Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?
Tech Central Station ^ | 11/10/2005 | Uriah Kriegel

Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-863 next last
To: DGray; b_sharp; Ichneumon; longshadow; CarolinaGuitarman; Thatcherite; MineralMan; Coyoteman; ...
It's a good article. I donno if the list can stand yet another thread on the same old stuff.

Requesting opinions on whether to ping the list.

51 posted on 11/10/2005 6:47:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nicholas Conradin; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; ...
(((Creationist Ping)))



You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.

Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."



That's strange. I don't see anyone out there trying to disprove evolution except creationists which are so often decried.

What this really means is the underlying assumptions for BOTH theories (or, I should say ALL THREE theories, since evolution, intelligent design and creation are three distinct and separate models) are not provable. You cannot prove that we came from a massive bang 4.6 billion years ago (or did they jack up the age of the earth again? I keep losing track) and you cannot prove that God created. Why? Because both processes are not observable (no one today was alive thousands or millions of years ago, depending on who you believe) or repeatable. (I wouldn't try to replicate the big bang if I were you, and you can never perfectly repeat it. Not even close.)

Therefore, you arrive at the conclusion I've been insisting on all along. Each model of origins operates on selection assumptions (evolution relies on a belief that we were not created, but evolved, whereas creation asserts that we were spoken into an existence by a supernatural Creator who revealed Himself to man in the Bible).

So no, you cannot prove those assumptions. You cannot necessarily disprove them either. You must conduct experiments and observation of the world we observe today and see which is true. The evidence of evolution is frequently inconsistent, and constantly being changed as new observations are made. Evidence interpreted according to the creationist model fits.
52 posted on 11/10/2005 6:50:53 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DGray

Oh yes. But you see, the examples they are given by the scientific elite we are told to idolize are often inconsistent that some give way to it. Shame, isn't it? You should see my profile.


53 posted on 11/10/2005 6:52:55 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

thanks for the heads up


54 posted on 11/10/2005 6:54:15 AM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
Then the theory is elevated to a fact, shutting down all rational discussion.

Theory elevated to a fact? Where did you study science? Here are some definitions--you may notice that a theory is the goal of science, while a fact is just a well-confirmed observation (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

55 posted on 11/10/2005 6:54:28 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; GrandEagle; Right in Wisconsin; Dataman; ..
ping


Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

56 posted on 11/10/2005 6:54:50 AM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing
Natural selection clearly plays a major role in evolution, but it also isn't the only factor. The existence of domestic animals, like cows and dogs, certainly can't be explained by natural selection. Nor can the existence of modern commercial hybrid plant species. So clearly other factors are involved, at least since humans became active on the planet.

Of course Darwin got the idea of natural selection by observing artificial selection. He spent decades talking to animal and plant breeders. From these sources he was able to estimate the kinds and rates of variation that occurred.

From the observed rate of variation he was able to estimate the minimum age of the earth necessary to produce the variety of life now seen. His estimate was close to the currently accepted span since the Cambrian, and far more accurate than any estimate produced by the physics of his time.

57 posted on 11/10/2005 6:55:38 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
"One of the problems with the Origins of the Species, is biologists have a CRAPPY definintion of what a species is."

That's because defining a specie, from an evolutionary standpoint, basically involves drawing arbitrary lines to break up a smooth continuum. 'Species' are a human-imposed division used to make classifying things easier for study. There is no absolute natural definition for one.
58 posted on 11/10/2005 6:57:02 AM PST by Sofa King (A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
what is being risked by letting it be falsified, like they were?
As the author states,"... there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false."
59 posted on 11/10/2005 6:59:19 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Yeah, go ahead. it's not bad at all.


60 posted on 11/10/2005 7:01:40 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
 
"Ah Shawnee Mission, well you spend some time on the Darwin worshiping threads and you will find you live in one of the most reviled places upon this earth by the evolutionists."

Johnson County is a "reviled" place?

