Posted on 11/20/2007 10:27:07 AM PST by CottShop
[[And for posting the evidence of what you describe as macroevolution, which is a creationist-coined term because they have had no choice but to accept microevolution,]]
Lol- again- if that’s the best you got- then quite frankly you got nothing- Creationists were the first ones to discover and record and test Microevolution- Study up Doc- you’re slipping
[[Thank goodness you’re here to tell other people what I mean, otherwise no one would ever be able to understand my posts!
To recap our previous conversation:
Me: Behe says ID is as much science as astrology.
You: You blatant liar!]]
I’m not putting words in your mouth- you’re putting words in Behe’s mouth- no apology from me- I stand by what I said!
A few facts are clear to anyone who is willing to open his eyes:
1) The Discovery Institute (with their fleet of lawyers, PR flaks, journalists and that poor lone poly sci major, along with their small gaggle of tame scientists) is the primary force behind ID.You can huff and puff all you want but you can't change any of that.2) Their stated goals are theistic, not scientific.
3) You are doing apologetics, not science.
You assign the name “science” to the methodology that has developed over the past four hundred years as if it were the key to all knowledge and will never be superceded by a different, more fruitful
paradign. No doubt our science is highly utilitarian, but so was the science of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. It was surpassed by the science of the Greeks, who put knowledge on a more theoretical basis, one which was not surppassed until modern times. If you do believe in scientific progress, consider what science fiction writers have proposed: a “mega-science” that is as superior to our own as ours is to Aristole’s because it introduced principles as yet undiscovered by us. One only has to reflect on the way we discovered the limitation’s of Newton’s science and the “invention” of relativity and quantum physics as we encounter phenomenon beyond explanation by the old principles. I have the feeling that if we ever creat AI, it will NOT be as the result of extrapolating what we know now, but because we are suddenly faced by the unknown and must rethink our approach.
So science has improved from primitive beginnings, and continues to grow more accurate in its methods and findings.
OK, I can live with that.
Do you see any evidence that science will, or needs to turn to, magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?
Or will science keep on exploring the natural world and exploring reality, as it has for the past several hundred years -- in spite of the deprecations of the anti-science folks (generally believers in one or more of the above list)?
“Science,” which is to say human beings, has been exploring the natural world since....(You fill in the blanks.). That does not mean that “progress” is inevitable for necessarily sustainable. The science of China “ran out of gas” in the 18th Century without ever developing anything like the principles of western science. Ditto, India. I have expressed my faith in the future of science, but that does not mean that we might not just suddenly run into cycles of up and down. Toynbee is now out of fashion, but we would do well to think of civilizations as organisms, which are born, flourish, decline and die and are succeeded by civilizations that have lesser or greater achievements. During the past two hundred years, we have witnessed hugh changes in the material condition of mankind, which has caused a vast improvment in our moral condition. All the same, the profound pessimism underlying the glorbal warming panic means are our elites are full of =fear for the future. For them, I think, it is a matter of seizing control, of putting on the brakes, and its all because of fear—superstitious fear, because the average rich man knows no more about climate than the average devotee of astrology. About astrology, I remind you that Kepler was an astrologer. So far as I am concerned, the earth-warming crowd are simply the modern day equivalents. They are well paid because the rich wish to feel that somehow they can if not control their destiny then at least they can predict it.
The AGW folks are being challenged now, and seem to be forced into somewhat of a retreat. Global warming is real, but the cause being entirely blamed on mankind is less clear than Algore et al. claim. Global warming is what brought an end to the last ice age! And that was close to 15,000 years ago.
But back to Intelligent Design and the natural world: ID is religion, not science. There is no scientific evidence for ID; there is only the same lack of evidence/knowledge that had once attributed thunder and lightning to the gods. This lack of evidence is seized upon by those seeking to exploit gaps in scientific knowledge into which to insert their particular religious beliefs.
Science has gradually filled these gaps. Scientific gaps are a risky place to lodge one's beliefs.
I certainly don’t believe in a god of the gaps. On the other hand, I find it hard to conceive of any development of modern science except that the belief of scientists in intelligent design, by which I mean what Whitehead said about the matter. Methodical doubt is not the same thing as scepticism. Don’t forget that Dsecartes was sure of two things, a p riori, so to speak: That he existed, that God existed. These are the guarantees that we can actually know things. Scepticism is simply the belief that we begin in nothing and end in nothing; so eat, drink and be merry. But progress cannot come from dissipation.
I don't understand this reference. Please explain in a bit more detail. Thanks.
Noooooo, couldn’t be ...
Whitehead began with the observation that science arose against a background of belief in a Creator God—the Judeo-Christian God—and Greek rationalism. Unlike Greek scientists, like Aristotle, the Europeans believed in a linear progression of events. Unlike the Muslims, who became weighted down by fundamentalism, they believed that God —and his creation—could be known by reason. By extension one may look at the view of the Positivists which was that theology was superceded by science, each confident that truth could be know by the application of reason, although science focuses on what is near at hand rather than metaphysical truth or knowledge of God.
Coyote- if your world is th4e logic you tout- then truly I don’t wish to live there- You can live their with all your pretend facts all you like- The wedge strategy has absolutely nothign to do with ID and you know it-
A fewe facts are clear to anyone that isn’t blinded by dogma:
[[1) The Discovery Institute (with their fleet of lawyers, PR flaks, journalists and that poor lone poly sci major, along with their small gaggle of tame scientists) is the primary force behind ID.]]
