Why is being a victim so comfortable?

[Chato]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lucretiu.htm

And even then those who hated science felt it necessary to slander him...

"It is likely that Jerome, as one of the early Church Fathers, would have wanted to discredit Lucretius' philosophy, which includes disbelief in any kind of life after death and in any divinity concerned with man's welfare. This defamation involved ad hominem attacks imputing immorality, the use of witchcraft and insanity to the poet."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius

I am going to reply to Mark as your posts have carried the fewest
assumptions and insults.

A) I totally agree that basic ID straddles the line between science
and Philosophy and that many people who are proponents have an
agenda and that many have used the name to relabel creationism.

B) What I like about ID is that is asks questions I do not see
being asked in the defecto evolution education (with glossed over
Ambiogenesis issues)

C) Part of the problem with the anti-God reactionary view of
science is that is basically seems to me to be like saying "Now
that I understand how my car runs, there can be no Toyota" While
the question "is there a creator?" (not God) is a valid question
for Science to look at.. those that seem to almost panic at the
mention of the concept would shut down the inquiry. I don't think
we will find Slartibartfast's signature on a Fjord someplace. But,
Starting with the assumption "there is no creator" so all
discussion and investigations of the question are without merit is
very unscientific.

Science does NOT deny God. Just as Lucretius didn't deny God.

In the world of 50 BC, when comparatively little was known, he set out to inform the public of the nature of the Universe. Every question that we deal with today, he dealt with them.

And HIS point, and OUR point is that whether there are Gods or there are no Gods has nothing to do with scieince. That in fact, bringing God(s) into the equation is simply a way of avoiding reality.

His book, filled with statements about how little we KNOW, always concentrates on the FACT that we may not know the answers, may never know the answers, but that WE should strive to find them out, because the truth will never hurt.

And even at that date, assigning the unknown to the acts of God, we will never be able to step forward.

This debate, which you think is new, is as old as the first human being who tried to make head or tail of reality without assigning everything to God.

And we would still be living in caves if "all things are made by God" had been the conclusion of humanities thinkers.

You cannot bring God into science. Science does not seek to prove or disprove God(s)

As DPICS points out, there is no debate in science about ID or creationism, because the very nature of science, like the very nature of taking pictures, or any other mundane activity is either true or untrue, and we seek answers by testing our theories.

By the very nature of the question, when you talk of God and science in the same breathe you are abandoning the search for truth.

NB. Sceince does not dispute God or support the existance of God. But scientists may or may not believe - They universaliy agree that religion has no place in the scientific method.

And you cannot open the door to God in a biology class without detracting from human knowledge.

Dave

 

[dipics]

I am going to reply to Mark as your posts have carried the fewest
assumptions and insults.

A) I totally agree that basic ID straddles the line between science
and Philosophy and that many people who are proponents have an
agenda and that many have used the name to relabel creationism.

It has nothing to do with science. It can't. Because it isn't falsifiable. Science is ALWAYS falsifiable. ID isn't so it isn't science.

B) What I like about ID is that is asks questions I do not see
being asked in the defecto evolution education (with glossed over
Ambiogenesis issues)

Exactly what questions does it ask that aren't being asked by science? Please give us an example of one. Or, are you making the common mistake that if science doesn't have an answer yet it means that it isn't asking the question? This is obviously false.

So, please provide for us an example of a question that isn't being asked by science and IS being asked by ID.

C) Part of the problem with the anti-God reactionary view of
science is that is basically seems to me to be like saying "Now
that I understand how my car runs, there can be no Toyota" While
the question "is there a creator?" (not God) is a valid question
for Science to look at..

No, actually it isn't. Not at all. Science is ALWAYS falsifiable. In other words, it can be proven wrong. The presence (or absence) of God is NOT falsifiable. Hence it is outside the realm of science.

those that seem to almost panic at the
...
very unscientific.

Actually, it is not "unscientific" at all. The reverse approach (that used by ID) IS unscientific. In actual science, you don't start with an answer or even an assumption of an answer. You get the answer (or at least a theory) by examining the facts. Science doesn't "assume" that there is no creator. It doesn't assume there is a creator. It just examines the data and draws conclusions from that.

Its a hard line to travel because as soon as one talks about a
...
seeks to understand the nature of the Universe.

The favorite argument that the ID proponents use to draw in the people who don't understand logic. You CANNOT prove a negative. You can never prove that the invisible pink unicorn didn't create the cosmos. Just because you can never prove that something didn't happen, this is NOT evidence in support that it did.

And I get
frustrated when the religion.philosphy of atheism hijacks science
and declares that discussion of a creator off-limits.

I guess since I tend to enjoy theoretical sciences I am very
...were
created and run.

Of course it would count as science. It was a hypothesis. This is a needed part of science. And, it was always falsifiable.

ID is of course right now a set of questions.. with an offered
explanation. That is where most science starts. As the Discovery
Institute suggested there is no place for more than the question in
a High school classroom.

They ask no question that isn't also asked by science. They just pretend to have an answer but no evidence at all to back this answer up. It is generated by no data, there is no "proof". That isn't science.

but I think slippery slope fears have gone so far that it is not
talked about, and it is taught like we know it all, which would
come as a shock to researches working to understand the gaps etc.

The best way to deal with the ID questions is scientifically. If

... related to

the creation process and not just an result of it)

These are questions that are being asked by science and constantly being worked on. You know, to find answers. Not to assume that we already know them.

I am not locked into one set of beliefs. I choose to believe in a

... And if they aren't they

really are agnostic.

Yawn. An interesting combination of an unwarranted assumption (assuming they are agnostic if they aren't angry) and a misapropriation of the word faith (not believing on something that you have no evidence of doesn't require the religious definition of faith (belief without evidence). The reverse isn't true). This argument is like saying that people who don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn are just unsure.

Science can never prove the absence of God and I doubt it can ever

...> are stuck in the framework that is, created or not.

Which is exactly why it is outside the realm of science. Science REQUIRES falsifiability. The presence of God isn't falsifiable.

I get really tired of the knee jerk use of things like "Christian
agenda," "creationism," put downs about "you must think a snow
flake needs a creator" Those are all used to shut down discussion
and are a type of intellectual censorship.

No, they are more of a dividing line. ID isn't science. It IS religion. It requires belief in something that there is no evidence for. Religion is not the perview of either science or our government.

All I suggest is education formally talk about the questions.. and
mention that some aspects are not understood and some are
suggesting this might be evidence of design vs spontanious
processes. Who the designer is a discusion for philosphy class or
church.

But, there are none that suggest a designer. Not knowing how something happened is evidence of nothing more than we don't know. To give God (or the equivalent) as a possible answer is doing nothing but subsituting "God must have done it" for "We don't know", nothing more.

for all we know this is all some large "Sim Universe" game being
played on a computer that is even beyond the imagination of Douglas
Adams for one fear the great BSOD..

And, there is exactly as much evidence in favor of that as there is in favor of a designer (none). This is why it isn't science.

DIPics

 

[Chato]

anymore than he answered the others.

B) What I like about ID is that is asks questions I do not see
being asked in the defecto evolution education (with glossed over
Ambiogenesis issues)

Exactly what questions does it ask that aren't being asked by
science? Please give us an example of one. Or, are you making the
common mistake that if science doesn't have an answer yet it means
that it isn't asking the question? This is obviously false.

So, please provide for us an example of a question that isn't being
asked by science and IS being asked by ID.

Your post was too long, he can dodge the question, as he has dodged every question like it. (Which is why I haven't apologised to him for calling him a Fundamentalist, because he dodges these questions like a fundamentalist)

Thus I snip everything else away to emphasize your point.

Dave

 

[dipics]

B) What I like about ID is that is asks questions I do not see
being asked in the defecto evolution education (with glossed over
Ambiogenesis issues)

Exactly what questions does it ask that aren't being asked by
science? Please give us an example of one. Or, are you making the
common mistake that if science doesn't have an answer yet it means
that it isn't asking the question? This is obviously false.

So, please provide for us an example of a question that isn't being
asked by science and IS being asked by ID.

Your post was too long, he can dodge the question, as he has dodged
every question like it. (Which is why I haven't apologised to him
for calling him a Fundamentalist, because he dodges these questions
like a fundamentalist)

Thus I snip everything else away to emphasize your point.

He is making the same well-intentioned mistake that everyone that has taken the ID scam artists at face falue make. He believed that they were truthful.

In reality, ID isn't asking questions. It is only offering an answer. It is a one-size-fits-all answer. God (or the equivalent) did it.

They offer no evidence at all. They ask no questions about their premise at all (evidence that they aren't actually interested in proving anything). They ask NO questions that science hasn't asked (and often, answered). All they do is provide a substitute for "I don't know" and that is "God did it".

That isn't science. It isn't even philosophy. It is just a cop out.

No wonder people want it taught in schools.

DIPics

Dave

 

[igb]

[snip]

C) Part of the problem with the anti-God reactionary view of
science is that is basically seems to me to be like saying "Now
that I understand how my car runs, there can be no Toyota" While
the question "is there a creator?" (not God) is a valid question
for Science to look at..

No, actually it isn't. Not at all. Science is ALWAYS falsifiable.
In other words, it can be proven wrong. The presence (or absence)
of God is NOT falsifiable. Hence it is outside the realm of
science.

I'll give you a falsifiable proposition:

"God is old bearded guy in a white gown that lives somewhere in the stratosphere" Gee, I made science out of Teology! :O)

those that seem to almost panic at the
...
very unscientific.

Actually, it is not "unscientific" at all. The reverse approach
(that used by ID) IS unscientific. In actual science, you don't
start with an answer or even an assumption of an answer. You get
the answer (or at least a theory) by examining the facts. Science
doesn't "assume" that there is no creator. It doesn't assume there
is a creator. It just examines the data and draws conclusions from
that.

On a side note, I don't think it really works like this in most cases (or in major progresses, anyway) but it starts with wild speculations (what if), then experiments are designed to falsify, then data analysed to check if it's coherent with some theory and then proceed in accordance.

I think I remember reading an essay documenting several cases (galilei, watson& Crick).

As another note, don't make such a big deal out of science. I think it's useful and fun, but not really suitable to grasping the ultimate nature of universe:^). (For the record, I had to look what ID was and I had a good chuckle)

Regards

[snip]

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[dipics]

[snip]

C) Part of the problem with the anti-God reactionary view of
science is that is basically seems to me to be like saying "Now
that I understand how my car runs, there can be no Toyota" While
the question "is there a creator?" (not God) is a valid question
for Science to look at..

No, actually it isn't. Not at all. Science is ALWAYS falsifiable.
In other words, it can be proven wrong. The presence (or absence)
of God is NOT falsifiable. Hence it is outside the realm of
science.

I'll give you a falsifiable proposition:

"God is old bearded guy in a white gown that lives somewhere in the
stratosphere" Gee, I made science out of Teology! :O)

Really? Prove it isn't true then. Just because we haven't seen him that doesn't prove he isn't there. I've never personally seen Ringo Star, this doesn't prove he doesn't exist though.

those that seem to almost panic at the
...
very unscientific.

Actually, it is not "unscientific" at all. The reverse approach
(that used by ID) IS unscientific. In actual science, you don't
start with an answer or even an assumption of an answer. You get
the answer (or at least a theory) by examining the facts. Science
doesn't "assume" that there is no creator. It doesn't assume there
is a creator. It just examines the data and draws conclusions from
that.

On a side note, I don't think it really works like this in most
cases (or in major progresses, anyway) but it starts with wild
speculations (what if), then experiments are designed to falsify,
then data analysed to check if it's coherent with some theory and
then proceed in accordance.

I think I remember reading an essay documenting several cases
(galilei, watson& Crick).

As another note, don't make such a big deal out of science. I think
it's useful and fun, but not really suitable to grasping the
ultimate nature of universe:^). (For the record, I had to look what
ID was and I had a good chuckle)

Regards

Science is very well equipped (more so than anything else) to determine the ultimate nature of anything. If you cannot measure it using scientific methods, you are just guessing. Guessing is no way to determine anything.

DIPics

 

[Chato]

I haven't read him in more than twenty years, and find myself being unable to put him down.

I mention this because of your remarks on science asking the questions.

Obviously he did not have the tools to answer the questions, but step by step he asked all of them. And like a true scientist, often said, "we don't know."

And over and over he assured his readers that there was nothing to fear in learning what could be learned...

And did it all in the form of a poem, to hold the interest of his readers - Something that of course would turn people off today...

New Religion

Every morning I go out and play
with the sun.
Like a little rain cloud I cover
the ground,
bringing shadows onto the grass
I play my lazy games.

And to creatures too small to know
of me:
I am their God.
Bringing destruction or bounty,
without even knowing it.
And no doubt, if they had
my vision,
they would worship me.
And a holy book would describe
my miracles.

Dave

 

[dipics]

I haven't read him in more than twenty years, and find myself being
unable to put him down.

I mention this because of your remarks on science asking the
questions.

Obviously he did not have the tools to answer the questions, but
step by step he asked all of them. And like a true scientist, often
said, "we don't know."

And over and over he assured his readers that there was nothing to
fear in learning what could be learned...

And did it all in the form of a poem, to hold the interest of his
readers - Something that of course would turn people off today...

New Religion

Every morning I go out and play
with the sun.
Like a little rain cloud I cover
the ground,
bringing shadows onto the grass
I play my lazy games.

And to creatures too small to know
of me:
I am their God.
Bringing destruction or bounty,
without even knowing it.
And no doubt, if they had
my vision,
they would worship me.
And a holy book would describe
my miracles.

Dave

I haven't read him in, well, decades. I guess it's time again.

But, it is all about the questions. Questions are what make science, not answers. Once you get the answer to something, it quits being interesting to scientists.

There is no actual question in "But, is it possible that God did it?" We already KNOW that answer. The obvious answer, no matter the subject that the question is asked about (creation, sex, your annoying neighbor, whatever) the answer is always "Yes, it IS possible that God did it, look up "omnipotent" sometime". Since that is ALWAYS the answer, the question is not interesting to scientists. But, that is the ONLY question that the ID'ers have. And, it has been asked and answered already.

DIPics

 

[igb]

[snip]

C) Part of the problem with the anti-God reactionary view of
science is that is basically seems to me to be like saying "Now
that I understand how my car runs, there can be no Toyota" While
the question "is there a creator?" (not God) is a valid question
for Science to look at..

No, actually it isn't. Not at all. Science is ALWAYS falsifiable.
In other words, it can be proven wrong. The presence (or absence)
of God is NOT falsifiable. Hence it is outside the realm of
science.

I'll give you a falsifiable proposition:

"God is old bearded guy in a white gown that lives somewhere in the
stratosphere" Gee, I made science out of Teology! :O)

Really? Prove it isn't true then. Just because we haven't seen
him that doesn't prove he isn't there. I've never personally seen
Ringo Star, this doesn't prove he doesn't exist though.

those that seem to almost panic at the
...
very unscientific.

Actually, it is not "unscientific" at all. The reverse approach
(that used by ID) IS unscientific. In actual science, you don't
start with an answer or even an assumption of an answer. You get
the answer (or at least a theory) by examining the facts. Science
doesn't "assume" that there is no creator. It doesn't assume there
is a creator. It just examines the data and draws conclusions from
that.

On a side note, I don't think it really works like this in most
cases (or in major progresses, anyway) but it starts with wild
speculations (what if), then experiments are designed to falsify,
then data analysed to check if it's coherent with some theory and
then proceed in accordance.

I think I remember reading an essay documenting several cases
(galilei, watson& Crick).

As another note, don't make such a big deal out of science. I think
it's useful and fun, but not really suitable to grasping the
ultimate nature of universe:^). (For the record, I had to look what
ID was and I had a good chuckle)

Regards

Science is very well equipped (more so than anything else) to
determine the ultimate nature of anything. If you cannot measure
it using scientific methods, you are just guessing. Guessing is no
way to determine anything.

Positivism is too boring if you don't care only for the shadows projected in the cave. All right, there's the little assumption that there's a cave and something outside it but luckily you don't have to assume anything... I'm telling you! :O)

I claim that essential knowledge is best approached not scientifically but with the help of single malt or other inebriating substances .

Regards

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[dipics]

[snip]

C) Part of the problem with the anti-God reactionary view of
science is that is basically seems to me to be like saying "Now
that I understand how my car runs, there can be no Toyota" While
the question "is there a creator?" (not God) is a valid question
for Science to look at..

No, actually it isn't. Not at all. Science is ALWAYS falsifiable.
In other words, it can be proven wrong. The presence (or absence)
of God is NOT falsifiable. Hence it is outside the realm of
science.

I'll give you a falsifiable proposition:

"God is old bearded guy in a white gown that lives somewhere in the
stratosphere" Gee, I made science out of Teology! :O)

Really? Prove it isn't true then. Just because we haven't seen
him that doesn't prove he isn't there. I've never personally seen
Ringo Star, this doesn't prove he doesn't exist though.

those that seem to almost panic at the
...
very unscientific.

Actually, it is not "unscientific" at all. The reverse approach
(that used by ID) IS unscientific. In actual science, you don't
start with an answer or even an assumption of an answer. You get
the answer (or at least a theory) by examining the facts. Science
doesn't "assume" that there is no creator. It doesn't assume there
is a creator. It just examines the data and draws conclusions from
that.

On a side note, I don't think it really works like this in most
cases (or in major progresses, anyway) but it starts with wild
speculations (what if), then experiments are designed to falsify,
then data analysed to check if it's coherent with some theory and
then proceed in accordance.

I think I remember reading an essay documenting several cases
(galilei, watson& Crick).

As another note, don't make such a big deal out of science. I think
it's useful and fun, but not really suitable to grasping the
ultimate nature of universe:^). (For the record, I had to look what
ID was and I had a good chuckle)

Regards

Science is very well equipped (more so than anything else) to
determine the ultimate nature of anything. If you cannot measure
it using scientific methods, you are just guessing. Guessing is no
way to determine anything.

Positivism is too boring if you don't care only for the shadows
projected in the cave. All right, there's the little assumption
that there's a cave and something outside it but luckily you don't
have to assume anything... I'm telling you! :O)

I claim that essential knowledge is best approached not
scientifically but with the help of single malt or other
inebriating substances .

I prefer to use a big screen TV and reruns of Gilligans Island. It's all about coconuts...

DIPics

 

[Ken_5D]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348

This covers the approach to Intelligent Design or just questioning some assumptions that I like.

If you take the time to drill down.. you will find articles published in Scientific Journals and that have undergone peer review.

They even talk about some of the scientists that have issues with Darwinism that do on agree with the ID approach.

I totally agree that if you google ID and don't know what you are looking for you will run into a bunch of CR@P...

Anyone who is curious about beyond sweeping assumptions and generalization in this area.. there is quite a bit of good reading and writings from PhDs in various sciences etc.

Give this some thought....

In 10,000 years there could be a disaster that wipes out lots of life and human civilization.. Once rebuilt... they might study some of the remaining species.. like Dogs... Someone will look at a Greyhound and a Border Collie and suggest that there is evidence of Intelligent Design...That these two appear to have purposes in their design, he would be right even if there was no record left of the centuries of breeding that when into creating to diverse dog breads from a common species...

And I bet there are people that would call him a crackpot then too...

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Chato]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348

This covers the approach to Intelligent Design or just questioning
some assumptions that I like.
If you take the time to drill down.. you will find articles
published in Scientific Journals and that have undergone peer
review.

It doesn't address let alone answer the question that Dpics posed to you, and which I predicted you wouldn't answer.

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

B) What I like about ID is that is asks questions I do not see
being asked in the defecto evolution education (with glossed over
Ambiogenesis issues)

Exactly what questions does it ask that aren't being asked by
science? Please give us an example of one. Or, are you making the
common mistake that if science doesn't have an answer yet it means
that it isn't asking the question? This is obviously false.

So, please provide for us an example of a question that isn't being
asked by science and IS being asked by ID.

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

Give this some thought....
In 10,000 years there could be a disaster that wipes out lots of
life and human civilization.. Once rebuilt... they might study some
of the remaining species.. like Dogs... Someone will look at a
Greyhound and a Border Collie and suggest that there is evidence of
Intelligent Design...That these two appear to have purposes in
their design, he would be right even if there was no record left of
the centuries of breeding that when into creating to diverse dog
breads from a common species...

And I bet there are people that would call him a crackpot then too...

Probably, because whether a German Shepherd or a Chiuahua, they are not different species. They are still Canis Familaris (or whatever the Latin)...

But if your apocolypse does come about, all these dogs will interbreed, and will result in a typical form. This form will weigh in at around 50 pounds, and will look like an entirely different breed.

How do I know? Scientists have asked and answered that question by studying feral dog packs. Those that stayed in existence for more than twenty years wound up as I describe.

No doubt more research is needed.... No doubt we have not arrrived at a definitive answer...

However, it would interesting to see my brothers personal fantasy realised. He speculated on the Beagles of the Serengeti....

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Dave

 

[dipics]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348

This covers the approach to Intelligent Design or just questioning
some assumptions that I like.
If you take the time to drill down.. you will find articles
published in Scientific Journals and that have undergone peer
review.

They even talk about some of the scientists that have issues with
Darwinism that do on agree with the ID approach.

I totally agree that if you google ID and don't know what you are
looking for you will run into a bunch of CR@P...

Anyone who is curious about beyond sweeping assumptions and
generalization in this area.. there is quite a bit of good reading
and writings from PhDs in various sciences etc.

Give this some thought....
In 10,000 years there could be a disaster that wipes out lots of
life and human civilization.. Once rebuilt... they might study some
of the remaining species.. like Dogs... Someone will look at a
Greyhound and a Border Collie and suggest that there is evidence of
Intelligent Design...That these two appear to have purposes in
their design, he would be right even if there was no record left of
the centuries of breeding that when into creating to diverse dog
breads from a common species...

And I bet there are people that would call him a crackpot then too...

You have said several times that ID asks the questions that science won't. I asked you to please furnish us with one of the questions. Why haven't you done this yet?

There are always a few scientists that disagree with the prevalent theories. Some do it because of religious beliefs, some for other reasons. But, in this case, they are a very tiny minority. Why do you suppose this is? Perhaps because the vast majority of scientists in the fields that deal with issues such as this (biology etc.) realize that there is no serious challenge to evolution? That is my bet.

DIPics

 

[Chato]

I'm not going to reply to your last post to Ken. I don't want my reply to obfuscate your question.

But I want to note this. Ken's "answers" are indistinguishable from the answers of a religious fundamentalist. When you ask THEM a question, they point to the Bible and prove their point by saying, "The Bible says it, so it's true."

Ken when asked to show that ID ideology is science, posts a link to a an ID site that says, "We're scientists too."

Not once on this thread has he answered your question or anyone eles's for that matter, with any thing more detailed than the above....

(aside from pointing out how close minded we are. )

This brings us back to the old folk expression, often misused, but true nonetheless:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a Chrisitian Fundamentalist...

Dave

 

[Delvo]

Give this some thought....
In 10,000 years there could be a disaster that wipes out lots of
life and human civilization.. Once rebuilt... they might study some
of the remaining species.. like Dogs... Someone will look at a
Greyhound and a Border Collie and suggest that there is evidence of
Intelligent Design...That these two appear to have purposes in
their design, he would be right even if there was no record left of
the centuries of breeding that when into creating to diverse dog
breads from a common species...

Breeding is just evolution by natural selection... happening in an environment where satisfying the needs or wants of humans is a part of the criteria for survival and reproduction, just like flowers and pollenating insects evolve to serve each other in service to themselves.

Giving us a classic, easy-to-see example of evolution doesn't do much for your case against evolution.

 

[voices in afka_bob's head]

It would do good if the people who have gone off on tangents also
realize that there is such a thing as THREAD HIJACKING!!!! This
has to be one of the worst forums for it I have ever been on.

Don't forget hyperbole--this has got to be THE VERY WORST forum for that ;-)

Some "THREAD HIJACKING!!!!" might be the result of subsequent posters mistaking discussion threads as, well, open for discussion--and therefore in GRAVE DANGER of shifting focus ("[going] off on tangents")--rather than just press releases from the OP to be rubber-stamped and ooooed-and-aahhed by the admiring masses.

This has to be one of the worst forums for that, too--which is often a good thing.

 

[lanef]

I want a course that teaches Atheism. That starts with the premise
that there is no God and attacks religion.

I can't understand the benefit of starting a course that attacks others faith.

Everyone is free to believe in whatever one feels comfortable with. If it gives you some comfort, then I would say good for you.
Attacking others faith and beliefs equates to Marxist-Leninism policy

 

[Ken_5D]

I'm not going to reply to your last post to Ken. I don't want my
reply to obfuscate your question.

But I want to note this. Ken's "answers" are indistinguishable from
the answers of a religious fundamentalist. When you ask THEM a
question, they point to the Bible and prove their point by saying,
"The Bible says it, so it's true."

Ken when asked to show that ID ideology is science, posts a link to
a an ID site that says, "We're scientists too."

Not once on this thread has he answered your question or anyone
eles's for that matter, with any thing more detailed than the
above....

(aside from pointing out how close minded we are. )

This brings us back to the old folk expression, often misused, but
true nonetheless:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a Chrisitian
Fundamentalist...

Dave

Since I am not.. you are both a fool and a biggot. Who thinks name calling is the trump card to discussions.

And I should just let your rude mumblings to yourself go on.. but you asked..

The Question:

What are the alternatives to "Natural Selection" when there are dozens of biochemical systems that have a single function that would fail without all the parts working as they do now. IE there is no path of gradual function to evolve to the final product?

Darwin himself said:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Clearly the failure of Darwin's theories would be long way from indicating design... but right now the fear of opening up discussion of any alternatives has caused a lot of political and cultural circling of the wagons.. With some using their education to create complex chains of possibilities (opening the door to asking about probabilities) to the less articulate followers just labeling anyone off the Darwin plantation as a "Fundamentalist" no matter what their personal belief systems..
To them I say "if it walks like closed minded bigot and talks like .....

ID is willing to question the tortuous rationalizations hard core darwinists go though to explain these interdependent systems with no gradual path to current functions. The very systems Darwn thought would test his theorries.. Each successive "Maybe if "... "and then if" and follow by "a random mutation could have" creates astronomical probabilities against any of these spontaneously happening.. then you multiply each of these systems needed to have a working mammal and it takes a lot of faith to assume "it could just happen that way"

And as of yet I know of no experiment that can allow a cell to spontaneously occur, heck give me a membrane and a single process that needs a membrane to function in a test tube and I will reassess my need to ask HOW and WHY and yet it is "science" to say "random chance created," even though it can never be proven. Science? How would one Falsify "amino acids evolved into complex cells"

Now I think it is just as likely that there might be a process besides natural selection and a chain of mutations that does not involve an outside intelligence.. but right now there are two untestable explanations for how cells came into being billions of years ago. and it can be extended to how could some complex interdependent systems evolve slowly.. And as long as the Darwin waggons are circled.. that process may never be found.

Maybe there are quantum aspects to low level molecular and biochemical processes that allow molecule formation to travel infinite possible paths before reaching a final form much like single photons travel multiple paths to a goal simultaneously interacting with themselves.

That is what needs to be taught... To question a theory that has problems.. rather than use phrases like "Scientist don't understand YET how BLANK evolved" that imply for sure that current models will explain all the gaps. Or just ignoring the gaps by not talking about the systems that don't lend themselves to progressive natural selection.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

It is a sad thing when an education removes the desire to ask questions and replaces it with a need to discourage others who do question.

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[igb]

I'm not going to reply to your last post to Ken. I don't want my
reply to obfuscate your question.

But I want to note this. Ken's "answers" are indistinguishable from
the answers of a religious fundamentalist. When you ask THEM a
question, they point to the Bible and prove their point by saying,
"The Bible says it, so it's true."

Ken when asked to show that ID ideology is science, posts a link to
a an ID site that says, "We're scientists too."

Not once on this thread has he answered your question or anyone
eles's for that matter, with any thing more detailed than the
above....

(aside from pointing out how close minded we are. )

This brings us back to the old folk expression, often misused, but
true nonetheless:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a Chrisitian
Fundamentalist...

Dave

Since I am not.. you are both a fool and a biggot. Who thinks name
calling is the trump card to discussions.

And I should just let your rude mumblings to yourself go on.. but
you asked..

The Question:
What are the alternatives to "Natural Selection" when there are
dozens of biochemical systems that have a single function that
would fail without all the parts working as they do now. IE there
is no path of gradual function to evolve to the final product?

Darwin himself said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Clearly the failure of Darwin's theories would be long way from
indicating design... but right now the fear of opening up
discussion of any alternatives has caused a lot of political and
cultural circling of the wagons.. With some using their education
to create complex chains of possibilities (opening the door to
asking about probabilities) to the less articulate followers just
labeling anyone off the Darwin plantation as a "Fundamentalist" no
matter what their personal belief systems..
To them I say "if it walks like closed minded bigot and talks like
.....

ID is willing to question the tortuous rationalizations hard core
darwinists go though to explain these interdependent systems with
no gradual path to current functions. The very systems Darwn
thought would test his theorries.. Each successive "Maybe if "...
"and then if" and follow by "a random mutation could have" creates
astronomical probabilities against any of these spontaneously
happening.. then you multiply each of these systems needed to have
a working mammal and it takes a lot of faith to assume "it could
just happen that way"

And as of yet I know of no experiment that can allow a cell to
spontaneously occur, heck give me a membrane and a single process
that needs a membrane to function in a test tube and I will
reassess my need to ask HOW and WHY and yet it is "science" to say
"random chance created," even though it can never be proven.
Science? How would one Falsify "amino acids evolved into complex
cells"

Now I think it is just as likely that there might be a process
besides natural selection and a chain of mutations that does not
involve an outside intelligence.. but right now there are two
untestable explanations for how cells came into being billions of
years ago. and it can be extended to how could some complex
interdependent systems evolve slowly.. And as long as the Darwin
waggons are circled.. that process may never be found.

Maybe there are quantum aspects to low level molecular and
biochemical processes that allow molecule formation to travel
infinite possible paths before reaching a final form much like
single photons travel multiple paths to a goal simultaneously
interacting with themselves.

That is what needs to be taught... To question a theory that has
problems.. rather than use phrases like "Scientist don't understand
YET how BLANK evolved" that imply for sure that current models will
explain all the gaps. Or just ignoring the gaps by not talking
about the systems that don't lend themselves to progressive natural
selection.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

It is a sad thing when an education removes the desire to ask
questions and replaces it with a need to discourage others who do
question.

I don't see how the weaknesses of random natural selection theory lead to the concept of "intelligent design" as the only or even the first alternative.

Regards
--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[Mark56519]

ID is of course right now a set of questions.. with an offered explanation

But that's the thing--it doesn't offer an explanation. It says "there's another explanation, but I'm not going to address its nature, characteristics, mechanism, limitations, or really anything at all about it--I'm agnostic as to this explanation, other than that there is one." That brings zero info to the table.

Science can never prove the absence of God

Science does not purport to. Science also can never prove the absence of leprechauns. That doesn't mean that reasonable people believe in them. Science has a finite scope of inquiry--matter and energy. Science is limited to that scope because matter and energy are all that we can detect. We can IMAGINE other things, things outside time and space, other dimensions and so on, but science does not deal with those because they fall outside our perceptive capacity.

You've fallen for the "science presupposes atheism" tactic that was explicitly pushed by the Wedge Document I linked to earlier. Evolution does not preclude God--there are many who believe in precisely a theistic evolution, meaning that evolution is how things happened, but God was behind it. You can't prove or disprove that idea, which is why it isn't within the purview of science. Science seeks to explain the physical world in terms of the physical world, and does not address (whether to prove or disprove) supposed entities or agencies lying outside the physical world.