 

 

61 posted on 11/10/2005 7:01:41 AM PST by HawaiianGecko (Facts are neither debatable nor open to "I have a right to this opinion" nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

Depends on which side of Sprintville you live....


62 posted on 11/10/2005 7:03:38 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
" That's strange. I don't see anyone out there trying to disprove evolution except creationists which are so often decried."

Every time someone unearths a fossil it is another possible falsification of evolution.

"You cannot prove that we came from a massive bang 4.6 billion years ago (or did they jack up the age of the earth again? I keep losing track)..."

The BB happened about 15 billion years ago; this has been the accepted number for quite a while. 4.6 billion years is the age of the Earth, which was formed long after the BB.

Your mix up of the BB and the formation of the Earth aside, there is evidence that points to their old age. We can't prove it 100%, but then again we can't do that with any theory in science. Creation by God on the other hand, can never be proved or disproved; there is no way to gather physical evidence for or against. It can never be a scientific theory until that happens.

" So no, you cannot prove those assumptions. You cannot necessarily disprove them either."

While we can't prove or disprove God's creating the world scientifically, we CAN gather evidence against certain interpretations of creation, such as YEC. That the earth is only thousands of years old is no longer tenable scientifically.

"The evidence of evolution is frequently inconsistent, and constantly being changed as new observations are made."

The main thrust of evolutionary theory has not changed much since Darwin. That evolution is modified to account for new data is a plus, not a negative. It's what science does.

"Evidence interpreted according to the creationist model fits."

Not the young earth assertions, nor the fixity of species, nor the arguments against common descent. Whenever Creationists make specific stands about biology and geology, they open themselves up to critique by the evidence. They have not passed that test. That's why they switched to ID; it's nebulous enough to not make any testable assertions. It can hoodwink a higher sort of buffoon.
63 posted on 11/10/2005 7:26:00 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Every time someone unearths a fossil it is another possible falsification of evolution.

Then why is it interpreted as evolutionary proof, even when the facts point the opposite direction?

The BB happened about 15 billion years ago; this has been the accepted number for quite a while. 4.6 billion years is the age of the Earth, which was formed long after the BB.

My mistake. So hard to keep these differing and changing evolution views straight.

We can't prove it 100%, but then again we can't do that with any theory in science. Creation by God on the other hand, can never be proved or disproved; there is no way to gather physical evidence for or against. It can never be a scientific theory until that happens.

Conveniently, you only refer to the results from the supposition on which evolution rests, whereas you refer to the cause in creationism. My point was that evolution too rests on an unproven premise. If you read what I wrote, we can prove neither one, only examine the results for indications either way.

While we can't prove or disprove God's creating the world scientifically, we CAN gather evidence against certain interpretations of creation, such as YEC. That the earth is only thousands of years old is no longer tenable scientifically.

According to your interpretations based on your preconceived notions, and ignoring for the time being that there is evidence against old age.

The main thrust of evolutionary theory has not changed much since Darwin. That evolution is modified to account for new data is a plus, not a negative. It's what science does.

The main thrust has not changed all that much, you're right. The main premise. But oh! those pesky details!

If evolution is continually evolving, then how do you know the things you insist are true today will not be dramatically proven false tomorrow? Two generations from now, you will probably not even recognize the theory that you believe today.

Whenever Creationists make specific stands about biology and geology, they open themselves up to critique by the evidence.

Biology and geology? Have at 'em, mate.

That's why they switched to ID; it's nebulous enough to not make any testable assertions. It can hoodwink a higher sort of buffoon.

You mean a higher baboon, don't you? Which is what evolutionists insist we're all higher forms of?

Lumping Intelligent Design together with Creationism seems to make you think you've already won the battle because likening the two instantly wins the victory in your mind. I would think you ought to be able to distinguish the two.
64 posted on 11/10/2005 7:35:51 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Query: Do Darwinists become closed-minded zealots and fools by education and training, or are these inborn traits?

************

I would guess it's a combination of the two.

65 posted on 11/10/2005 7:35:52 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
My whole issue with evo has nothing to do with ID or any religion. Take all religion and ID out of the equation, then cosmo-evo is still a weak description.