Number one that isn’t even close to being true- There are ID scientists ALL over the world that do NOT belong to DI, and who have contributed much research to ID science- lie number one refuted
[[2) Their stated goals are theistic, not scientific.]]
Lie number 2 refuted- their goals are NOT theistic at all- they are logical- if a hypothesis like Macroevolution is dead, then OBVIOUSLY a more resonable SCIENTIFIC hypothesis NEEDS to be pursued- and ID fits that bill just fine scientifically
[[3) You are doing apologetics, not science.]]
Pot calling the Kettle Black if ever I did see one- You take goals of a MINOR institute amoung the science of ID and you pretend they are the end all be all of ID science, you post their goals which are Entirely scienctific, claim they are not, and give absolutely NO proof or rebuttle or explanation as to why they are not (Even though it’s obvious that there is absolutely nothing in those goals that is unscientific) and you continue to post irrelevent material such as insitutute’s statements of faith as thouigh those statements of faith somehow invalidate the sound and entirely valid science of ID being conducted all over hte world by competent and highly skilled scientists- You attempt to downplay using misleading tactics, and you NEVER EVER ceede the obvious fact that ID science is just that- a valid science- So please- enough with the false accusations of apologetics when you are so wallowing in it that you can’t see straight yourself!
[[You can huff and puff all you want but you can’t change any of that.]
There’s NOTHING to change- nothing! you can insinuate all day long- but nothign will change the fact that there is absolutely NOTHING unscientific about presenting an entirely plausible and FAR more reasonable and provable hypothesis that doesn’t have to rely on speculation and dogmatic assumptions as it’s basis like Macroevolution does for lack of evidence and for lack of logical reasonability
Sounds painful...but maybe PBS is into that sort of thing. :p
[[By extension one may look at the view of the Positivists which was that theology was superceded by science, each confident that truth could be know by the application of reason, although science focuses on what is near at hand rather than metaphysical truth or knowledge of God.]]
Thank you Robby- that is exactly what ID science does- it focuses on what is testable, and provable- not on things that happened in the far distant past as does Macroevolution, and it absolutely doesn’t have to rely on assumptions about unknowns, and it certainly doesn’t have all the serious biological roadblocks and dead ends that Macroevolution does- ID science studies knowns- Personal beleifs outside of ID science are perfectly allowable and should be encouraged, but they are NOT the science of ID as some on here suggest it is.
Differences without distinction?
They’re moar likely than you’d think! :D
That’s really the $64,000 question, isn’t it?
See, that’s the problem with people today. You instantly assume that everyone on the thread who disagrees with you is evil or malignant in some manner. They can’t be merely “mistaken” or perhaps uninformed of the latest curl in the difference between ID and creationism according to the Discovery Institute.
Don’t feel too bad, you aren’t alone. This attitude permeates the nation and all of its religions and ideologies. You’ll find it anywhere you find a disagreement over anything more fundamental than “what’s for dinner?”
I’ll tell you what, stepping back, cooling off, and considering how people you disagree with came to disagree in the first place without assuming dark and devious motives would go a long way towards at least making the country, and the web in particular, a nicer place to live.
[[But back to Intelligent Design and the natural world: ID is religion, not science. There is no scientific evidence for ID; there is only the same lack of evidence/knowledge that had once attributed thunder and lightning to the gods. This lack of evidence is seized upon by those seeking to exploit gaps in scientific knowledge into which to insert their particular religious beliefs.]]
Thank you for exposing your ignorance of ID- No evidence for Design? Either you are woefully behind the times and haven’t heard, or you are feigning ignorance and repeating mantra in the hopes that if said enough times, some peopel will be duped into the nonsensicle ideology you hold.- there is plenty of evidnece for design, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest- highly suggest that an intelligence caused it- what IS pure religion is to ignore the obvious, and to declare that time and radom mistakes in the genome coudl account for such complexities- beating out overwhelming odds- no- make that overwhelming impossbililities, trillions of times, and htinking that, despite a complete lack of evidence, that somehow, by gosh by golly, billions of species developped from a single cell long long ago. What is religion, is ignoring hte fact that there is a complete lack of evidnece both in biology and in fossil records showing transitions- mistakes, monsters and mangled morphs- but what IS seen are completely functional highly complex species, and thinking that evolution just happened anyways- What is ALSO religion is thinking that schools and insitutitions MUST adhere only to the naturalistic causation, and that proposing a FAR FAR better and more feasible alternative with far far more evidence to back it up, isn’t scientific.
No evidence for design Coyote? You better hone up on your arguments- Design is evident all over hte place, and no amoutn of time + mutations could EVER beat the impossibilities presented them and have created such design complexities- I’d venture a guess that you’d be the one standing over hte billions of Crossbows I spoke of earlier, and eeclare that there was no intelligence present in the design and that nature ‘could have done it- constructed them from natural materials if given enough time’ because that is what you are doing standing over hte billions of design elements in biology and declaring that naturedidit. Who’s peddling religion and apologetics again?
lol, that was aimed at CottShop. I thought you’d appreciate where I’m coming from though, seeing as how you’re being all naughty and denying the brilliance of the now out of work Dover school board. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.