Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415
Results 141 to 148 of 148

Thread: War on evolution has a price

  1. #141

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bcripeq
    ID has nothing to do with religion.


    Then why do you keep posting links to religious websites?


    Quote:
    Why do you not want scientists to keep exploring ID?


    I don't.


    Quote:
    How will science prove your religious beliefs if there is a huge roadblock to alternative thought?


    I don't see some huge roadblock like you do. And I don't see ID as alternative thought either.


    Quote:
    Where is Xianity taught in public schools? Umm, its not.


    I didn't say that Xianity is specifically taught in public schools. (No religion should be.) However, our entire culture is saturated with it.


    Quote:
    So using your argument is teaching ID a step before teaching satanism?


    What are you talking about?


    Quote:
    Imagination is science? skippy, sorry but that goes directly against what wise has said.



    How so? Did you bother to look up the word? Here, I'll do it for you.

    im - ag - i - na - tion [i-maj-uh-ney-shuhn] –noun
    1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
    2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts.
    3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy (def. 2).
    4. the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.
    5. ability to face and resolve difficulties; resourcefulness: a job that requires imagination.
    6. Psychology. the power of reproducing images stored in the memory under the suggestion of associated images (reproductive imagination) or of recombining former experiences in the creation of new images directed at a specific goal or aiding in the solution of problems (creative imagination).
    7. (in Kantian epistemology) synthesis of data from the sensory manifold into objects by means of the categories.
    8. Archaic. a plan, scheme, or plot.


    Quote:
    Nobody ever said god, as christians know god, had anything to do with it.


    Most of the people in those organizations whose websites you keep posting links to would disagree with you now.


    Quote:
    Obviously there is a fossil record of sorts that shows that unless God is tricking us, genesis cannot be accurate.


    Funny that you mention that, as that is exactly what some creationists think. Wacky, eh?


    Quote:
    Read my links. Most are not religious zealots.


    I've read many of your links, but I've also looked into who is behind those websites. I don't know if those people are specifically zealots, but they are definitely Xians with an agenda.


    Quote:
    The word evolution in itself is constantly changing. Dr. Young has stated that the definition as it appears in the dictionary is a misnomer.


    What's your point?


    Quote:
    My Drs were completely wrong about many things. They told me I would live in a nursing home the rest of my life. They told me lots of times I would never move my arms again. They then told me they dont understand how I have recovered so well.


    Doctors aren't gods. They tend to tell patients what is the most common prognosis for their given condition. What's wrong with that?


    Quote:
    How many times have scientists been wrong?



    Fewer times than the religious layman who only sees the world filtered thru their specific scripture.


    Quote:
    How many times have scientists been shown to have an agenda? How many times have we seen scientists so arrogant that you cannot question them?



    I dunno. How many times?


    Quote:
    The rigidity of thought is primarily what I am questioning.



    That's not the impression that you've given. I also don't see the rigidity that you say you do.


    Quote:
    Dr. Young and other completely shut down the fact that there are significant questions. Very valid questions.



    Dr. Young has done nothing of the kind. He's taken a great deal of time out of what I would assume is his busy day to specifically address a number of the questions that you've posited. You just don't like his answers. Who's being rigid?


    Quote:
    These seem to be due to fear?


    We should all be afraid of the religious agenda that is being pushed by the current administration.


    Quote:
    The fact that a 2001 poll shows that 87% of americans do not completely subscribe to evolution as origin should show that there are questions. Americans certainly are not stupid or ignorant.


    ROFL! Oh, my dear man, we most certainly disagree on this point. Millions of Americans are willfully ignorant in oh-so many ways relevant to this conversation. Are they also stupid? Some of them.


    Quote:
    Here is an interesting article


    I think this one is far more interesting as it offers a balanced view. Emphasis added.

    http://skepdic.com/piltdown.html


    Quote:
    The moral of Piltdown is that science is a fallible, human activity which does not always take the most direct route in fulfilling its aim of understanding nature. When an anomaly such as the discovery of a human cranium with an ape's jaw occurs one must either fit it into a new theory, re-examine the evidence for error in discovery or interpretation, or show that the so-called anomaly is not really an anomaly at all but in fact fits with current theory. Which route a scientist takes may be guided more by personal hopes and cultural prejudices than by some mythical objectivity characterized by the collection and accumulation of colorless, impersonal facts to be pigeonholed dogmatically into a General Theory of Objective Truth and Knowledge.

    But to characterize scientists as arrogant buffoons making claims that often turn out to be false, and to make a caricature out of science because it is not infallible and does not arrive at absolutely certain claims, belies a grave misunderstanding of the nature of science. The buffoons are those who demand absolute certainty where none can be had; the buffoons are those who do not understand the value and beauty of probabilities in science. The arrogant ones are those who think that science is mere speculation because scientists make errors, even egregious errors, or at times even commit fraud to push their prejudices. The arrogant ones are those who can't tell the difference between a testable and an untestable hypothesis and who think one speculation is as good as another. The buffoons are those who think that since both scientists and creationists or other pseudoscientists pose theories, each is doing essentially the same thing. However, all theories are not empirical, and of those that are empirical not all are equally speculative. Furthermore, those creationists who think that Piltdown demonstrates that scientists can't accurately date bones should remember that methods of dating such things have greatly improved since 1910.


    C.
    So what your saying, is your a buffon?

  2. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by leschinsky
    And yet you called his scientific explanations for creationist distortions a tirade and still claiming there's truth in them, that's faith not knowledge so you can't call it science based.
    It was a tirade. I think he used the words stupid and ignorant many times.

    You were trying to validate something by citing a poll measuring the knowledge of the average citizen. Same thing.
    Except, public opinion polls no longer show this and evolution polls have shown the same thing every decade. I say thats a little different. Especially since we all were taught evolution in school.

    I didn't really have one. I as a teen accepted them as truth because I wanted them to be true, same with reincarnation. However later I became more questioning and more stringent in the standards for what I accepted as truth. For me to believe in an afterlife experience I would have to have one myself, or maybe my brother or mother. It is too personal an issue and one not subject to objectivity.
    Fair enough. After my childhood church experiences I classified myself as an athiest but then during my accident I had several near death experiences which have made me a firm believer in something else. What I cannot say for sure.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by IanTPoulter
    Im not buying this BC, this is not like you. Did you go mushroom picking today?

    In what way?

    No mushrooms, maybe its the socal smog! I am also a bit tired still. I drove from Montana down last weekend. 1500 miles in two days by myself. I have a pad here now so no more hotels. Which is very good. Wife comes tomorrow so I have been eating out alot which is bad. I think Im tacoed out.

  4. #144
    bcripeq,

    I have no wish to engage in you-said-I-said arguments.

    Scientists have spent an enormous amount of time and effort on intelligent design (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design for details). Indeed, there are some scientists who believe that there may be intelligent design in the development of life, at least on some levels. However, a vast majority of scientists draw the line at the claim of intelligent design theory to have refuted evolutionary theory.

    Much the arguments that you have quoted are attempts to refute Darwin's theory proposed nearly 150 years ago. Many of the sites that you have linked are creationism advocacy sites and not intelligent design sites. There are much better advocates of intelligent design than the ones that you cite. Dembski is probably the foremost advocate of intelligent design.

    Regarding ignorance, let me cite a section from the Wikipedia article above:
    Arguments from ignorance

    Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[91] In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.[91] Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.

    Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "god of the gaps" argument, which has the following form:

    * There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
    * The gap is filled with acts of God (or Intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or Intelligent designer).

    A god of the gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. The key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.
    The awful thing is that many of the arguments made for intelligent design are not based on actual gaps of scientific knowledge but ignorance of existing scientific knowledge. That is the main reason that I was so bothered by the questions that you considered to be so valid. It is unfortunate that the person who wrote did not identify himself or herself. Answers exist to many of the questions posed and the writer took advantage of readers who did not know the answers. Ignorance is not an excuse for intelligent design.