Wolf
66 posted on 11/10/2005 7:40:19 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Thanks for the ping!


67 posted on 11/10/2005 7:43:33 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
" Then why is it interpreted as evolutionary proof, even when the facts point the opposite direction?"

What fossils have gone against evolution?

" My mistake. So hard to keep these differing and changing evolution views straight."

Since the BB isn't evolution, it would do you good to read a book on cosmology. And these figures have been essentially the same for decades. Can't keep up with 30 year old info?

"My point was that evolution too rests on an unproven premise. If you read what I wrote, we can prove neither one, only examine the results for indications either way."

And evolution wins hands down.

"According to your interpretations based on your preconceived notions, and ignoring for the time being that there is evidence against old age."

According to the facts. There is no evidence for a young earth.

"If evolution is continually evolving, then how do you know the things you insist are true today will not be dramatically proven false tomorrow? Two generations from now, you will probably not even recognize the theory that you believe today."

Maybe. If it changes though, it will be because of new evidence. Creationism can never change because it refuses to consider the evidence from the physical world. Any belief system that is not open to change cannot be science.

"Biology and geology? Have at 'em, mate."

I meant real geology and biology.

" You mean a higher baboon, don't you? Which is what evolutionists insist we're all higher forms of?"

Nobody says we descended from baboons. Stop making a buffoon of yourself.

"Lumping Intelligent Design together with Creationism seems to make you think you've already won the battle because likening the two instantly wins the victory in your mind. I would think you ought to be able to distinguish the two."

I already have. ID appeals to a higher sort of buffoon.
68 posted on 11/10/2005 7:51:14 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Nicholas Conradin
Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

One or the other, yeah.

69 posted on 11/10/2005 7:59:20 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Your mix up of the BB and the formation of the Earth aside...

A mixup that demonstrates massive, mind boggling ignorance. This is from a guy who pontificates on the failures of science.

70 posted on 11/10/2005 8:00:20 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
At some level I don't like idiots in ivory towers telling me what I have to believe and teach my children. I read through 3/4 of "Origin of Species" when I was 14. OK, I get it. I can explain how the theory works. That's all I need to do. (Finches, are, to me, a really boring subject, by the way.)

If Darwin's theory is so defensible why worry about competing theory? How has Darwinism been used by social scientists? History would seem to teach that what has been will be again. A truely consistent materialistic viewpoint could actually support the rise of another Hitler. His "Konzentraionsanlager" were of course run by Doctors and engineers. He mobilized bhe German scientific apparatus in support of his racial theories. They, of course, appreciated his support and returned it.

Maybe we should have a little more free thinking in education land and challenge the forces of convention. If nothing else we should do this because it's fun to irritate the conformists in the NEA and the parrots of the MSM.
71 posted on 11/10/2005 8:01:16 AM PST by Pete from Shawnee Mission (Kansas: wheat, beef, oil, guns, & basketball. How much more do you really need?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SalukiLawyer; Pete from Shawnee Mission
Nothing is actually proved in the way it might be in physics or chemistry.

You seem to think that the laws and theories of physics and chemistry are more provable than those in biology. Please explain how physics or chemistry proves something. Give a specific example of such a real world proof with full analytical rigour applying to any physical or chemical law or theory of your choice......

I'll wait. I've seen your contention made many times by those who wish to deny the theory of evolution (or to by some mysterious process promote ID to being on equal status with ToE), and when I ask this question the response has been chirping crickets, every time.

72 posted on 11/10/2005 8:04:37 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Nicholas Conradin
When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted. In 1919, 14 years after the advent of Special Relativity, the planet was discovered exactly where he said. The theory survived the test. But the possibility of failing a test -- the willingness to put the theory up for refutation -- was what made it a scientific theory in the first place.

This sounds like a confusion of separate incidents in science. Einstein did not use relativity to predict Pluto. He used relativity to predict the bending of starlight near the Sun. What happened in 1919 were observations of a solar eclipse by Sir Arthur Eddington which confirmed the shifting of apparent position of stars near the sun (which could only be observed during such an eclipse).

Pluto's existence was indeed foretold by certain perturbations in the orbit of Neptune. (Not by Einstein, IIRC, however.) It and its moon Charon were eventually found about where the predicted object should have been. There's a hitch, though. The Pluto-Charon system isn't massive enough to have caused the perturbations used to predict it in the first place. Either those observations were spurious or there was something else out there.

73 posted on 11/10/2005 8:06:14 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Pluto's existence was indeed foretold by certain perturbations in the orbit of Neptune. (Not by Einstein, IIRC, however.) It and its moon Charon were eventually found about where the predicted object should have been. There's a hitch, though. The Pluto-Charon system isn't massive enough to have caused the perturbations used to predict it in the first place. Either those observations were spurious or there was something else out there.

It was Lowell who predicted Pluto in 1915, but finding it fairly close to his predicted position was actually pure luck, because it isn't what causes Neptune's orbital perturbation (I think it isn't large enough); there is something else out there, as yet undiscovered.

Einstein's successful prediction was of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, due to the distortion of space by the sun's gravitional field.

74 posted on 11/10/2005 8:13:29 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SalukiLawyer

Kind of odd, when you think about it, to take one's handle from a Kansas postal district...

So, by your name you are legal representative to gazelle hounds, or an alumni of SIU. Are you also a transplant from the sucker state?


75 posted on 11/10/2005 8:16:48 AM PST by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
This sounds like a confusion of separate incidents in science. [snip]

It think the author is confusing the prediction of the precession of Mercury's perihelion with some sort of test of SR. He's got it all mixed up. You're right about the bending of starlight being the falsification test of GR.

It's too bad; the author's analysis of Popper and his conclusions re: ID are spot on. Oh, well, that's what one gets when one lets a philosophy nerd write an article.

76 posted on 11/10/2005 8:17:00 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 320 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
Check out The List-O-Links. These two links will assist beginners:
But it's "just a theory" and How to argue against a scientific theory.

77 posted on 11/10/2005 8:18:23 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
A Web Page on the Mathematical Discovery of Planets. Yes, it's all Newtonian mechanics. No Einstein.
78 posted on 11/10/2005 8:19:08 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; Thatcherite
The precession of Mercury's perihelion was a success for relativity, but that success lay in explaining a known and puzzling phenomenon, not in predicting it.
79 posted on 11/10/2005 8:20:42 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; VadeRetro
It think the author is confusing the prediction of the precession of Mercury's perihelion with some sort of test of SR. He's got it all mixed up. You're right about the bending of starlight being the falsification test of GR.

Sounds like I'm confused too in what I thought. I think relativity is one of those things that should probably be left to professionals. I just remembered another successful prediction; don't the clocks on the shuttle run slow enough for the difference to be detectable by the time it lands after a long flight? I'm sure I read it somewhere (so it must be true). I think it was in Relativities Chapter 3 Verses 4-6.

80 posted on 11/10/2005 8:22:43 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
There are crickets because this is a false linkage except in the mind of you guys.

When Newton observed that an apple fell to the ground on earth at 32' per/sec 2 that was a direct observation that he measured, not some convoluted evolving morphing thing like your evo belief is.

You dont see a gravity cult, why?

There is no need for religion nor any ID concepts to enter the battle of ideas for cosmo-evo to be a weak description, its weak on its own. The best case against it is to take a look at it and its evidence, like I did years ago.

Wolf
81 posted on 11/10/2005 8:29:01 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Then why is it interpreted as evolutionary proof, even when the facts point the opposite direction?

Umm, perhaps because, Discovery Institute misinformation and mendacity aside, no fossil ever has pointed in the opposite direction? Or did someone unearth a fossilized angel and I missed it?

82 posted on 11/10/2005 8:29:47 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
don't the clocks on the shuttle run slow....

Correct.

It's another prediction of SR; time slows down the faster you go. It wasn't testable until the advent of atomic clocks and jet airplanes to provide the combination of precision and speed needed to measure the effect.

In any case, it's worth noting that despite the anti-Evos being all over this thread for more than 60 posts, it was the Evo's who first noticed and pointed out the errors. Thankfully, the historical errors are not relevant to his analysis and conclusions regarding Popper's falsification principle and it's application to ID "theory." In that regard, he is entirely correct: ID is not scientific.

83 posted on 11/10/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
When Newton observed that an apple fell to the ground on earth at 32' per/sec 2 that was a direct observation that he measured, not some convoluted evolving morphing thing like your evo belief is.

I think it was Galileo who measured the acceleration of gravity by direct observation.

Newton applied his equations to the universe, an object he could not possibly observe directly. It was the successful calculation of the orbit of a comet by Halley that first confirmed Newton's gravitation -- long after Newton was dead.

But don't let facts impede your ranting.

84 posted on 11/10/2005 8:35:23 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
In any case, it's worth noting that despite the anti-Evos being all over this thread for more than 60 posts, it was the Evo's who first noticed and pointed out the errors.

Now there's a surprise. :)

85 posted on 11/10/2005 8:35:57 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DGray

Well, that's kinda my point. I do agree that ID is more of a philosophical posit than a scientific one and I would be more happy if it were approached in a philosophy class. But, then again - I would also label string theory a new religion because of the faith involved. (there is more evidence for String Theory than for God at the moment - go figure)

Do you think we can create a "Church of Advanced Physics" and get a tax exemption?

Maybe we should relabel and refer to ID as RD (random design).


86 posted on 11/10/2005 8:37:15 AM PST by PokeyJoe (There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those that don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
Have you read on his 'falsifiability'? How would you falsify creation theory, ID theory or evolution?

Evolution would be proven false if someone could identify a billion year old human fossil. I'm not aware that has been done.

87 posted on 11/10/2005 8:38:26 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nicholas Conradin
But this reasoning is fallacious: a bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory, just as a bad car is still a car.

No, that reasoning is fallacious.

Words mean things. "Theory" has a very specific meaning when used in a scientific context.

To use the car example, if you build a machine that doesn't have any wheels, doesn't contain an engine and isn't intended to move people and objects from place to place, then it isn't a car. You can make your object look a little like a car, but it isn't a car.

For the same reason, ID isn't a theory. It looks a little bit like a theory, if you squint hard enough, but that doesn't make it so.

88 posted on 11/10/2005 8:39:19 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The precession of Mercury's perihelion was a success for relativity, but that success lay in explaining a known and puzzling phenomenon, not in predicting it.

Exactly; that's why the starlight bending observation during the solar eclipse was so important; it represented a prediction made by ahead of time by GR for a phenomona that had not previously been observed or predicted. And he nailed it. It was a "Full Monty" falsification test of GR.

89 posted on 11/10/2005 8:39:38 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: js1138; RunningWolf
The retreating mutt never lets facts get in the way of anything. And his response was in no way germane to the question I asked. Just a random diatribe. How unlike all his other posts ;) .

Still waiting for any creationist (or anyone else) to supply that rigorous proof of something in the physics or chemistry fields. It's funny, there are all these Freepers who think that the physical and chemical sciences are somehow much more hard and rigorous than the biological sciences. We see that particular claim again and again, but I've never met a single practicing physicist or chemist who agrees with them. Some limited areas of mathematics deal in rigorous proof. Everyone in the natural sciences deals with evidence and predictions and falsification.

90 posted on 11/10/2005 8:42:19 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Well you are wrong about even this most basic thing,
Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation
but even if I got the attribution wrong it changes nothing.

Wolf
91 posted on 11/10/2005 8:46:21 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
How would you falsify creation theory, ID theory or evolution?

I am not aware of any falsification test for ID.

A DNA retrovirus shared by humans and gorillas but not chimps would neatly falsify the theory of evolution. (one of many, many, many possible falsifications that ToE has survived over the last 150 years, it wasn't so long ago that the creationists were predicting that the molecular evidence from genomes *would* falsify ToE when it came in. How wrong they were; it has vindicated ToE in spades.)

92 posted on 11/10/2005 8:47:56 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nicholas Conradin
Thanks for a good article. There's no real difference between those who push for Marxism in schools and those who push for ID in schools.
93 posted on 11/10/2005 8:50:10 AM PST by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Well you are wrong about even this most basic thing, Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation but even if I got the attribution wrong it changes nothing.

But it does clarify your almost total ignorance of the issues. Galileo was the first to calculate the acceleration due to gravity at sea level; so the observation that you randomly supplied in response to my request for a mathematically rigorous proof of something in the real world was both wrongly attributed *and* irrelevant. What a double whammy.

94 posted on 11/10/2005 8:53:27 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

You're right.

ID is just a right-leaning PC. It's every bit as silly, and every bit as dangerous.


95 posted on 11/10/2005 8:53:36 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Pete from Shawnee Mission
It was, as you allude to, also used by people like Marx and Hitler to support some of the most damaging and horrific social, and genetic, engineering ever inflicted on humankind.

Care to explain how the theory of evolution logically justifies anything that Hitler or Marx did or said?

If we are just a product of a mechanical biochemistry than whatever is, is... There is no right, no wrong. Not really a world even a materialist biochemist would really want to live in.

1) False dichotomy.

2) Appeal to consequences. Not liking the implications of a theory does not amount to evidence against the theory.
96 posted on 11/10/2005 8:54:06 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
For Marx attracted followers and his 'theories' were tested ... and proven false. Freud has been utterly deligitimized ... because much of what he wrote proved to be, in practice, false. But both of them got an audience.

ID, in practice has proved to be false but, there's a sucker born every minute.

Funny ... ID is the only non religious body of thought I have ever seen which is been so vociferously attacked and being denied an audience.

Funny... perhaps. Non religious? Sorry, but you can't fool me with that bit of doublespeak.

97 posted on 11/10/2005 8:57:55 AM PST by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

No its not random, in fact it is a common linkage made by maybe not you, but your side here on these threads.

Wolf


98 posted on 11/10/2005 8:58:47 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King
'Species' are a human-imposed division used to make classifying things easier for study. There is no absolute natural definition for one.

It's an interesting question- under the generally accepted definition, if two types of animals cannot breed to create fertile offspring, that would make them different species.

Under that definition, we would have to carve up dogs into several different species, as many breeds of dog cannot naturally mate with other breeds (Great Danes and chihuahuas).

You're right- species is a human construct.

99 posted on 11/10/2005 8:59:31 AM PST by Palisades (Cthulhu in 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
"One of the problems with the Origins of the Species, is biologists hava a CRAPPY definintion of what a species is."

Well I totally agree with that statement. Species is defined in different ways for different organisms, there is no real definition of species, more just a bunch of examples which is no definition at all. Most based on ability to cross breed, but some times this is due to genetic incompatibilities and other times due less clear cut factors like flowering times, etc. And lets not even get into hybrids or wildly dispersed species that show massive variation from one end of their range to the other.

The problem is that species (and larger classification groups) only make sense when the intermediate forms have ceased to exist, leavening two clear cut species from what was at one time a continuum. The groupings are a construct of the human mind and as such are often arbitrarily drawn to match our perceptions of different types.

In any case, it's still a lot better defined than the biblical "kind".

"ToEs like Natural Selection have not shown much utility up to this point in time."

Except for trivial things like agriculture, animal husbandry and medicine. Were it not for the principals of natural selection your corn on the cob would be about 2 inches long and contain about 10 grains of chaff covered kernels. Any farmer that selects the biggest cobs to plant next year is, consciously or not, working as an agent of natural selection.

"It is not a very important theory. It certainly hasn't been in history. "

Feel free to return to gathering your wild grains and hunting rabbits, I have a big juicy steak and roasted corn on the cob BarBQ to go to.
100 posted on 11/10/2005 9:00:39 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-863 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson