Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

IDers and Creationists as academic whiners

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 4:42:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Creationists and IDers are perhaps the BIGGEST whiners in the scientific establish today. Namely, they claim that because the scientific establishment exists, then it's not possible for alternative views to be widely accepted if they go against common knowledge.

I never fail to be astonished by how much they complain about being intellectually ostracized and "going against the establishment" while simultaneously being backed by untold dollars in lawsuits, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIAN FOLLOWERS, groups funding entire museums ,and think tanks devoted to the issue of Intelligent Design (Discovery Institute).

From here, without even attempting to establish their veracity within the scientific community, they complain that they do not go directly from hypothesis -> science textbook.

Now, let's compare this to Lynn Margulis and Endosymbiosis.

Lynn Margulis, with ZERO popular support (arguably negative support considering her other views), had to convince the entire male-dominated scientific establishment of what, at the time, was considered a patently absurd idea: mitochondria originated as a different organism which merged with another. That is, Endosymbiosis.

Now, not only was she bold enough to face the scientific community with this, she argued Endosymbiosis was a MAJOR DRIVING FORCE in evolution. In the introduction to one of her books (an interesting read but not necessary) she all but says "F*CK NEO-DARWINISM!"

You think ID has is held back by controversial aspects? Margulis regularly argued that "HIV is not infectious" and "AIDs symptoms overlap entirely with syphilis."

NOT ONLY THAT, but she held the unheard of view (in the scientific world at the time) of Gaia Hypothesis, that the world is one organism. Again, biologists at the time would consider this absurd.

Within the context of a male-dominated scientific establishment, she had to convince them with empirical evidence, step by step, of her position. She was mocked, laughed at, even Richard Dawkins cites her for courage under the derision of the establishment.

And now? Endosymbiosis as an origin for mitochondria is not simply the most widely accepted explanation, it has entered high school textbooks, the LAST step in a theory.

So yes, IDers and Creationists, there is a scientific status quo which must be changed for new knowledge to accumulate. It's called "Kuhnian Paradigm Shifts."

It's been the cornerstone of scientific development, not some unique hurdle that no other theory has had to face.

If you want to whine about the establishment, do so with Lynn Margulis in mind.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 4:45:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 4:42:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
Creationists and IDers are perhaps the BIGGEST whiners in the scientific establish today. Namely, they claim that because the scientific establishment exists, then it's not possible for alternative views to be widely accepted if they go against common knowledge.

I never fail to be astonished by how much they complain about being intellectually ostracized and "going against the establishment" while simultaneously being backed by untold dollars in lawsuits, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIAN FOLLOWERS, groups funding entire museums ,and think tanks devoted to the issue of Intelligent Design (Discovery Institute).

From here, without even attempting to establish their veracity within the scientific community, they complain that they do not go directly from hypothesis -> science textbook.

Now, let's compare this to Lynn Margulis and Endosymbiosis.

Lynn Margulis, with ZERO popular support (arguably negative support considering her other views), had to convince the entire male-dominated scientific establishment of what, at the time, was considered a patently absurd idea: mitochondria originated as a different organism which merged with another. That is, Endosymbiosis.

Now, not only was she bold enough to face the scientific community with this, she argued Endosymbiosis was a MAJOR DRIVING FORCE in evolution. In the introduction to one of her books (an interesting read but not necessary) she all but says "F*CK NEO-DARWINISM!"

You think ID has is held back by controversial aspects? Margulis regularly argued that "HIV is not infectious" and "AIDs symptoms overlap entirely with syphilis."

NOT ONLY THAT, but she held the unheard of view (in the scientific world at the time) of Gaia Hypothesis, that the world is one organism. Again, biologists at the time would consider this absurd.

Within the context of a male-dominated scientific establishment, she had to convince them with empirical evidence, step by step, of her position. She was mocked, laughed at, even Richard Dawkins cites her for courage under the derision of the establishment.

And now? Endosymbiosis as an origin for mitochondria is not simply the most widely accepted explanation, it has entered high school textbooks, the LAST step in a theory.

So yes, IDers and Creationists, there is a scientific status quo which must be changed for new knowledge to accumulate. It's called "Kuhnian Paradigm Shifts."

It's been the cornerstone of scientific development, not some unique hurdle that no other theory has had to face.

If you want to whine about the establishment, do so with Lynn Margulis in mind.

Nothing more to say than "this".
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 4:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yay for lumping a large group of people into one group!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:14:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
ZzZz..

Seriously; read my thread.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:14:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 4:48:01 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yay for lumping a large group of people into one group!

If you are an IDer or Creationist who doesn't want to put your views in a textbook, feel free to ignore this post.

However, this is a LARGE group of people. Not just one think tank. An entire popular movement across the nation that's been in progress for decades (before this, the general idea was "remove Evolution entirely" while now it's "add in ID/teach Creation controversy").
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 5:14:04 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
ZzZz..

Seriously; read my thread.

I did.

In fact, your thread is what inspired this one.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:19:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 5:17:32 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
; ]

I am a creationist. God created everything and that means you. =]

Cool story.

If your belief is just "the scientific establishment itself is misguided" (i.e. faith trumps chemistry class), then my argument does not apply at all. I assume that would be your general thrust.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:26:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 5:19:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2012 5:17:32 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
; ]

I am a creationist. God created everything and that means you. =]

Cool story.

If your belief is just "the scientific establishment itself is misguided" (i.e. faith trumps chemistry class), then my argument does not apply at all. I assume that would be your general thrust.

Cool beans, I can live with that.
TheAsylum
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:29:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 5:15:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2012 5:14:04 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
ZzZz..

Seriously; read my thread.

I did.

In fact, your thread is what inspired this one.


Ok, well then you've proven nothing, except this one lady didn't back down, on a theory completely unrelated to evolution.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:42:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 5:29:57 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/1/2012 5:15:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2012 5:14:04 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
ZzZz..

Seriously; read my thread.

I did.

In fact, your thread is what inspired this one.


Ok, well then you've proven nothing, except this one lady didn't back down, on a theory completely unrelated to evolution.

Endosymbiosis unrelated to evolution? You may want to google the term. She explicitly rejected the gene-centric focus of neo-darwinism, and I mean EXPLICITLY.

You know how people treat professors when they claim big foot exists? That's how essentially how they treated Lynn Margulis at first (the HIV/AIDs/Gaia bit didnt' help).

I am demonstrating that the claim of "David v. Goliath" when it comes to the scientific establishment is not an excuse for a lack of empirical and theoretical evidence, especially when the "David" is exponentially better funded and has national popular support than his predecessor.

You cited a possibly imaginary source to demonstrate how ID is stifled by the evil scientific establishment. I cited a real life source that shows you can change the establishment if you have the facts to back yourself up. The Discovery Institute and various lawsuits are the exact opposite of "backing down," so it again is just an excuse to claim Margulis' tenacity is why her claims were accepted.

To whine that ID and Creationists receive some special treatment simply because they challenge the establishment is as trivial as citing any Kuhnian Paradigm shift as special treatment for any relevant theory.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 8:03:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:59:01 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
The wonderful thing about science is that it's true, whether you believe in it or not.

Exactly. Pretty soon the people who deny that evolution is fact are going to look exactly like those who insisted that the earth was flat.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 8:20:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:59:01 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
The wonderful thing about science is that it's true, whether you believe in it or not.

+1
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 1:58:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
IMO, their is no contradiction between religion and faith. Our religion teaches us to observe the world around us and study the way God has created everything. Thus science is a branch of religious education.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 1:08:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 4:42:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
Creationists and IDers are perhaps the BIGGEST whiners in the scientific establish today. Namely, they claim that because the scientific establishment exists, then it's not possible for alternative views to be widely accepted if they go against common knowledge.

I never fail to be astonished by how much they complain about being intellectually ostracized and "going against the establishment" while simultaneously being backed by untold dollars in lawsuits, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIAN FOLLOWERS, groups funding entire museums ,and think tanks devoted to the issue of Intelligent Design (Discovery Institute).

From here, without even attempting to establish their veracity within the scientific community, they complain that they do not go directly from hypothesis -> science textbook.

Wow, you seem to just be totally oblivious to what they are saying. You said...

"Namely, they claim that because the scientific establishment exists, then it's not possible for alternative views to be widely accepted if they go against common knowledge."

If they go against common knowledge??

It seems you either don't understand what it is that they're saying, or you just choose to ignore it because it doesn't align with what you want to believe.

So yes, IDers and Creationists, there is a scientific status quo which must be changed for new knowledge to accumulate. It's called "Kuhnian Paradigm Shifts."

No paradigm shift can possibly occur within the scientific community, if an explanation is not of a natural origin, or cannot be tested by scientific means. This is a problem for several reasons...

1. They can't prove that everything has a natural explanation.
2. They can't disprove the possibility of a supernatural explanation.
3. Science has no ability to test for the supernatural.
4. Rather than see that as a limitation of science, and realize that science can't look at all possibilities, those who don't want God to exist use that as "evidence of absence". In reality though, it's simply absence of ability of the scientific community. Science has done great things, but when it comes to this area, it is to date, totally inept.
5. This leads those who are against the idea of God to presuppose that everything is explainable, scientifically, and leads them to a sense of owning science and logic, thus they claim an intellectual superiority. In reality, that couldn't be further from the truth. They simply stick their heads in the sand about things they do not yet know, swearing by things they cannot yet prove.
6. That leads to the teaching of what is seemingly the most plausible "scientific" theory, even if it may not be proven, or provable. Meanwhile, that which may very well turn out to be the real answer, is not allowed to be taught since it can't be scientifically proven. It's this double standard that we BMC about. You're teaching our young people incomplete truths, and theories when you know that you have alot of missing information, and portraying supernatural beliefs as irrational, thus indoctrinating them against the possibility of God being the answer.

This indoctrination is proven by looking at these forums. There are young people on here touting the virtues of science and when faced with someone who has an ability to hold their own in an argument, they falter, they can't support their position with anything rational. They break out what I call the "nuh-uh defense". The discussion then digresses into a hostility, then a full out flame war, or else the debate just peters out.

Yes you can argue that I'm whining, but there is very good reason for it. If your scientific proofs were so conclusive I wouldn't have an argument against them. Look at gravity, I have no argument against that, it's proven fact and can be demonstrated. It's irrefutable, which is not the case with many bigger issues that you claim ownership of.

Do you think a paradigm shift will ever occur that allows for the lack of a scientific explanation to act as "evidence of absence" of a natural explanation, and the prevailing scientific theory to be that God must exist??

Of course that will never happen, and I'm not sure that it should. It would shut down scientific exploration and investigation, and that's not what I want. It does however, illustrate the prejudice that exists within the non-religious community, and that's exactly what ID'ers and creationists are talking about.

It's been the cornerstone of scientific development, not some unique hurdle that no other theory has had to face.

Again in short, if the truths are not of a natural origin, science will likely never have the ability to address them. The presumption that science can answer all is just an unproven theory, at this point, no different than our beliefs from an empirical standpoint. Essentially both sides are using faith in their conclusions.

Science can only prove that I have neural activity in the brain, they can't however, prove the content of the thought that is produced by that activity. Does that mean that my thought doesn't exist?? Of course not, it just means that science cannot address certain things, and cannot answer certain questions. There are truths that lie beyond the realm of science. You guys just simply choose to ignore that possibility, and call anyone who recognizes that possibility irrational. That to me is the very definition of irrationality.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 1:35:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 8:03:23 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:59:01 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
The wonderful thing about science is that it's true, whether you believe in it or not.

Exactly. Pretty soon the people who deny that evolution is fact are going to look exactly like those who insisted that the earth was flat.

lmao imagine that. They'll be the laughing stock of the academic world(as if they're aren't already now, haha).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 2:42:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 1:08:08 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2012 4:42:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
Creationists and IDers are perhaps the BIGGEST whiners in the scientific establish today. Namely, they claim that because the scientific establishment exists, then it's not possible for alternative views to be widely accepted if they go against common knowledge.

I never fail to be astonished by how much they complain about being intellectually ostracized and "going against the establishment" while simultaneously being backed by untold dollars in lawsuits, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIAN FOLLOWERS, groups funding entire museums ,and think tanks devoted to the issue of Intelligent Design (Discovery Institute).

From here, without even attempting to establish their veracity within the scientific community, they complain that they do not go directly from hypothesis -> science textbook.

Wow, you seem to just be totally oblivious to what they are saying. You said...

"Namely, they claim that because the scientific establishment exists, then it's not possible for alternative views to be widely accepted if they go against common knowledge."

If they go against common knowledge??

It seems you either don't understand what it is that they're saying, or you just choose to ignore it because it doesn't align with what you want to believe.

So yes, IDers and Creationists, there is a scientific status quo which must be changed for new knowledge to accumulate. It's called "Kuhnian Paradigm Shifts."

No paradigm shift can possibly occur within the scientific community, if an explanation is not of a natural origin, or cannot be tested by scientific means. This is a problem for several reasons...

1. They can't prove that everything has a natural explanation.
2. They can't disprove the possibility of a supernatural explanation.
3. Science has no ability to test for the supernatural.
4. Rather than see that as a limitation of science, and realize that science can't look at all possibilities, those who don't want God to exist use that as "evidence of absence". In reality though, it's simply absence of ability of the scientific community. Science has done great things, but when it comes to this area, it is to date, totally inept.
5. This leads those who are against the idea of God to presuppose that everything is explainable, scientifically, and leads them to a sense of owning science and logic, thus they claim an intellectual superiority. In reality, that couldn't be further from the truth. They simply stick their heads in the sand about things they do not yet know, swearing by things they cannot yet prove.
6. That leads to the teaching of what is seemingly the most plausible "scientific" theory, even if it may not be proven, or provable. Meanwhile, that which may very well turn out to be the real answer, is not allowed to be taught since it can't be scientifically proven. It's this double standard that we BMC about. You're teaching our young people incomplete truths, and theories when you know that you have alot of missing information, and portraying supernatural beliefs as irrational, thus indoctrinating them against the possibility of God being the answer.

This indoctrination is proven by looking at these forums. There are young people on here touting the virtues of science and when faced with someone who has an ability to hold their own in an argument, they falter, they can't support their position with anything rational. They break out what I call the "nuh-uh defense". The discussion then digresses into a hostility, then a full out flame war, or else the debate just peters out.

Yes you can argue that I'm whining, but there is very good reason for it. If your scientific proofs were so conclusive I wouldn't have an argument against them. Look at gravity, I have no argument against that, it's proven fact and can be demonstrated. It's irrefutable, which is not the case with many bigger issues that you claim ownership of.

Do you think a paradigm shift will ever occur that allows for the lack of a scientific explanation to act as "evidence of absence" of a natural explanation, and the prevailing scientific theory to be that God must exist??

Of course that will never happen, and I'm not sure that it should. It would shut down scientific exploration and investigation, and that's not what I want. It does however, illustrate the prejudice that exists within the non-religious community, and that's exactly what ID'ers and creationists are talking about.

It's been the cornerstone of scientific development, not some unique hurdle that no other theory has had to face.

Again in short, if the truths are not of a natural origin, science will likely never have the ability to address them. The presumption that science can answer all is just an unproven theory, at this point, no different than our beliefs from an empirical standpoint. Essentially both sides are using faith in their conclusions.

Science can only prove that I have neural activity in the brain, they can't however, prove the content of the thought that is produced by that activity. Does that mean that my thought doesn't exist?? Of course not, it just means that science cannot address certain things, and cannot answer certain questions. There are truths that lie beyond the realm of science. You guys just simply choose to ignore that possibility, and call anyone who recognizes that possibility irrational. That to me is the very definition of irrationality.

If you are not of the "Panda's Thumb" crowd (which says ID should be taught in biology classrooms), and ID should not be part of the scientific enterprise, congrats, I'm not talking about you.

There is no argument about gravity?

Alright, champ, how about you tell me how all physicists explain the existence of gravity, since it's so uncontroversial.

Observing gravity is not the same as having a theoretical explanation for it. Observing mountains of fossils, a twin nested DNA hierarchy, and other such empirical instances is not the same as having a theoretical explanation for it.

Intelligent Designers claim that their theory should go into a science textbook. If they want to say "hey, we admit we're not using the scientific method" then fine.

But they don't. IDers say "we want to change how science works because we have good explanations. It's just methodological naturalism that's the problem, not the scientific method."

But when pressed for the explanation for methodology, it inevitably is reduced to "well, abiogenesis is hard to explain, so possibly it was a designer."

If IDers want to reject the scientific method, go for it.

If they want to claim ID is testable and should be in a science textbook, then they have no means of complaining when they find themselves up against a status quo.

If you want to claim "ID is useful in science" then it should have some sort of empirical or methodological implication that is testable. The non-naturalistic origin of the ID has no bearing on whether there are empirical results of the IDers existence.

If you want to claim "screw science and falsifiability, let's go back to Freudian just-so stories and natural philosophy" then that is your business. But don't ask the scientific community to intellectually castrate themselves after hundreds of years of work.

SUMMARY: If Intelligent Design had empirically relevant consequences to biology, the non-naturalistic origin of the Designer is not a major impediment to its acceptance as an empirical theory within the scientific method.

If ID has no empirically relevant consequence and exists totally within a "God of the Gaps" explanation, then I'd be interested in hearing why you believe it should be part of the scientific enterprise instead of simply a philosophical venture?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 6:19:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:59:01 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
The wonderful thing about science is that it's true, whether you believe in it or not.

That's only applicable when you CAN prove it. The things we usually argue about are unproven.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 6:45:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:59:01 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
The wonderful thing about science is that it's true, whether you believe in it or not.

LOL. Who sayed that? Prove that science is always true. Prove that science has never lied or been false.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 6:46:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 8:03:23 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:59:01 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
The wonderful thing about science is that it's true, whether you believe in it or not.

Exactly. Pretty soon the people who deny that evolution is fact are going to look exactly like those who insisted that the earth was flat.

Or vice versa when evolution is shown not to be true and all you dummies believed with passion for all your lives.
TheAsylum
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 7:23:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 2:42:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you are not of the "Panda's Thumb" crowd (which says ID should be taught in biology classrooms), and ID should not be part of the scientific enterprise, congrats, I'm not talking about you.

I think that until it can be proven differently, ID/creationism should be taught as a possible explanation, anywhere an unproven theory about how the universe was formed, or other similar questions of existence, are taught.

There is no argument about gravity?

I'm not saying it isn't an issue in the sci-community, but I've never seen theists argue against it.

Alright, champ, how about you tell me how all physicists explain the existence of gravity, since it's so uncontroversial.

Observing gravity is not the same as having a theoretical explanation for it. Observing mountains of fossils, a twin nested DNA hierarchy, and other such empirical instances is not the same as having a theoretical explanation for it.

Intelligent Designers claim that their theory should go into a science textbook. If they want to say "hey, we admit we're not using the scientific method" then fine.

But they don't. IDers say "we want to change how science works because we have good explanations. It's just methodological naturalism that's the problem, not the scientific method."

But when pressed for the explanation for methodology, it inevitably is reduced to "well, abiogenesis is hard to explain, so possibly it was a designer."

If IDers want to reject the scientific method, go for it.

If they want to claim ID is testable and should be in a science textbook, then they have no means of complaining when they find themselves up against a status quo.

If you want to claim "ID is useful in science" then it should have some sort of empirical or methodological implication that is testable. The non-naturalistic origin of the ID has no bearing on whether there are empirical results of the IDers existence.

If you want to claim "screw science and falsifiability, let's go back to Freudian just-so stories and natural philosophy" then that is your business. But don't ask the scientific community to intellectually castrate themselves after hundreds of years of work.

SUMMARY: If Intelligent Design had empirically relevant consequences to biology, the non-naturalistic origin of the Designer is not a major impediment to its acceptance as an empirical theory within the scientific method.

If ID has no empirically relevant consequence and exists totally within a "God of the Gaps" explanation, then I'd be interested in hearing why you believe it should be part of the scientific enterprise ins

I see that discussion here is not possible so I won't waste any more time on it.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:03:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 6:46:24 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/1/2012 8:03:23 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:59:01 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
The wonderful thing about science is that it's true, whether you believe in it or not.

Exactly. Pretty soon the people who deny that evolution is fact are going to look exactly like those who insisted that the earth was flat.

Or vice versa when evolution is shown not to be true and all you dummies believed with passion for all your lives.

Not only is Evolution not true, it's a massive conspiracy that subsumes the collective work in the fields of chemistry, biology, biochemisty, molecular biology, developmental biology, population biology, mammalogy, ornithology, botany, zoology, herpetology, ecology, genetics, ethology, biogeography, epidemiology, psychology, and population genetics.

Because some of the smartest people in the world compile their enormous amounts of data that are consistent with each other, have great explanative power, and are based on observations, fossils, and data, are all lying. Let's start a 9/11 truthers thread, flat-earth theory thread, giants built the pyramids thread, and the UN is taking over the world thread. See you there!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:04:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 7:23:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:42:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you are not of the "Panda's Thumb" crowd (which says ID should be taught in biology classrooms), and ID should not be part of the scientific enterprise, congrats, I'm not talking about you.

I think that until it can be proven differently, ID/creationism should be taught as a possible explanation, anywhere an unproven theory about how the universe was formed, or other similar questions of existence, are taught.

There is no argument about gravity?

I'm not saying it isn't an issue in the sci-community, but I've never seen theists argue against it.

We have less scientific evidence for gravity than we have for evolution. Yet, the asinine outrage is against evolution, not gravity. Derp.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:06:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 7:23:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:42:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you are not of the "Panda's Thumb" crowd (which says ID should be taught in biology classrooms), and ID should not be part of the scientific enterprise, congrats, I'm not talking about you.

I think that until it can be proven differently, ID/creationism should be taught as a possible explanation, anywhere an unproven theory about how the universe was formed, or other similar questions of existence, are taught.

Didn't I already explain to you your erroneous proposition of "Proving a negative?"

Also, why not teach Stork Theory? After all, it cannot be 100% disproven.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:50:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 8:04:55 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/3/2012 7:23:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:42:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you are not of the "Panda's Thumb" crowd (which says ID should be taught in biology classrooms), and ID should not be part of the scientific enterprise, congrats, I'm not talking about you.

I think that until it can be proven differently, ID/creationism should be taught as a possible explanation, anywhere an unproven theory about how the universe was formed, or other similar questions of existence, are taught.

There is no argument about gravity?

I'm not saying it isn't an issue in the sci-community, but I've never seen theists argue against it.

We have less scientific evidence for gravity than we have for evolution. Yet, the asinine outrage is against evolution, not gravity. Derp.

If I drop an apple it hits the floor, without fail, every single time, but never is it ever going to turn into an orange, on the way down. If I can see it I'll buy it. If I can't see it then I might have some questions.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 9:14:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 8:06:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/3/2012 7:23:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:42:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you are not of the "Panda's Thumb" crowd (which says ID should be taught in biology classrooms), and ID should not be part of the scientific enterprise, congrats, I'm not talking about you.

I think that until it can be proven differently, ID/creationism should be taught as a possible explanation, anywhere an unproven theory about how the universe was formed, or other similar questions of existence, are taught.

Didn't I already explain to you your erroneous proposition of "Proving a negative?"

Ad nauseum...and I'm still asking so apparently your opinion lacks something. And how many times do I need to explain to you that if you could prove one of your own theories, that might actually disprove mine. So, don't worry about proving a negative, don't even worry about my theory. Just prove a positive, prove your own theory about how the universe got here, or became tuned for life, can you do that much??

Also, why not teach Stork Theory? After all, it cannot be 100% disproven.

Wanna bet?? Ever delivered a baby?? I have, and the odor is REAL!!! The fluids that you get splashed with are real. The wrinkled, powdery, alien looking being that pops out is real. So yeah, I think the stork myth has been busted.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 9:39:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 7:23:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:42:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you are not of the "Panda's Thumb" crowd (which says ID should be taught in biology classrooms), and ID should not be part of the scientific enterprise, congrats, I'm not talking about you.

I think that until it can be proven differently, ID/creationism should be taught as a possible explanation, anywhere an unproven theory about how the universe was formed, or other similar questions of existence, are taught.

There is no argument about gravity?

I'm not saying it isn't an issue in the sci-community, but I've never seen theists argue against it.

Alright, champ, how about you tell me how all physicists explain the existence of gravity, since it's so uncontroversial.

Observing gravity is not the same as having a theoretical explanation for it. Observing mountains of fossils, a twin nested DNA hierarchy, and other such empirical instances is not the same as having a theoretical explanation for it.

Intelligent Designers claim that their theory should go into a science textbook. If they want to say "hey, we admit we're not using the scientific method" then fine.

But they don't. IDers say "we want to change how science works because we have good explanations. It's just methodological naturalism that's the problem, not the scientific method."

But when pressed for the explanation for methodology, it inevitably is reduced to "well, abiogenesis is hard to explain, so possibly it was a designer."

If IDers want to reject the scientific method, go for it.

If they want to claim ID is testable and should be in a science textbook, then they have no means of complaining when they find themselves up against a status quo.

If you want to claim "ID is useful in science" then it should have some sort of empirical or methodological implication that is testable. The non-naturalistic origin of the ID has no bearing on whether there are empirical results of the IDers existence.

If you want to claim "screw science and falsifiability, let's go back to Freudian just-so stories and natural philosophy" then that is your business. But don't ask the scientific community to intellectually castrate themselves after hundreds of years of work.

SUMMARY: If Intelligent Design had empirically relevant consequences to biology, the non-naturalistic origin of the Designer is not a major impediment to its acceptance as an empirical theory within the scientific method.

If ID has no empirically relevant consequence and exists totally within a "God of the Gaps" explanation, then I'd be interested in hearing why you believe it should be part of the scientific enterprise ins

I see that discussion here is not possible so I won't waste any more time on it.

Actually, theists did argue against gravity (namely, it's explanation of how predictions of gravitational pull explain the movement of the planets in a heliocentric not geocentric manner). Modern day theists disown these theists as naive and dismissable simply as religious anachronism, but the idea of fixed set of stars above our heads having religious connotations goes back to Sumerian times.

Again, no one argues that things fall down. It's WHY things fall down.

No one argues fossils exist, DNA exists, and elementary particles exist. It's WHY they are where they are that theists have a problem with because it conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible.

Please stop conflating evidence with theory for the evidence.

Theists have always argued against science whenever the implications of science go against their current beliefs. The Church couldn't have cared less about Galileo or Copernicus were it not for the fact that their explanation of God at the time involved the "heavenly order" of the stars.

If sects of the modern American Protestants didn't depend so heavily on literal readings of the Bible, there would no more an anti-evolution movement than an anti-chemistry movement. Outside of American efforts, there are only a handful of pockets (Germany, New Zealand, etc) of people in the world actually pushing for an ID/Creationist movement in the science classroom (I ignore the middle east because the Madrassa/secular school dichotomy there exists independently of evolution).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 9:47:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 9:14:12 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/3/2012 8:06:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/3/2012 7:23:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:42:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you are not of the "Panda's Thumb" crowd (which says ID should be taught in biology classrooms), and ID should not be part of the scientific enterprise, congrats, I'm not talking about you.

I think that until it can be proven differently, ID/creationism should be taught as a possible explanation, anywhere an unproven theory about how the universe was formed, or other similar questions of existence, are taught.

Didn't I already explain to you your erroneous proposition of "Proving a negative?"

Ad nauseum...and I'm still asking so apparently your opinion lacks something. And how many times do I need to explain to you that if you could prove one of your own theories, that might actually disprove mine. So, don't worry about proving a negative, don't even worry about my theory. Just prove a positive, prove your own theory about how the universe got here, or became tuned for life, can you do that much??

Also, why not teach Stork Theory? After all, it cannot be 100% disproven.

Wanna bet?? Ever delivered a baby?? I have, and the odor is REAL!!! The fluids that you get splashed with are real. The wrinkled, powdery, alien looking being that pops out is real. So yeah, I think the stork myth has been busted.

That's not Stork theory.

Stork Theory is that the first human born who decided to leave any historical evidence had parents who were delivered by Storks.

Of COURSE babies today you see aren't delivered by Storks. Babies grow up into humans who can have children, so why would you need more than one "Stork Event?"

Unless IDers can disprove the "Stork Event" then they ought to teach the controversy.