Creationism “Creep” in Louisiana

Eagleye Blog ^ | March 17, 2013 | Bethany Stotts

[stormer]

The Theory of Evolution is the model that most adequately explains the (unfiltered) data. Creationism is a pseudoscience designed to compel the scientifically illiterate by making religiously based arguments regarding biological processes.

[circlecity]

"Who is preventing you or prohibiting anyone else from testing the Intelligent Design hypothesis?"

Many academic institutions have shut down any such research and it is virtually impossible to get any grant money to explore the subject. Ben Stein covered the subject extensively in the movie "Expelled."

[circlecity]

"The Theory of Evolution is the model that most adequately explains the (unfiltered) data."

Except the actual evidence doesn't support it. Which is why evolutionary guru Stephen Gould of Harvard had to come up with his "syncopated equilibrium" theory - another elegant construct without a shred of evidence to support it.

[stormer]

C14 is worthless for items older than about 60,000 years. Do you think dinosaurs were around back then?

[tacticalogic]

Well testing C14 levels in dinosaur bones. No matter what the result, it didn't happen and won't be published.

I didn't think there were any "dinosaur bones" to test. There are fossils of bones, but there's no bone there any more.

[tacticalogic]

One can test the probabilities that varying degrees of complexity found in nature would or could ever occur spontaneously or randomly and the way you prevent someone from doing it is to fire them from your faculty in order to send a message to anyone else thinking about doing said tests. Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” covered the entire subject contained in both your questions in great detail.

If they were fired for doing the test then the test got done. But any such test is an exercise in trying to prove a negative which is a logically flawed enterprise from the outset.

[stormer]

You may want to research evolution a bit more before commenting further. I believe the term you are struggling for is “punctuated equilibrium”, and it explains the consequence of abiotic change in an otherwise biologically static environment. As far as evidence, you may want to review the work on cladistics and genetic consequence of external selection processes on populations. Feel free to get back to me then.

[Hoodat]

Darwinism ignores the creation. It takes a convenient point beyond the creation of matter, beyond the creation of the universe, beyond the creation of earth, and beyond the creation of the first living species, and uses that point as its starting point.

Oh, and for the record, Darwinism has yet to be proven either. The evidence simply does not exist.

[circlecity]

"If they were fired for doing the test then the test got done. But any such test is an exercise in trying to prove a negative which is a logically flawed enterprise from the outset."

No, they were fired for proposing to do the research. And no, it's not unreasonable to investigate a negative. Like all science, we investigate probabilities in order to ascertain predictability. .

[circlecity]

"Feel free to get back to me then."

Sure, I'll get back to you as soon as you show me someone who has observed this happen and measured and recorded it. Science is based on observation and measurement. Not internally consistent speculation.

[stormer]

Everything you wrote is correct, with the exception of your last sentence. And since we're “on the record”, let me state that NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVEN; that is not how it works. Science is about observations, hypothesis, and testing. The point is not to prove - it is to make accurate assumptions about likelihoods.

[alstewartfan]

Evolutionists believe that we evolved from something akin to paramecia. And they call folks who believe in ID “unscientific”? LOL Good thing I finished my Big Gulp before I read this. Bob

[0.E.O]

Many academic institutions have shut down any such research and it is virtually impossible to get any grant money to explore the subject.

So it's not that anyone is preventing you from testing the hypothesis, it's that nobody is willing to fund your work. Maybe that alone says something?

[circlecity]

"Maybe that alone says something?"

Yeah, It says a whole lot. I think that's the entire point.

[tacticalogic]

No, they were fired for proposing to do the research. And no, it's not unreasonable to investigate a negative.

Any idea what the probability is of successfully modeling the universe to account for all the possible variables in order to be able to say you have actually calculated the probabilities of a particular event happening?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The data fits the creation framework AT LEAST as well as it fits the evolution framework.

Well, sure. What data would not fit the creation framework? No matter what you observed, you could always say "God made it that way."

But what's the predictive ability of the creation framework? The evolution framework gives scientists a basis for making predictions--the classic example is why we need new flu shots every year and how they decide what to put in the ones we get. What prediction can you make based on "God made it that way"?

[Gil4]

There is no unfiltered data. Even as the data is being created, they are asking "how does this fit into the theory?"

As for the "pseudoscience" charge, that's just name-calling by people with weak arguements who want to silence dissent. It's what liberals do.

If you would like to honestly address the dissent, here are 15 Questions for Evolutionists to get you started.

[circlecity]

"Any idea what the probability is of successfully modeling the universe to account for all the possible variables in order to be able to say you have actually calculated the probabilities of a particular event happening?"

We've been working on it since the day man first recognized cause and effect and we'll continue to do so until there is nobody left.

[tacticalogic]

We've been working on it since the day man first recognized cause and effect and we'll continue to do so until there is nobody left.

Proposing to calculate the probability of intelligent design implies that we're done, and ready to apply that model to a given problem.

[circlecity]

No, it’s merely investigating a hypothesis. A piece at a time. The same as all investigation.