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

Skip to comments.

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]
Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 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 ... 1,101-1,137 next last
To: antiRepublicrat
Excellent proselytization. Looking for a convert?

I'm not of the Evangelical sort.

Get thee hence to thy nearest Olive Garden; there you you shall find the TRVTH that you seek.

701 posted on 12/13/2005 1:54:48 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"If you can find an individual who seriously espouses spaghetti monster theory, please let me know."

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism isn't a theory, any more than is ID.

They are both equally valid beliefs.

I hope that cleared things up.


702 posted on 12/13/2005 2:04:46 PM PST by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

'It posits a single, almighty, intelligent agent, not vague "forces of nature;" not a concoction of natural selection, random mutations, unguided forces, etc.'

And that is its biggest problem - no scientist has observed this "single, almighty, intelligent agent", OR any evidence that he/she/it exists or took any action.

However, scientists have repeatedly observed natural selection, random mutations and unguided forces.

Thank you for very clearly stating one of the main reasons ID is emphatically NOT science.

I assure you that if you produce the "Intelligent Designer", and/or ANY *believable proof* that he/she/it actually transformed or created species on Earth, you'll win the Nobel Prize ten times over.


703 posted on 12/13/2005 2:11:34 PM PST by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew; antiRepublicrat; PatrickHenry
That is to say, astrology contains a fair amount of science. And by now you know I grant a wide meaning to the word "science," similar to that of Alamo Girl.

Wide enough to include fantasies, superstition, and unsupported desires mistaken for belief, among other things...

Call that kind of mish-mash what you will, but do not insult our intelligence -- or your own -- by calling it "science". It isn't.

Science is, quite simply, *the* most incredibly effective and productive method ever found for separating sense from nonsense, truth from falsehood, knowledge from speculation. It is the most powerful means in all of human history for extracting reliable knowledge from the Universe. It has done more to make fundamental discoveries, enhance living standards, produce workable results, etc., than *any* other method of searching for knowledge. Indeed, it has done so vastly better and produce vastly more real results than *ALL* other methods combined, including philosophy, religion, intuition, or anything else you care to list. And it has done so by a careful refinement and accumulation of methods which are demonstrably reliable and effective.

You can not arbitrarily "include" methods known to be shaky and unreliable and still have it be *science*, although I know that this is a popular attempt by those (including the IDers and other mystics) who wish to dishonestly stretch "science" to include their own pet superstitions by "expanding" the definition of science. The deep and fundamental dishonesty of this is that they're trying to wrap their untested (and often *untestable*) beliefs in the authority of science -- but they do so by *undermining* the very essence of science (it's methodical reliability) in an attempt to falsely give their claims an air of scientific validation THAT THEIR CLAIMS HAVE NOT ACTUALLY EARNED.

And let's revisit that "testability" requirement for a moment, since it bears on something that the critics of science seldom seem to properly grasp (and instead just ludicrously ridicule it without understanding with childishly inappropriate analogies like "tunnelvisioned bloodhounds", as if scientific inquiry isn't the vastly wide-ranging activity that it actually is).

Some think that the "requirements of science" are some sort of "club" that erects artificial restrictions to keep out the "unwanted" viewpoints. But that's not the case.

Instead, the scientific method has been developed over the centuries to incorporate reliable methods of acquiring valid knowledge, and avoid unreliable methods.

And the reason that "testable" and "falsifiable" are such large parts of that method is because they get to the core essense of telling sense from nonsense. Or even more to the point, useful knowledge from useless notions.

And that's the crux of the issue. If an idea isn't "scientifically testable", it's because it has *no* real-world consequences. It doesn't affect reality, or if it does, it does so in no predictable or useful ways. It is, in every sense of the word, a useless idea. An idea which has no practical value, which makes no difference, which produces no results. In short, it's an idea that doesn't make any difference whether it's true or not.

Useful ideas *are* testable. Useless ones are not.

Science deals with useful ideas. Useless ones are outside of its scope. For some reason, this seems to bug the hell out of some people, so they feel they have to denigrate science, or smugly declare that there are "larger truths" or "other methods" of determining truth (despite the notably poor performance of those other methods over the past several thousand years), in order to cling to the hope that their preferred philosophies might "really" be true in some "higher" sense, despite the fact that they can't be found useful (and therefore testable) in any *real* sense in this *real* world.