    Likewise, the anonymous person that you quoted as posing excellent questions made the improbability argument which had been fancied up by Dembski as the "universal probability bound". There is an excellent discussion of this argument:
    Improbable versus impossible events

    William Dembski formulated the universal probability bound, a reformulation of the creationist argument from improbability,[92] which he argues is the smallest probability of anything occurring in the universe over all time at the maximum possible rate. e.g., one part in 10 to the 120 power, which represents a refactoring of his original formula that value of the universal probability bound was 1 in 10150.[93] Dembski (2005) re-factored his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities, 10120 and, the variable rank complexity of the event under consideration.[94]

    In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", John Allen Paulos states that the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is therefore more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."
    Very strong arguments have been made against many of the Dembski's theories. Real effort has been made to assess the intelligent design theory and the best scientists in the world have all concluded that the theory is seriously flawed and should not be seriously considered.

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 10-07-2006 at 12:14 AM.

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    bcripeq,

    I have no wish to engage in you-said-I-said arguments.

    Scientists have spent an enormous amount of time and effort on intelligent design (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design for details). Indeed, there are some scientists who believe that there may be intelligent design in the development of life, at least on some levels. However, a vast majority of scientists draw the line at the claim of intelligent design theory to have refuted evolutionary theory.

    Much the arguments that you have quoted are attempts to refute Darwin's theory proposed nearly 150 years ago. Many of the sites that you have linked are creationism advocacy sites and not intelligent design sites. There are much better advocates of intelligent design than the ones that you cite. Dembski is probably the foremost advocate of intelligent design.

    Regarding ignorance, let me cite a section from the Wikipedia article above:


    The awful thing is that many of the arguments made for intelligent design are not based on actual gaps of scientific knowledge but ignorance of existing scientific knowledge. That is the main reason that I was so bothered by the questions that you considered to be so valid. It is unfortunate that the person who wrote did not identify himself or herself. Answers exist to many of the questions posed and the writer took advantage of readers who did not know the answers. Ignorance is not an excuse for intelligent design.

    Likewise, the anonymous person that you quoted as posing excellent questions made the improbability argument which had been fancied up by Dembski as the "universal probability bound". There is an excellent discussion of this argument:


    Very strong arguments have been made against many of the Dembski's theories. Real effort has been made to assess the intelligent design theory and the best scientists in the world have all concluded that the theory is seriously flawed and should not be seriously considered.

    Wise.

    The most outspoken evolutionary scientists certainly have an agenda as well.

    I dont think people will ever agree on this because I see obvious holes that you do not and visa versa. I thinks its wrong to slam the door on something you feel is "anti-science".

    Speaking of Dembski, I found this interesting

    http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/dembski/desrev.pdf

    Below particularily:


    The acceptance of radical ideas that challenge the status quo (and Darwinism is as status quo as it gets) typically runs through several stages. According to Arthur Schopenhauer, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Similarly, evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane remarked, “Theories
    pass through four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.”

    I like to flesh out Haldane’s four stages as follows. First the idea is regarded as preposterous—the ruling elite feel little threat and as much as possible ignore the challenge, but when pressed confidently assert that the idea is so absurd as not to merit consideration. Second it is regarded as pernicious—the ruling elite can no longer ignore the challenge and must take active measures to suppress it, now loudly proclaiming that the idea is confused, irrational,
    reprehensible, and even dangerous (thus adding a moral dimension to the debate). Third, it is regarded as possible—the ruling elite reluctantly admits that the idea is not entirely absurd but claims that at best it is of marginal interest; meanwhile, the mainstream realizes that the idea has far reaching consequences and is far more important that previously recognized. And fourth, it is regarded as plausible—a new status quo has emerged, with the ruling elite taking credit for the idea and the mainstream unable to imagine how people in times past could have thought otherwise.
    have you read this book?

    Here are some interesting stories. I am sure you know where I am going with these...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3570098.stm

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/290121.stm

    BTW what are the qualifications to be a scientist?

    Its also interesting that probably the most significant scientific breakthrough that created "one of the greatest cultural forces since the development of writing" came from a couple of brothers who were not scientists and who found current scientific knowledge to be flat wrong. You do know what that is... You also know who made that quoted statement right?

    So yes, I would want my children to be taught everthing possible including controversial items and why they are controversial.

    Who knows, maybe someday they will discover something that causes the entire world to change.
    Last edited by bcripeq; 10-07-2006 at 02:06 AM.

