions that Stein is careful to make. We all know Creationists are silly billy badgers, and I don't think that Creationism should be taught either.
Sorry. ID proponents claim this all the time, but all the evidence is to the contrary. The main ID proponents admit it's a creationist front. ID magically sprung up using the same arguments and same definitions the day after Creationism was ruled unconstitutional.

Lady_Imrahil
One of the benfits of presupposing Intelligent Design rather than Darwinism is that you seek reasons for everything that exists, you don't assume its random, you assume it has a purpose. It can only further science.
Sorry. That doesn't further science. Assuming "purpose" is a philosophical position and a sketchy term at best. Furthermore, evolution can also create "purpose". You kidneys have a definite "purpose". Oh, and evolution isn't "random". That's one of the dumbest strawmen I keep seeing. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. Stop ignoring the second and more important part of evolution.

Lady_Imrahil
We don't get to the single-celled organism that Darwin assumes exists as the basis for his On the Origin of Species. That's why scientists are now trying to come up with alternatives, like the crystal piggy-back method (not its real name) or seeding.
And as I've also repeatedly said in threads:

So what? Evolution doesn't need to explain where life came from any more than gravity explain where mass came from or child development theory where children came from. Sorry. You've got a double standard here.

Additionally, the arising from some assisted crystal development, or the more common primordial soup both have infinitely more evidence that a magical creator given the latter has none.

Lady_Imrahil
Why can't people hold an alternative viewpoint if they want?
They can. How do you think they made this movie? How do you think they give frequent talks making millions? How do you think they publish dozens of books and other nonsense every year?

About the only thing they don't get to do is publish in scientific journals or present at scientific conferences. Why? Because they're not doing science.

Lady_Imrahil
Why don't you demonstrate to me how that would damage science?
Because the entire premise of ID is to stop research as soon as you see something complex. You don't ask the question of "how did this form?" You simply toss your hands in the air and and cheaply answer "It was designed." That stops scientific inquiry.

Additionally, Behe's even admitted that to redefine science to include ID, you'd have to expand it to include Astrology. Suddenly horoscopes are legitimate science.

Lady_Imrahil
Why can't Americans be free to live under the First Amendment?
Guess what! They are! But that doesn't mean that specific groups can't be self regulating. To do work in the scientific field, you have to do science.

Lady_Imrahil
when no one allows a thing to be studied, its kind of hard to build up evidence for or against it.
Again, they've had chances to study it. But there's no course of study. There's no testable hypothesis. It's purely a negative argument against evolution. Trying (poorly) to disprove one position doesn't inherently make yours better by default. And that's all ID tries to do. It makes no testable predictions of its own.

Lady_Imrahil
Not true. There were several former employers who admitted in the documentary that they fired those guys for supporting Intelligent Design
And I've already shown this is false.

Lady_Imrahil
and for one boss who claimed a contract issue (none of the main scientists were fired for being bad workers) they found an email from him that proved he lied.
No. It proved that ID was discussed. But it did not prove that this was a central or even important issue.

Lady_Imrahil
Just go watch the darn movie you guys! Jeez Louise. How can you talk about something youdon't know anything about except hearsay? That's a great way to remain ignorant, like the Dutch who thought the world was flat. sweatdrop
And how can you make an informed decision on a topic when you've only seen it covered in a few minutes of a hour and 1/2 propaganda film which inherently only gives one side? Come back and talk to me when you've done 6 years or research on the topic. Jeez Lousie. rolleyes

Katana no Kisaki
I think its good to have knowledge of multiple fields so that you can apply it in others. That is a benefit to Intelligent Design.
What different fields does it bring to the table? It can't even seem to get biology right.

Methcalarjalope
Ben Stein then produced documentation in writing of the reason for their termination being directly related to their involvement in in ID. It was really very persuasive.
So we're supposed to overlook the even bigger flaws? Like Gonzalez not doing any of the things that were required to get tenure. That's the only case I'm familiar with any "documentation in writing" being produced. Feel free to correct me. And you still haven't address the fact that not a single one of them lost their jobs!

Methcalarjalope
As we see here, many people are strongly against ID and connect it to creationism based on a court decision. Science is outside the domain of the courtroom.
No. We don't connect it to creationism based on Kitzmiller v. Dover. We connect it to creationism because it uses the same arguments, same definitions, and the main proponents have even admitted it. The court case is entirely beside the point although much of the evidence is presented there. Even aside from that, every major scientific organization has rejected ID and realized its direct correlation to creationism, and also denounced it for being pseudoscience.

But the "not the domain of courts" thing is a cute way to try to ignore all the evidence presented therein. How about actually addressing the evidence next time. k?

Methcalarjalope
you all would agree that supression of science by a court decison is wrong
Yes. But upholding pseudoscience is just as bad.

Methcalarjalope
ID is not creationism no matter how it was defined in a court of law.
You're right! It's by their own definition. Need I remind you of Pandas & People?

Methcalarjalope
Creationism tries to link know science to fit into the "seven days" of creation as told in Bible mythos in order to say, "God first made the fish ..." etc. That's creationism.
That's only one form of Creationism. Creationism is a much broader term and the founder of ID (Phillip Johnson) admitted his goal was to unite them all under the one thing they all had in common: the search for a creator. He called this his "big tent" strategy. But he knew he couldn't use the term "creator" since that's creationism. Thus, it was changed to "designer". But other than that, ID remained unchanged from the general form of creationism.

Methcalarjalope
It is very difficult for you to persuade me to trust these dot com sources
Yet again, you're sweeping aside all the evidence without addressing it. If this particular .com source (produce by the NCSE) is wrong, then feel free to pick out a few instances to demonstrate it. Until then, simply ignoring it is astoundingly dishonest.

Methcalarjalope
As long as the information is sourced and used accurately I am not sure if I care how it was gotten.
But it wasn't used accurately! As we've already demonstrated with Dawkins, it was taken out of context and made to imply that he believed ID was legitimate. Additionally, who they didn't interview speaks volumes too. They've effectively silence the vast numbers of scientists that destroy their argument; Ken Miller first amongst them!

Methcalarjalope
What is the testable falsifiable hypothesis for evolution?
If phlogenic trees were not seen to branch, evolution would be falsified.
If we did not find a mechanism for heredity (DNA) evolution would be falsified.
If a single species were found in a part of the fossil record in which it should not exist, evolution would be falsified....

Methcalarjalope
He hit on an interesting idea just like Newton did. Science doesn't end with Newton
Kinda beside the point, but Newton wasn't wrong. Newtonian gravity still works perfectly for non relativistic situations. It's still frequently used in astrophysics since most of the universe isn't traveling near the speed of light. Only in extreme situations do you need relativity.

Methcalarjalope
How can there be research when it is denied funding and acceptance in the academy?
It's not being denied because ID proponents never applied for it in the first place. Dembski tried to set up a "Informatics Lab" at Baylor. It wasn't squelched. But guess what! It never did any actual work! Eventually the university shut it down because they decided that just having a website didn't count as a research lab. Especially since Dembski didn't even work there anymore. (ID proponents whine about this being persecution too.)

Methcalarjalope
If it actually produces new information by looking at cell life in a new way, then it will proceed.
But it doesn't look at the cell in a new way. It just goes, "Too complex. God The Designer did it." Sadly for them, every time they've done this, they've been shown to be wrong.

Methcalarjalope
However, I believe that in a few years, this will be cutting edge.
Yeah yeah. That's what they've been saying for 20 years now. And they've been saying evolution is a dying theory since the day it was created. So much for creationist predictions sad

Methcalarjalope
There should be a fossil record to back this theory and there isn't one.
That's about as wrong as you can get. We've seen long term changes just as evolution predicts on major scales in the fossil record. Need I remind you of the demonstrated evolution of the whale?

Methcalarjalope
VoijaRisa
Yes. This will probably long haunt Dawkins in much the same way a pause to figure out the way to phrase something in a debate was re-edited to make him look like he didn't have an answer did.
I missed that. He seemed that he always had a ready answer to anything put to him.
That wasn't in Expelled. It was another debate. I think with Ken Ham from AiG possibly?

Methcalarjalope
I am not going to respond to your posts if you equate the two.
And I'm not going to take you seriously if you simply ignore all the evidence suggesting they are simply because that evidence also happened to be brought up in court.

Methcalarjalope
They are quite different as one is based on mythos and the other on a scientific theory.
What scientific theory is ID based on?

Methcalarjalope
If there are lunatics interested in ID they will be severely disappointed if they think it is going to prove the Bible to be accurate.
That's not actually the goal of creationism. You're trying to compare ID to a strawman. Gee.... I wonder why. Did you pick up a pack of lies from Expelled?

Methcalarjalope
Sorry, but a court case does not convince me that ID = creationism.
Nor should it. The evidence should.

Methcalarjalope
Please respect this difference for the sake of the discussion.
Please actually address the evidence for the sake of discussion.

Methcalarjalope
ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself.
No it isn't. ID is looking for evidence of something outside what we consider life to do the designing. It posits and requires a supernatural creator.

Why couldn't it be "aliens"? Because that doesn't actually answer the question. It simply pushes the question back. It begs the question of where those aliens came from.

Methcalarjalope
ID is not creationism.
Again, I ask that you show me the difference given they use the same arguments, the same definitions, and even the founders admitted they're the same!!!

Methcalarjalope
I am not a scientist
I am, and I've repeatedly told you ID is not science.

Methcalarjalope
I can only tell you that there is something to this
As a scientist, I can tell you that's flat out wrong. The public (quote obviously including yourself) is clueless as to what will catch on in science and what does and does not have something behind it. I can't count how many people have bought into "string theory" just as a result of having seen Brian Greene's Elegant Universe. Or how many people got suckered by What the *Bleep* Do We Know?. People think that those are good science. But they're crap.

So to say you know when there is something to it is silly.

Methcalarjalope
in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism
*Yawn*

I've been hearing this for 6 years now. New story plz.

Methcalarjalope
However, if you have an overarching theory and can explain why 2+2 = 5 to adult peers then I would support you.
Ok then. I have two ropes. Each one has two knots. I tie the two ropes together and the conjoined rope now has 5 knots. Thus, 2 + 2 = 5.

I call this my theory of spontaneous generation in addition. Is this credible?

Methcalarjalope
I am not sure why you are saying this as it is not analogous to anything I have stated here.
Actually it's directly related. Aside from my mathematical trickery above, there's no good arguments for 2 + 2 = 5. Similarly, there is no positive case for ID. ID proponents are simply wanting to get their view into classrooms and the scientific community without doing the actual legwork.


Overall Issues for Noora to address
- How are ID proponents being persecuted when not a single one of the people in the film actually lost their jobs?

- Given the proper definition of Creationism (not just limiting it to the young earth, biblical variety), how is ID not Creationism? Please actually address the evidence instead of sweeping it aside since it was part of a court case. Especially the similarity of methodology, definitions, and the frank admittance of the founders of the movement that ID is a Trojan horse.

- Given that the Templeton foundation offered ID proponents money to do research (see my Is creationism = ID thread for further information and source), and were not taken up on the offer, why should we take ID proponents seriously when they say they are being denied funding given that they apparently rejected funding?

- What falsifiable predictions does ID make? Please do not give any nonsense about Irreducible Complexity.

- If ID cannot produce any testable hypothesis, why should it be allowed into the scientific community?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games