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.
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!!!
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?