If that's your goal, just be honest enough to come out and say so, but don't try to denigrate science for failing to find any support for your view, or try to dishonestly "stretch" science (to the point where it loses its reliability) in a cheap attempt to *pretend* that your views have been given a scientific seal of approval. You can't have it both ways.

704 posted on 12/13/2005 2:17:12 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
"since *you're* the one with the morality based on the same standard as that of the terroists"

I disagree wholeheartedly.

By right, I mean the correct answer or, in our case, the correct morality, which of course implies an objective source to determine rightness or wrongness. I beleive this source to be the God of the Bible. If we say there is not an objective source, than my morality, or the morality of the terrorist, has just as much value as yours. Rightness and wrongness is then defined by sticking to the principles of your brand of morality. So you would be immoral if you practiced things which go against your morality. Conversely, a terrorist would be a moral person by killing the infidel, because he is living in accordance with his morality.

JM
705 posted on 12/13/2005 2:21:15 PM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: All

Now would be a good time to remind everyone that all the "intelligent design" people here were merely "creationists" a mere 3 or so years ago.

It would be fun to really comb the FR archives to pull up some of the creationist dribble from the very same people here who twaddle on about the "Designer" as if they've come to some sort of epiphany.

BS is BS no matter what you call it.


706 posted on 12/13/2005 2:29:27 PM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

Epistemology is a difficult word. I think it means something like the study of what there is. We call it knowledge, but that isn't exactly equivalent.


707 posted on 12/13/2005 2:34:20 PM PST by RightWhale (Not transferable -- Good only for this trip)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
A good scientific theory must explain the data, but it must also be vulnerable to the data.

Who says?

Without exaggeration, pretty much everybody! That is virtually (maybe even literally) all reflective working scientists or philosophers of science would agree unhesitatingly with this: that good scientific theories must be vulnerable to disconfirmation by the data.

Why carry the attribute of "vulnerability" into the definition of theory? A theory by defininition is simply a way of explaining data. Read the definition again, and tell me how you wring "vulnerability" out of it.

Um, are you actually saying some definition you saw or posted is more import than the way science is actually done? Why don't you tell me why in the world do you think that scientists in all fields and disciplines spend countless hours and dollars devising and performing observations and experiments? Why is any of that necessary if you only need an "explanation" and don't need to test it?!

708 posted on 12/13/2005 2:36:46 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew; betty boop; js1138
Thank you so much for the ping to your engaging essay-post!

And by now you know I grant a wide meaning to the word "science," similar to that of Alamo Girl.

I can't take credit for it. It's just what the term used to mean before "science" was narrowed in scope to nature alone (methodological naturalism).

As betty boop has pointed out on several threads, the German language preserves the original meaning: "Wissenschaft encompasses both Naturwissenschaften — the natural sciences — as well as Geisteswissenschaften — the humanities." The Greek counterpart, episteme is the "totality of human knowledge comprised by all the knowledge disciplines at any given time."

js1138, concerning my response to you at post 682, I would offer the fourth paragraph in post 704 as an example.

709 posted on 12/13/2005 2:37:16 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
I would say ID fits in with creationsim, just as evolution fits in with atheism. So a creationist would feel much more comfortable with ID and the atheist would feel the same with evolution. Does that mean that evolution is atheism and ID is creationism? Of course not. Let's judge these ideas based on their merits alone, which many on here have done. To say that ID is disqualified because it is heralded by creationists, would mean that evolution is disqualified because it is heralded by atheists. To play the religion card, no matter which side you are on, is to traffic in straw men.

JM
710 posted on 12/13/2005 2:39:23 PM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Great post.


711 posted on 12/13/2005 2:44:56 PM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
After a lot of dancing, dodging, ducking, definition asking and parsing, I hear crickets.

The previous discussion reminds me of the kind of responses one gets when discussing the literal interpretation of the Bible on slavery.
712 posted on 12/13/2005 2:45:57 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM
["since *you're* the one with the morality based on the same standard as that of the terrorists"]

I disagree wholeheartedly.

How so? You have stated that the standard of your morality is "God". So do the Muslim terrorists.

I have previously asked you to ponder that, and its implications. It does not appear that you have done so.

By right, I mean the correct answer or, in our case, the correct morality, which of course implies an objective source to determine rightness or wrongness.

You're just substituting one vague word for another. What does it mean, to you, for a morality to be "correct"?

I beleive this source to be the God of the Bible.

The Muslim terrorists believe it to be the God of the Koran. You say po-tay-to, they say po-tah-to...

How then, is this an "objective source" for morality? Isn't it just relative after all? Relative to which holy book or which holy man one chooses to follow?

If we say there is not an objective source, than my morality, or the morality of the terrorist, has just as much value as yours.

Wrong.

Rightness and wrongness is then defined by sticking to the principles of your brand of morality.

Not necessarily.

So you would be immoral if you practiced things which go against your morality. Conversely, a terrorist would be a moral person by killing the infidel, because he is living in accordance with his morality.

That's one way to look at it, I suppose.

713 posted on 12/13/2005 2:48:25 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
"Wrong"

On what scale are you basing this on? Why is it wrong and yours right?

JM
714 posted on 12/13/2005 2:50:31 PM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
episteme is the "totality of human knowledge comprised by all the knowledge disciplines at any given time."

In the Republic there are grades of knowledge. There is also doxa and pistis. And in Aristotle episteme is for scientific knowledge of things that exist necessarily and eternally and this is classed under several other forms of truth including art, prudence, wisdom, intelligence, conception and opinion (doxa). So episteme often has a more specific meaning.

715 posted on 12/13/2005 2:52:27 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Thank you for your reply!

So there is no specific reference to Herod the Great, other than a reference to the reign of the Maccabis as 'the great horn'? That's hardly very compelling, is it?

LOLOLOL! That was the point of our little exercise in ancient manuscripts.

The entire reason the book was dated after 37 B.C. was because the scholars presumed that prophesy is impossible, i.e. mentioning the end of the Maccabee reign would date the manuscript after 37 B.C., the rise of Herod the Great. Subsequent carbon-dating set the Qumran copy's date as far back as 186 B.C. (before Herod the Great and before the Maccabees as well).

They were wrong because they made a naturalistic presumption going into the investigation.

Now, the translators must look at the same passage as either a prophesy fulfilled or an accidentally accurate statement or metaphor made at least a century and a half earlier. The part about the "great horn" is in context with a full review or preview of Jewish history spanning two chapters, 89 and 90.

716 posted on 12/13/2005 2:53:51 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: cornelis; betty boop
Thank you for the additional insight! I'm pinging betty boop for her comments.
717 posted on 12/13/2005 2:55:50 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
what gives your morality more value than the morality of the terrorists?

JM
718 posted on 12/13/2005 2:59:18 PM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

altruism
One entry found for altruism.


Main Entry: al·tru·ism
Pronunciation: 'al-tru-"i-z&m
Etymology: French altruisme, from autrui other people, from Old French, oblique case form of autre other, from Latin alter
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
- al·tru·ist /-tru-ist/ noun
- al·tru·is·tic /"al-tru-'is-tik/ adjective
- al·tru·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb




Now stop the nonsense.


719 posted on 12/13/2005 3:00:21 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM
[If we say there is not an objective source, than my morality, or the morality of the terrorist, has just as much value as yours.]

Wrong.

[On what scale are you basing this on? Why is it wrong and yours right?]

I think you misunderstood the context of my answer. I wasn't saying that one or the other morality was "wrong" (although such a case could be made), I was saying that your notion that if there's not an "objective source", then all moralities "have just as much value" is, itself, wrong.

There is a large body of prior discussion on this topic, going back many centuries. I'm not going to trivialize it by trying to sum it up in a few paragraphs. Hit any decent library or do some web-based research to come up to speed on some of it. Suffice to say that there are many potential foundations for morality other just "God", most of which do not result in the kind of vapid "all moralities are of equal value" relativism you presume must be the case.

720 posted on 12/13/2005 3:07:02 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
As if the theory of intelligent design could not possibly cite a specific intelligent agent!

But it deliberately avoids doing that.

It is actually capable of more specificity than the theory of evolution. It posits a single, almighty, intelligent agent

Almighty? No I don't think ID does specify that, in fact it doesn't specify anything about the designer at all, not even whether there is just one designer. I've heard supporters say that the designer isn't necessarily god - it could be aliens.

721 posted on 12/13/2005 3:08:18 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
It's not a problem at all where the common definition of theory is concerned. Go ahead and cite the definition again, then show me where there are words stating that a theory must be falsifiable or provable, or that there must be evidence available to contradict it.

Right the common definition of theory, and I was thinking we were talking about the scientific definition. I apologize for assuming that.

722 posted on 12/13/2005 3:09:38 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
And that is its biggest problem - no scientist has observed this "single, almighty, intelligent agent", OR any evidence that he/she/it exists or took any action.

The evidence for an intelligent designer is indirect, much as the evidence for the director in a play is indirect while watching the play. There is ample evidence of intelligent design, as demonstrated by the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

723 posted on 12/13/2005 3:12:05 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Maybe you're just not expressing yourself clearly enough, but your statement as written is trivially incorrect.

Actually it isn't. It was perhaps too brief due to time constraints but it was neither trivial nor incorrect.

First, you seem to think that "the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak" is some sort of contradiction to natural selection, and the reason for this seems to be the common misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest" as "survival of the *strongest*" (which it is not) at the *expsense* of the weak (which it is not).

Incorrect. We were discussing social populations. In that context my proposition was simply this, the strong spending disproportionate resources to ensure the survival of the weak works against natural selection as a matter of fact. Heritable genes that otherwise would be selected out by natural selection proliferate in that social population. Allele frequencies are thus changed in that population by design, that design mechanism being morality.

Likewise, immorality can have the same effect.

Second, a mother animal sacrificing herself to save her children is certainly an example of "the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak", and yet not only is it hardly the "opposition to natural selection" you claim, it is actually a *classic* example of evolutionary "selfishness" -- protecting the perpetuation of one's genes.

Yeah, and some animals eat their own. But neither fact has anything to do with what I was saying.

Do you have any examples that aren't so vaguely overgeneralized as to be obviously fallacious?

Fallacious is in the eye of the beholder Ichy. In this case it's stuck in your eye.

Furthermore, make sure that any new examples you might offer don't fall under the evolutionary instinct of "kin selection". Note also that the instincts of kin selection also apply to sacrificing oneself for other members of a close-knit group, for a variety of reasons.

Kin selection? :-} I like that one too. Is it heritable?

If you're looking for examples of counter-survival morality, you'd do best looking elsewhere than the variations on "protecting the tribe" which you've been unsuccessfully mining so far.

I go where my mind takes me. But thanks for the advice.

724 posted on 12/13/2005 3:21:07 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
I've heard supporters say that the designer isn't necessarily god - it could be aliens.

Or a committee of bureaucratic aliens.

This ID thingy is starting to make sense ....

725 posted on 12/13/2005 3:24:45 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Doctor Stochastic
A string of numbers extracted from the extension of pi would falsely appear random where they are in fact highly determined.

Something to think about:

Consider the number
0.12345678910111213141516171819202122232425....

It is highly determined, in fact one can come up with a formula for the n-th digit.

Given any number, it is obvious that it appears infinitely many times in this decimal.

It is conjectured that pi has the same property; it is known that almost all real numbers do.

Dr S: Anything to add to AG's assertion? or mine?

726 posted on 12/13/2005 3:32:58 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
I was thinking we were talking about the scientific definition.

I assume that is the definition evos have been working with. Again, an intelligent designer is a reasonable way to explain the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. I have yet to see an evo suggest a better alternative to fit the evidence, and I have yet to see any evo enumerate those things science can accomplish without the presence of either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.

Nothing in the scientific definition of "theory" suggests there must be evidence to confute it in order for it to be a theory. Even so, I told you that the evidence which best refutes the theory of intelligent design is matter that is not organized and does not behave according to predictable laws. So far there has been little of it forthcoming, black holes perhaps being an example.