  6. #146
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Digital refugee
    Posts
    1,741
    bcripeq, I'm trying to understand you.

    Were you ever told by anyone during your childhood that if people are disagreeing with you then that is proof that you are right? The more people that disagree the more right you are?

    Look, I don't like you much, it's pretty obvious I'm sure, but I do think you are probably the most intelligent conservative here at CC and whilst I disagree with you a lot I can mostly see your point. I may wonder why you choose to hold it, but I can see your point. On this issue though I'm lost. You are associating with some pretty low intellectual arguments and seem to be wilfully misinterpreting what has been a universal concept of what 'science 'actually is.

    Why are you so desperate to have creationism classified as science?

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by bcripeq
    The most outspoken evolutionary scientists certainly have an agenda as well.

    I dont think people will ever agree on this because I see obvious holes that you do not and visa versa. I thinks its wrong to slam the door on something you feel is "anti-science".

    Speaking of Dembski, I found this interesting

    http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/dembski/desrev.pdf

    Below particularily:



    have you read this book?

    Here are some interesting stories. I am sure you know where I am going with these...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3570098.stm

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/290121.stm

    BTW what are the qualifications to be a scientist?

    Its also interesting that probably the most significant scientific breakthrough that created "one of the greatest cultural forces since the development of writing" came from a couple of brothers who were not scientists and who found current scientific knowledge to be flat wrong. You do know what that is... You also know who made that quoted statement right?

    So yes, I would want my children to be taught everthing possible including controversial items and why they are controversial.

    Who knows, maybe someday they will discover something that causes the entire world to change.
    Bcripeq,

    I respect your views and that is why I am spending time trying to convince you that the Intelligent Design theory is seriously flawed and that the arguments against evolution that you keep citing are not based on good reasoning or evidence.

    Scientists are human. They have emotions and they live by their wits like everybody else. They develop expertise on some subjects. Some scientists certainly follow the crowd while others are way out on the fringe. There are conservatives and radical scientists with agendas.

    I sincerely hope that you want your children to be taught good science and not junk science, science based on ignorance, and just because they are controversial. One of the articles that you cited indicated that most scientific articles are wrong or false. While I have no basis with which to judge the numercial accuracy of the claim, I agree that many scientific articles have some components that are false or wrong. That is why the first lesson that we teach our students is to be critical.

    If you are skeptical about the theory of evolution, let us discuss it. I would welcome criticism of the theory of evolution. However, if so, we also need to be critical concerning the intelligent design theory. The main arguments that have been put forth for the Intelligent Design Theory, i.e. irreducible complexity, improbability, and signs of intelligence, have all been strongly refuted. If you can come up with more, I would love to hear about it.

    It seems to me that some of your views come closer to what some people call "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creationism" (Source). Many churches accept this notion that God and creation are compatible with human understanding of biological evolution. The central precepts of theistic evolution include the notion that the Bible is an allegorical description rather than a literal one, that God created evolution as a mechanism of creation, and had a hand in guiding evolution.

    Specifically, you may be interested in the view expressed by Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne in Catholic Online
    http://www.catholic.org/national/nat...y.php?id=18504
    Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on ‘Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution’
    By Father George V. Coyne, SJ
    1/30/2006

    Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
    The following is the text of the talk to be delivered by Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne, “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution,” at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Jan. 31:

    Abstract

    I would essentially like to share with you two convictions in this presentation: (1) that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, while evoking a God of power and might, a designer God, actually belittles God, makes her/him too small and paltry; (2) that our scientific understanding of the universe, untainted by religious considerations, provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs. Please note carefully that I distinguish, and will continue to do so in this presentation, that science and religion are totally separate human pursuits. Science is completely neutral with respect to theistic or atheistic implications which may be drawn from scientific results.
    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 10-07-2006 at 03:10 AM.

  8. #148
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    3,432
    Quote Originally Posted by bcripeq
    Thats just it. who is the designer?
    That's just it. How is this a scientific question?

    Chris.
    Have you ever seen a human heart? It looks like a fist wrapped in blood! Larry in 'Closer', a play by Partick Marber

Similar Threads

  1. Sleepwalking toward Baghdad
    By Jim in forum Life
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-10-2003, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •