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

Skip to comments.

Intelligent designís long march to nowhere
Science & Theology News ^ | 05 December 2005 | Karl Giberson

Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 851-875 next last
To: donh
This guy is a working mechanical engineer

Really...you meant electrical engineer? Maybe his PhD in communications science escaped your vast knowledge? I see you ignore his message theory history. Let's face it, his mathematical credentials likely beat yours any day of the millenia...

he pretty much recapitulates Behe, and the rest of the current crop of darwinian naysayers,

I see you haven't read him, since you are 100% wrong as the book is a critical survey of the anti-creationists in the origins debate. Manifestly you aren't conversant with his treatise, let alone scientifically open-minded.

and his big falsifiable test for ID is to search for "Kilroy was here" encoded in some musty corner of the genome.

Read the book. Then you will stop mindlessly disparaging that which you should be studying...

A small quote from the preface should help you apprehend that your mistakes:

"The reader should not assume I align myself with the present body of creationist literature--on most occasions my disagreement with it is substantial. I have also been dismayed by evolutionists, who, for reasons of their own, felt unmoved to respond to the creatinists' legitimate arguments until prodded by multiple cases of serious legal action. This is a sorry but perhaps realistic view of how "science" often operates. I believe science can only benefit from the dialogue on origins. I disagree with those nay-sayers who declare the sky will fall if we lend an ear to the creationists. An an adversarial diaologue, responsibly undertaken, can only improve our science and understanding."

I should also mention that here in the Minnesota academic scene, that evolutionary pugilist PZ (little Paul) Meyers (from UofM Morris) FLEES at the approach of Remine, whom he cannot begin to refute effectively. Chicken. And he is your best. Has issues with his impoverished childhood in Washington state, hence he apparently blames the Universe or God for them, and thus tries to get back at God, by denying him. Pathetic.

701 posted on 12/06/2005 2:20:24 PM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: KamperKen
Actually, unlike virtually everyone else on this thread, I remain agnostic. Not enough information either way but I'm open-minded enough to entertain both sides of the argument.

Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back. The question compulsively put before the house is whether or not ID is any kind of even marginally reputable science, and of course, it is not. This has little to do with whether or not it's true, and I expect opinions around here are pretty evenly scattered through quite a wide spectrum on the subject.

702 posted on 12/06/2005 2:21:50 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: donh

"The question compulsively put before the house is whether or not ID is any kind of even marginally reputable science..."

Reputable scientists take facts as known and then posit ID theories based on them. Why is this intellectually invalid? Not testable or falsifiable, like Darwinism?


703 posted on 12/06/2005 2:26:05 PM PST by KamperKen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: dotnetfellow
I searched to find an explanation of what Gould meant and found this:
Although fossil species appear to persist unchanged through many strata, sequences of species clearly showing evolutionary trends abound, and records of one species transforming into another also exist (see below) although such are rare. And, of course fossil species are fully formed and functional! A partially formed and nonfunctional organism would die before or shortly after birth. Such species couldn't possibly exist to form fossils. Actually the phrase "fully formed" is used by Gould (1977) to describe the first appearance of a species in the fossil record. Gould simply meant that usually such species have all the features that characterize them throughout their subsequent period of stasis. He did not mean that higher categories (genera, families, orders, etc) appear fully formed in this sense (they don't) nor did he mean that transitional forms are not fully formed in the sense that they are incomplete and nonfunctional.
Unline you I will provide a link - I found this here.

So evidently I was wrong - even though he quoted it, it is Gould's term. I find that usage quite unobjectional, indeed how can one object to the idea that species have defining characteristics and that some earliest fossil will have them? I'm sure that's what you intended to convey in your post (yeah, right).

704 posted on 12/06/2005 2:26:34 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Maybe all there is in the universe is Materialism but I think science must use the scientific method rather than just assuming.

I agree. Now if you could just get the proponents of ID to agree to use the scientific method as well, none of us would have anything to argue about.

705 posted on 12/06/2005 2:29:36 PM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: donh
...his big falsifiable test for ID is to search for "Kilroy was here" encoded in some musty corner of the genome.

Well, not only is that not a prediction (because it is not derived from a logical argument) but it isn't testable because the notion is too ill defined. Is he being more specific than I infer from your comments?

706 posted on 12/06/2005 2:37:21 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"Author! Author!"

Gould. Sorry, I thought it was clear from the context.

707 posted on 12/06/2005 2:46:25 PM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
he pretty much recapitulates Behe, and the rest of the current crop of darwinian naysayers,

I see you haven't read him, since you are 100% wrong as the book is a critical survey of the anti-creationists in the origins debate. Manifestly you aren't conversant with his treatise, let alone scientifically open-minded.

and his big falsifiable test for ID is to search for "Kilroy was here" encoded in some musty corner of the genome.

Read the book. Then you will stop mindlessly disparaging that which you should be studying...

Let's examine a longer extract from your cite:

Half the book dismantles evolutionary illusions, such as:

* The carnival shell game maneuvering behind natural selection and the anthropic principle.
* The inability of evolutionary geneticists to make their models consistent with their claims and the data.
* The flexibility and untestability of evolutionary theory, it has no coherent structure. Many evolutionists are quoted to demonstrate the contradictions within evolutionary theory.
* The philosophical double-standards held by evolutionists, one standard for creation, and a lesser one for evolution.
* The misuse of terminology and classification methods to create evolutionary illusions.
* The fossil record systematically refutes the predictions of Darwinism. This is documented by quoting evolutionists themselves.
* Punctuationists (such as Stephen Gould) responded to their setbacks by constructing a theory that is compatible with a complete absence of evidence for evolution. Few students know that punctuated equilibria theory is specially constructed to destroy the appearance of lineages and identifiable ancestors.

The analysis of evolutionary theory receives praise from creationists and evolutionists alike.

The other half of the book is more controversial. The book doesn't just take shots at evolution, it actively proposes a scientifically testable creation theory to take its place. The new theory overturns Darwin's and Gould's arguments about "imperfect" designs, and most notably, the evolutionist's central argument — the nested pattern of life. The full range of biological issues are discussed, from vestigial organs, to embryology, to biomolecules, to biogeography, and more.

The central claims of the theory are simple and plausible: Life was reasonably designed for survival, and to convey a message that tells where life came from. The message can be described in two parts:

1. Life was designed to look like the product of a single designer.
2. Life was designed to resist all other explanations.

In other words, evolutionary theory helped shape the pattern of life — with a reverse impact. Life was intricately designed to resist all evolutionary explanations, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's.

As anyone who takes the trouble to look can see, I have accurately characterized the book, if the publishers have.

And that's regardless of my credentials in mathematics.

What is "message theory" anyway? And what does a phud in "communications theory" mean that you know? Transmission entropy a' la Shannon? How to find the ring line in a phone cable? Chomsky? Kauffman? Alfred Adler?

708 posted on 12/06/2005 2:48:21 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
A poster named medved used to thump Remine's Haldane Dilemma pitch all the time. It's just bogus.
709 posted on 12/06/2005 2:51:02 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
If it possible to show that no Darwinian pathway could reasonably lead to an irreducibly complex biological structure, that, at least in my mind constitutes refutability.

A reasonable evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum has been uncovered. I suppose "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. However, if you find flaws with the research content of the following, please post them:

Evolution in Brownian Space

710 posted on 12/06/2005 2:51:54 PM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
Gould. Sorry, I thought it was clear from the context.

You're right. I never went back to the dialogue before the long quote until it was too late.

711 posted on 12/06/2005 2:59:38 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: dotnetfellow
Right, he says it, then he tries to take it back. Sorry, no take backs.

What is this, freakin' first grade? I posted Gould's full writing from the quote onward to provide context regarding Gould's outlook on gradualism, which is what he is criticising. No surprise there, he's the guru of PE. He is NOT saying Evolution is wrong. He is critiquing a particular school of thought within in it. And not everyone agrees with his analyisis of things. He has also, as here, been guilty of sometimes writing in a manner easily open to multiple interpretations. It's his fault. No doubt about that. He's a brilliant guy, but sometimes his communications skills seem a bit muddled.

712 posted on 12/06/2005 3:02:53 PM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
...his big falsifiable test for ID is to search for "Kilroy was here" encoded in some musty corner of the genome.

Well, not only is that not a prediction

It sounds like a prediction to me: if we look hard enough, we will find an unmistakable message encoded in DNA that intends to tell us that only God can make a tree.

(because it is not derived from a logical argument)

I don't think Virtually anything of any great general interest, that I am aware of in science, is derived from logical argument.

but it isn't testable because the notion is too ill defined. Is he being more specific than I infer from your comments?

You could read for yourself the publishers (I presume) comments just above. I'm undecided, but this is probably just a sort of inverted variation on Behe's defense: just because you can't find this message from God in the DNA, will never prove it ain't there.

When Isaac Asimov used to get cornered at booksignings by creationists, he would begin to feverishly pitch the theory that animals spoke the King's English 10,000 years ago. Being Isaac Asimov, he could, of course, present reams of evidence in support of this theory, which he insistently presented, until his protagonists retreated. Who knows, perhaps animals did speak the king's english in 8000BC. After all, evidence is evidence, right?

713 posted on 12/06/2005 3:05:03 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: donh
I am assuming you did not understand what I just said.

You do seem to assume a lot.

Science does not make a base assumption that there can only be material explanations.

Funny, that is not what you said earlier: donh(672): Science concerns itself with material explanations of material phenomenon, because that's the function of science.

Just for review:

Materialism is the philosophical view that the only thing that can truly be said to 'exist' is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of 'material' and all phenomena are the result of material interactions.

Your first definition of the function of science is the textbook definition of materialism.

Science merely makes a base assumption that material explanations are science's only realm of competence.

The Dogma of Materialism states science's only realm of competence is material explanations - this is not an immutable fact (it is materialistic dogma). Like I said - some base their thinking on the assumption of materialism. Science is only supposed to go where the data leads - you are adding dogma.

Speaking of not understanding - donh, how do you reconcile these two statement you just made in #699:

donh(699): Science does not make a base assumption that there can only be material explanations.

donh(699): Science merely makes a base assumption that material explanations are science's only realm of competence.

In the first statement you say science does not make base assumptions that can only be material explanations and in the second statement you say science makes base assumptions that science can only find material explanations.

Science can find anything. Science can find evidence of a deity - or something we currently feel is supernatural. Science can go wherever the data leads unless it is shackled by dogma such as the dogma of materialism where it is assumed every explanation must be material. This is not to say I am certain there are explanations outside the realm of the material - just that it is possible and science is no longer science when it starts with base assumptions that are based on dogma.

This is an epistimological claim...

Of course it is - it is the dogma of the philosophy of Materialism. What do you think the term "epistemological dogma" means? Try this example:

The impressive successes of technology not only continuously strengthened this aspect [rationality] of reality but they finally also caused the rise of the epistemological dogma that science and technology offer the only access to reality.
-Kurt Hübner, Philosophy of Modern Art and the Philosophy of Technology (an interesting read on a different subject: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v4n1/HUBNER.html)

and so it is not, as you persist in claiming, dogma

Poppycock. It is philosophical dogma - the dogma of Materialism. Your denial is not very convincing.

and it is not, as you persist in claiming, at odds with supernatural explanations commonly held by most Judeo-christians.

I never made any such claim.

714 posted on 12/06/2005 3:06:46 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
I agree. Now if you could just get the proponents of ID to agree to use the scientific method as well, none of us would have anything to argue about.

ID uses the scientific method to the exact same extent as those that claim to refute it.

715 posted on 12/06/2005 3:11:03 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Isn't morality also part of what is? If so, then it must have evolved, but if that's the case why then wouldn't evolutionary theory have anything to say about it?

Let's say there were two primitive, hunter-gatherer societies. One of them had a culture that encouraged cooperation, including things like "don't murder each other", "don't take other peoples' things", "tell the truth", etc. The other society had a culture that encouraged short-term gain at the expense of other members.

Which one do you think would be more likely to grow? Why? Which one would be more likely to perform collective actions in an emergency? Or rescue someone else's children from a sabretooth?

We're all cultural descendents of the successful cultures. A non-genetic Darwinian mechanism has removed the others.

Consider that the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, etc etc *all* have laws againsts murder, theft, adultery (not always defined exactly the way we do), and so forth. None of them received the Decalogue.

716 posted on 12/06/2005 3:14:35 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Speaking of not understanding - donh, how do you reconcile these two statement you just made in #699:

donh(699): Science does not make a base assumption that there can only be material explanations.

donh(699): Science merely makes a base assumption that material explanations are science's only realm of competence.

Perhaps if you stopped foaming at the mouth, and cut down your freighted verbiage count substantially, your brain could relax enough to examine what is in front of your eyes. I do not need to reconcile these statements because they are not in conflict. I'll not be answering the rest of your post because I don't understand it, and your demeanor is too abrasive to motivate me to try to untangle this vague philosophical ramble.

717 posted on 12/06/2005 3:21:03 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
In the first statement you say science does not make base assumptions that can only be material explanations and in the second statement you say science makes base assumptions that science can only find material explanations.

Oh, I guess maybe I can make sense of what's going on here after all.

Science looks only at detectable stuff, and tries to explain what it sees in terms of detectable stuff. Explanations in terms of as yet indetectable stuff, such as God, or ID or string theory or continental drift, or a relative universe, have to eventually put up or shut up in terms of detectability.

The only claim science makes about indectable causes, such as God or ID, is that it doesn't know squat.

since it seems to bear repeating in formal philosophical vocabulary: philosophical materialism holds that material is all there is. Neither science nor I advance this claim, no matter how hard you squint in order to see the use of the word "material" as a claim to formal philosophical materialism.

718 posted on 12/06/2005 3:39:42 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: donh

I might not have been clear. I was saying that it isn't a *scientific* prediction because it doesn't follow from any theory (or at least I doubt he has so derived it). Obviously there is more to science than predictions, things like facts, theories, laws, experiments.


719 posted on 12/06/2005 3:40:42 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I have all the relevant posts stored on disk, so history is not going to be erased, either.

I'm sure you do, Madame Defarge.

720 posted on 12/06/2005 3:48:24 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
ID uses the scientific method to the exact same extent as those that claim to refute it.

Indeed. Since it is not a scientific theory, there isn't any way to do butkus to it, using the scientific method.

721 posted on 12/06/2005 3:49:14 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Another argument on the Haldane's Dilemma question, from Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?

But in the same Wistar symposium publication, C. H. Waddington (in his "Summary Discussion") hits the nail so square on the head that I will quote his remarks at great length:

The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. We know perfectly well of 12 changes which exist in the human population at the present time. There are probably many more which we haven't detected, because they have such slight physiological effects...[so] there [may be] 20 different amino acid sequences in human hemoglobins in the world population at present, all being processed simultaneously...Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability, present simultaneously. To deal with them as sequential steps is going to give you estimates that are wildly out." (pp. 95-6)

722 posted on 12/06/2005 3:51:36 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: donh
Indeed. Since it is not a scientific theory, there isn't any way to do butkus to it, using the scientific method.

This is also true of the explanation that is supposed to refute ID. Be careful, that sword cuts both ways.

723 posted on 12/06/2005 3:53:48 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: donh
Perhaps if you stopped foaming at the mouth, your brain could relax enough to examine what is in front of your eyes.

Perhaps if you dispensed with the ad hominem attacks you would see clear enough to notice you just said you "voted for the budget before you voted against it" - figuratively speaking

I do not need to reconcile these statements because they are not in conflict.

As Cleopatra once said "Denial runs deep"

You stated science does not make base assumptions there can only be material explanations - then you said science makes base assumption there can only be material explanations because that is science's realm of competence. Two completely contradictory statements.

I'll not be answering the rest of your post because I don't understand it,

I see, time to dive for the tall grass.

724 posted on 12/06/2005 3:56:06 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: donh

725 posted on 12/06/2005 4:00:41 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow (Sneering condescension.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
This is also true of the explanation that is supposed to refute ID. Be careful, that sword cuts both ways.

Science isn't in the business of refuting ID. I would guess that a slight majority of scientists probably think ID is true, at this point. The vast majority of all scientists, however, would not for a moment think that ID has even begun to put its money where its mouth is in terms of putting up a theory with sufficient detail to provide for a single falsifiable test of any significant practical scientific viability. It took discrepencies in the perhilion of mercury to take Einstein's theory off the drawing board. No such equivalent test has even been proposed for ID, much less been performed.

726 posted on 12/06/2005 4:02:19 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Perhaps if you dispensed with the ad hominem attacks you would see clear enough to notice you just said you "voted for the budget before you voted against it" - figuratively speaking

Sometimes an insult is an ad homonem--as when it is in place of a relevant answer to an argument. Sometimes an insult is just an insult that's well deserved because one persists in being dense as a stump when something pretty simple is explained to you over and over in progressively simpler terms, and you insist on flopping around like an alligator in heat instead of thinking about what's being said to you. -- figuratively speaking.

727 posted on 12/06/2005 4:08:18 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Sounds good to me. The adventure is in the journey, not the destination as far as abiogenesis is concerned.


728 posted on 12/06/2005 4:15:59 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: donh
Science looks only at detectable stuff, and tries to explain what it sees in terms of detectable stuff.

Are mathematical formulas "detectable"? I think you are trying to imply science is based on the dogma of empiricism which is simply not true. There is empirical science and there is theoretical science.

Explanations in terms of as yet indetectable stuff, such as God, or ID or string theory or continental drift, or a relative universe, have to eventually put up or shut up in terms of detectability.

So since string theory is undetectable therefore it is considered supernatural just as God? (actually you may be closer than you think). As for your "put up or shut up" statement - that is illogical - basic Aristotelian logic demonstrates absence of data is proof of nothing.

The only claim science makes about indectable causes, such as God or ID, is that it doesn't know squat.

So you are claiming science does not know squat about anything that cannot be "detected"? What about theoretical science?

ID is every bit as detectable as the evolution-based explanations that are supposed to refute it.

since it seems to bear repeating in formal philosophical vocabulary: philosophical materialism holds that material is all there is. Neither science nor I advance this claim, no matter how hard you squint in order to see the use of the word "material" as a claim to formal philosophical materialism.

More denial. This is your definition of science:

donh(672): Science concerns itself with material explanations of material phenomenon, because that's the function of science.

You claim all science all can do is create material explanations of material phenomenon.

This is the definition of materialism:

Materialism is the philosophical view that the only thing that can truly be said to 'exist' is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of 'material' and all phenomena are the result of material interactions.

Like it or not - deny all you like - your definition of science and the definition of materialism are identical. I don't doubt you do not fully understand your definition of science is rooted in the dogma of Materialism - but it is. Your concept of science starts with a material assumption. That is the dogma of Materialism. Science should not start out with any a priori assumptions other than man exists and is capable of rational thought. Understand that neither you nor science has proved all that exists is material therefore holding an assumption like that is dogma - not a scientific conclusion.

729 posted on 12/06/2005 4:49:01 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: donh
Science isn't in the business of refuting ID.

Finally we agree. Now just tell that to all the Evo's that claim ID has been refuted.

I would guess that a slight majority of scientists probably think ID is true, at this point.

Well, that statement was unexpected.

The vast majority of all scientists, however, would not for a moment think that ID has even begun to put its money where its mouth is in terms of putting up a theory with sufficient detail to provide for a single falsifiable test of any significant practical scientific viability.

All right - what's going on here? I agree 100% but would also like to note that natural selection is not falsifiable.

It took discrepencies in the perhilion of mercury to take Einstein's theory off the drawing board. No such equivalent test has even been proposed for ID, much less been performed.

Darn, you have ruined this entire debate - I completely agree with you.

730 posted on 12/06/2005 4:54:33 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: donh
Sometimes an insult is an ad homonem--as when it is in place of a relevant answer to an argument. Sometimes an insult is just an insult that's well deserved because one persists in being dense as a stump when something pretty simple is explained to you over and over in progressively simpler terms, and you insist on flopping around like an alligator in heat instead of thinking about what's being said to you. -- figuratively speaking.

More ad homenem attacks with a little childish logic added for flavor. So you try to justify ad homenem attacks by claiming they are justified because I don't agree with your side of the argument - OH THE IRONY!

731 posted on 12/06/2005 5:01:12 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
PMFJI...
Like it or not - deny all you like - your definition of science and the definition of materialism are identical. I don't doubt you do not fully understand your definition of science is rooted in the dogma of Materialism - but it is. Your concept of science starts with a material assumption. That is the dogma of Materialism. Science should not start out with any a priori assumptions other than man exists and is capable of rational thought. Understand that neither you nor science has proved all that exists is material therefore holding an assumption like that is dogma - not a scientific conclusion.

Maybe if you can come up with a way to measure the weight of love, or the chirality of a miracle, or the voltage of an equation, then science can deal with the nonmaterial. But until that happens, donh is exactly right: Phenomena that are unconnected somehow to the material world are forever outside of science's competence.

732 posted on 12/06/2005 6:03:07 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross; donh; VadeRetro
FYI, ReMine debated Dave Thomas online a couple years back - one of the few written creation vs. evolution debates in recent memory.
733 posted on 12/06/2005 6:05:36 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
That promises to be richly funny. Thanks for it!
734 posted on 12/06/2005 6:17:48 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Gave it the speed-read treatment, it was that good. Remine reminds me of Duane Gish. Holy bafflegab, Batman!
735 posted on 12/06/2005 6:34:55 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Darwinian evolution is accepted by FAITH; it not true science that can be tested in any laboratory. It is a belief system, not science.


736 posted on 12/06/2005 7:37:10 PM PST by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: Free Baptist

"Darwinian evolution is accepted by FAITH; it not true science that can be tested in any laboratory. It is a belief system, not science."

Everything you just said is 100% wrong. Not that you care about the truth. :)


737 posted on 12/06/2005 7:39:42 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Materialism is the philosophical view that the only thing that can truly be said to 'exist' is matter

It seems to me that if this is the way materialism is defined, the science today is not materialist nor has it been for a very long time.

738 posted on 12/06/2005 8:30:44 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Having glanced through that, I see I won't be buying ReMine's book. Thanks.


739 posted on 12/06/2005 8:56:06 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Finally we agree. Now just tell that to all the Evo's that claim ID has been refuted.

Like who. All I remember reading in this thread is that ID ain't a science, which, until it manages to propose a doable experiment, is plainly obvious.

740 posted on 12/06/2005 9:18:21 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
I would guess that a slight majority of scientists probably think ID is true, at this point.

Well, that statement was unexpected.

Then maybe you should listen more, and invent what scientists think from within the confines of your own imagination less. The grief scientists have with ID is not related to its likelihood, much as stealth creationists would like that to be so.

741 posted on 12/06/2005 9:24:34 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Explanations in terms of as yet indetectable stuff, such as God, or ID or string theory or continental drift, or a relative universe, have to eventually put up or shut up in terms of detectability.

So since string theory is undetectable therefore it is considered supernatural just as God?

String theory has four proposed tests, and the deep traction entwined in the tracks of other scientific discoveries such as to produce a very large number of confirming publications in widely recognized technical journals. These tests seem likely to fail if string theory is wrong, & are coming on line; the first will be in 2010, if things stay on schedule.

(actually you may be closer than you think). As for your "put up or shut up" statement - that is illogical - basic Aristotelian logic demonstrates absence of data is proof of nothing.

Proof is not at issue, and since it isn't, we do not run science on the basis of aristotalian logic. All we can do in science is increase or decrease our confidence in a theory, and that occurs when a viable experiment succeeds or fails, regardless of what Aristotle thinks.

Like it or not - deny all you like - your definition of science and the definition of materialism are identical.

Utterly braindead hogwash.

I don't doubt you do not fully understand your definition of science is rooted in the dogma of Materialism - but it is. Your concept of science starts with a material assumption. That is the dogma of Materialism. Science should not start out with any a priori assumptions other than man exists and is capable of rational thought. Understand that neither you nor science has proved all that exists is material therefore holding an assumption like that is dogma - not a scientific conclusion.

This is, I think, your third repeat, with even more words and less sense, of an obviously pathological misunderstanding of the basic epistimology of science--please don't feel invited to repeat this tedious nonsense yet again. Science is not based on formal philosophical materialism, and it operates with all manner of ad hoc "a priori" assumptions. Even for this forum, this is quite an impressive load of pretentious jibberish.

742 posted on 12/06/2005 9:49:17 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: KamperKen
"The question compulsively put before the house is whether or not ID is any kind of even marginally reputable science..."

Reputable scientists take facts as known and then posit ID theories based on them. Why is this intellectually invalid?

And the specifics of the theory And the doable tests proposed to verify these specifics are what? Don't bother to clarify, just point me to the writeups of the results.

Not testable or falsifiable, like Darwinism?

There is no branch of science that has even remotely suffered and survived more potentially falsifiable tests than Darwinism. It happens most every time a prof sends out his students to a dig whose location is based on analysis of existing data.

743 posted on 12/06/2005 10:12:28 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I find it interesting that many ancient civilizations record a great flood that happened in the earliest time of man, from the Cherokee nation to the Myans.

The word used in the original text can mean both world wide and a certain area. The more interesting revelation of that time is the fact that before the flood it had not rained on the face of the earth. According to scripture everything was watered by a mist that rose from the ground.

This time according to science was pre-man. Yet the Bible clearly states that it had not rained until the flood at the time of Noah, so man was present earlier than science records. Pre-flood there had been no rainbow. So evidently this flood marked a great change in earth's atmosphere.

Science has had to correct itself many times, not so with scriptures. Eventually science falls in line with them and it's silly to ignore that fact.


744 posted on 12/07/2005 5:33:46 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Maybe if you can come up with a way to measure the weight of love, or the chirality of a miracle, or the voltage of an equation, then science can deal with the nonmaterial. But until that happens, donh is exactly right: Phenomena that are unconnected somehow to the material world are forever outside of science's competence.

One thing we know for certain – if science follows donh’s “definition” of science – science is guaranteed to never learn anything beyond the material world. If you never look – you are certain to never find.

745 posted on 12/07/2005 5:45:14 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
It seems to me that if this is the way materialism is defined, the science today is not materialist nor has it been for a very long time.

Tell that to donh.

746 posted on 12/07/2005 5:46:53 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: donh
Finally we agree. Now just tell that to all the Evo's that claim ID has been refuted.

Like who. All I remember reading in this thread is that ID ain't a science, which, until it manages to propose a doable experiment, is plainly obvious.

Pay closer attention (BTW: please state the doable experiment to test natural selection or are you claiming natural selection is not science):

Sentator Bedfellow(674): In that light, simply demonstrating a potential pathway for the evolution of the flagellum is sufficient to refute claims that it is impossible

<1/1,000,000th% (648): Darwin wrote in a manner where he posed objections to his ideas, then refuted them.

Thatcherite (547): Part of the problem that those of us on the evo side of the debate is that we see the same canards and easily refuted weak arguments for creationism/ID coming at us again and again.

Thatcherite (547): The same Freeper posting the same refuted argument again and again in a thread

Thatcherite (547): An evo refutes an argument, and then sees it pop up again from the same poster in a later thread as if the refutation had never happened

Thatcherite (547): Argument by lucky dip, where a Freeper posts a succession of arguments and as each one is refuted just goes back to their favourite creationist website for more, ad nauseam within the same thread. Don't they realise how stupid this makes them (and by extension their religion) look?

dread78645 (302): And [irreducible conplexity is] throughly refuted by the SETI folks at Berkley.

747 posted on 12/07/2005 6:11:21 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: donh
donh: I would guess that a slight majority of scientists probably think ID is true, at this point.

LVD: Well, that statement was unexpected.

Then maybe you should listen more, and invent what scientists think from within the confines of your own imagination less.

I think you will have a very hard time proving a majority of scientists think ID is true. Sounds like you may be inventing what you think scientists think from your own imagination. BTW: how do YOU know what scientists think - are you a mind-reader?

748 posted on 12/07/2005 6:17:36 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
think you will have a very hard time proving a majority of scientists think ID is true. Sounds like you may be inventing what you think scientists think from your own imagination. BTW: how do YOU know what scientists think - are you a mind-reader?

No, I'm just a curious sort, likd most scientists, and, like most scientists, try to keep up with current problems that have made the news--chiefly the problem of early advent of life, and several specific large-scale mutational clock anomolies--and, I suppose, a handful of the problems and evidences Fred Hoyle brought up.

One would think these items would be familiar to ID proponents, but I am constantly surprised to see that they are not--until I remember what the actual motivation of a stealth creationist is.

As I pointed out earlier, the actual detailed mechanisms of early life being investigated by actual scientists of the likes of Woese and Wolfram are inherently more interesting to the technically minded. ID or not ID is just an over-sensatonalized, minor bump in that road.

749 posted on 12/07/2005 6:55:20 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 748 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Science has had to correct itself many times, not so with scriptures. Eventually science falls in line with them and it's silly to ignore that fact.

You couldn't have this more wrong. In 1700, practically every scientist was what we would now call a creationist. As science corrected itself, it moved away from this position. One highlight along the way happened in 1831.

Adam Sedwick, religious to the core but a scientist as well, apologized for having dogmatically held on too long.

Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood.... (Sedgwick, 1831, p. 312-314)

That's OK, Adam! Saying that in 1831, you're still 175 years ahead of one Miss American Pie.

The trend is not your friend. How do you justify standing the chart on its head and pretending the down arrow is an up arrow?

750 posted on 12/07/2005 7:04:55 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 851-875 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