727 posted on 12/13/2005 3:33:00 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
I've heard supporters say that the designer isn't necessarily god - it could be aliens.

There are indeed a number of suggestions. On the face of it there are good reasons to infer that the intelligence is omnipotent, omniscient, and singular.

728 posted on 12/13/2005 3:39:41 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
If an idea isn't "scientifically testable", it's because it has *no* real-world consequences.

The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws is indeed scientifically testable. It is the stuff of science. To infer from the presence of the same that intelligent design is involved with its presence is no less reasonable than assuming some other agent, which agent (or agents) on the part of evos seems a shade scrappy. Intelligent design is a theory that well explains the whole of the universe, not to mention the practice of science itself.

729 posted on 12/13/2005 3:45:04 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Now stop the nonsense.

So you agree, given definition 2, there is no problem with the idea of reciprocal altruism?

Now, given that we need to keep tabs on the behavior of others in order to be able to engage in reciprocal altruism without being continually cheated; and we need to be able to convince others we ourselves should be trusted, what is the problem with the idea that we should have evolved innate senses of cheating, fairness, trustworthiness, shame, and loyalty? And, since the most important kind of reciprocal altruism is between a spouse and his/her partner, jealousy and fidelity?

I'm not claiming these supersede, or are alternatives to, those we may add or justify using a system of ethics; just that we should recognize what we all start off with as human beings.

730 posted on 12/13/2005 3:45:43 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The entire reason the book was dated after 37 B.C. was because the scholars presumed that prophesy is impossible, i.e. mentioning the end of the Maccabee reign would date the manuscript after 37 B.C., the rise of Herod the Great. Subsequent carbon-dating set the Qumran copy's date as far back as 186 B.C. (before Herod the Great and before the Maccabees as well).

Actually, based on my brief reading, there was argument about this even before the carbon dating.

It does seem, though, that any inferences they made based on a very stretched reading of the manuscript were questionable to start with. Based on a quick reading of 89 and 90, and the history of the Jews in the Maccabean period, I don't see much relationship between the two.

731 posted on 12/13/2005 3:52:17 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith; Stultis
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"

-------

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

732 posted on 12/13/2005 3:52:54 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Why don't you tell me why in the world do you think that scientists in all fields and disciplines spend countless hours and dollars devising and performing observations and experiments?

From the general theory of intelligent design science engages in specific fields of study, much of which enjoys or requires the rigorus application of falsifiable hypotheses, etc. The best science does not shy away from entertaining propsitons that may appear absurd on the face of it. The more reliable science is engaged in direct observation, which places the notion of a 4.5 billion-year-old earth, among other notions like the spaghetti monster, on relatively shaky ground.

733 posted on 12/13/2005 4:01:35 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: narby

I'm sure you're aware that there are many scientists who have come to a different opinion than the one you stated in your post. These viewpoints should be presented to our schoolchildren. Promoting unquestioning faith in evolution is not the antithesis to lying to schoolchildren.


734 posted on 12/13/2005 4:03:09 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Fester quoting my definition of a theory?

Will wonders never cease! I must have posted it to him enough times that something finally sank in.

735 posted on 12/13/2005 4:08:46 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
...speaks to the inclination of many in the science community to suggest that knowledge gained through science is more valuable or certain than knowledge gained through philosophy

I tend to agree with this view. I would say philosophy has tools for evaluating knowledge, just as mathematics does, but I do not see philosophy adding knowledge.

736 posted on 12/13/2005 4:10:03 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
As for astrology in astronomy class, I think that would be a good way to introduce the subject since astronomy stands on the shoulders of those who first observed the stars and tried to make sense of them. That is to say, astrology contains a fair amount of science.

I gotta hand it to you Fester. Every time I think you can't make a sillier, more uninformed post than your previous one, you go ahead and top yourself. I think you would be more comfortable living amongst the reality-based community instead of FR.

737 posted on 12/13/2005 4:11:42 PM PST by RightWingAtheist ("Why thank you Mr.Obama, I'm proud to be a Darwinist!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

If I had known it was "your" definition of a theory I would have posted something else. In view of the fact that intelligent design fits comfortably under your definition maybe you'd like to change it.


738 posted on 12/13/2005 4:14:36 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws is indeed scientifically testable."

And is just as much evidence for unintelligent design as it is for intelligent design. There is no way to choose between the two scientifically.

"To infer from the presence of the same that intelligent design is involved with its presence is no less reasonable than assuming some other agent, which agent (or agents) on the part of evos seems a shade scrappy."

Not so. Natural selection is observable. Mutations and genetic recombination are observable. The fossil record is observable. The genetic code is observable. Speciation has been observed. The evidence for evolution is PHYSICAL. The evidence for a deity/God/intelligent designer is NOT physical. ID is not capable of being examined by science, until someone can come up with some physical evidence for the existence of the alleged designer.
739 posted on 12/13/2005 4:15:51 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I beg to differ. Or does one have to be paid to observe and comment coherently upon the universe in order to be a "real" scientist?

One can be a science writer without any credentials at all, but I would say that at a minimum, a "real" scientist must be paid to do research or must publish in refereed journals. Some people would qualify posthumously.

740 posted on 12/13/2005 4:18:12 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist

There are certainly a number of arbitrary claims made by astrology, especially today when it is associated more with mysticism. My point is that astronomy is historically rooted in astrology. We don't dismiss the study of medicine as "silly" because the ancients once used medicine while associating it with various gods, do we? Every scientific discipline would do well to revisit it's roots, if not to avoid re-inventing the wheel, at least to appreciate where their discipline has been before.


741 posted on 12/13/2005 4:21:39 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist

Do you consider it wholly unscientific to associate the behavior of women during certain times of the month with the position of the moon?


742 posted on 12/13/2005 4:25:19 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Ichneumon

I agree entirely with post 704.


743 posted on 12/13/2005 4:28:07 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
And is just as much evidence for unintelligent design as it is for intelligent design.

No it is not. The evidence for unintelligent design, as I have stated, would be the absence of organized matter and the absence of predicatable laws governing the same. The two are highly distinct in nature.

744 posted on 12/13/2005 4:30:40 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Yes.


745 posted on 12/13/2005 4:30:50 PM PST by RightWingAtheist ("Why thank you Mr.Obama, I'm proud to be a Darwinist!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"The evidence for unintelligent design, as I have stated, would be the absence of organized matter and the absence of predicatable laws governing the same."

That's not true. I already stated that the test of my theory is the existence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. If we find that, then my theory has been verified. If we don't, then it has been falsified. You don't get to say what my theory tests for a priori.
746 posted on 12/13/2005 4:35:57 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Natural selection is observable. Mutations and genetic recombination are observable. The fossil record is observable. The genetic code is observable. Speciation has been observed.

Of course these things are observable. They are intelligently designed. The capacity to be observed would be additional evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for pointing that out. Of course, most of the claims of evolution are by indirect observation - certainly a legitimate form of observation, but not as reliable as direct observation, such as was practiced by astrologers in times of old.

747 posted on 12/13/2005 4:38:41 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
I've heard supporters say that the designer isn't necessarily god - it could be aliens.

I doubt there are many of you who think the Raelians are credible.

748 posted on 12/13/2005 4:41:24 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
People keep forgetting that Fester Chugabrew has previously stated that he starts with the assumption that he is correct, and concludes that any observations must be in line with his correctness. He has openly admitted previously that he holds a position that is completely non-falsifiable, yet refuses to accept that non-falsifiable explanations are fundamentally worthless.
749 posted on 12/13/2005 4:42:11 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

When an object is intelligently designed, it by necessicity entails the organization of matter for the purpose of having it perform consistently and according to the purpose the designer intended. One might find an argument for unintelligent design in the works of certain modern artists, but even these, though they may attempt to demonstrate unintelligent design, nevertheless fail, for by their attempts to denote the unintelligent, they have by default engaged an element of design.

If you are attempting to convince someone of the sensibility of your arguments it does little good to posit a fake theory that makes a mockery of conventional meanings and has no basis in reality. The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is a reality, and it is best explained by intelligent design.


750 posted on 12/13/2005 4:46:07 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,101-1,137 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