Replies

It was a metaphor, and I will defend it.

There is no controversy in science over the shape of the earth.
There is no controversy in science over the age of the earth or the age of the universe; at least nothing that would change accepted numbers by more than 10 percent.
There is no controversy in science over the geologic column
There is no controversy in science over common descent
There is no controversy over the age of fossils, give or take about five percent.
There is no controversy in science over the constancy of the speed of light.
There is nothing in science that points to a coding function for 95 percent of human DNA.

All but the first of these statements are constantly challenged on FR and at hundreds of creationist and ID websites.

There are some interesting fringe theories in science, such as ones concerning the origin of petroleum. One of the things that makes them interesting is that they are subject to experiment. Even ESP is subject to experiment. Oddly enough, people continue to experiment in those fringe areas where it is possible to experiment, even though they are sometimes ridiculed.

What makes ID a non-credible idea is that it is impossible to frame an ID experiment in a way that makes it different from a mainstream experiment. There is simply nothing about ID that makes it different from science except its assertion that traditional science can't explain certain things. This is an assertion which, when made sufficiently specific, is constantly in retreat. What makes it maddening to scientists is that there is an implied moral imperative not to attempt to explain certain things.

Nice post.

However, there is controversy in science on the issue of objectivity and subjectivity, and exactly at that point where theoretical autonomy finds its limit.

If anything, the ID hypothesis in on any given question in biology is that we actually know less than we think, that much of our knowledge needs to be torn down because it didn't make the "It must have been designed" surrender. ID's potential gains seem to be negative, judging from how ID-ers view evidence and the existing scientific literature.

You could have added the solar system. Interestingly, the shape of the earth and the solar system are contradicted by a literal reading of some scriptural passages. Yet creationists seem untroubled by these things, often going into a frenzy of "liberal construction" techniques to defend the findings of science.

Gee. With so little controversy in science I guess everything is settled now.

But only a fool would believe all of the controversies you listed have been completely settled. Geologists are still learning the shape and content of the earth, and what would you bet there are still a few learned arguments over how to go about it and exactly what shape the earth is now, and how exactly to determine its mass, all the while using the INTELLIGENT DESIGN in their minds and the INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED tools they have for observation.

It is the duty of science to challenge all of the above and more; to visit the facts again and again, and "challenge the status quo."

What makes ID a non-credible idea is that it is impossible to frame an ID experiment in a way that makes it different from a mainstream experiment.

Well, I suppose you can sit there at your computer and tell us what is, and what is not, possible, but all we can can do is ask: How do you know? And please tell us, while you're at it, how all the intelligence and design in the world could appear without an intelligent designer. The question is very simple, but I have yet to see anyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution answer it without equivocation. It is beneath their "dignity."

No, ID is not a "non-credible" idea. It is an idea open for inquiry just like anything else in the universe. But you would make a "non-credible" scientist for declaring outright what is, or is not, possible.

"There is no controversy in science over the constancy of the speed of light."

Has anyone actually said there is?

If they have, they are morons.

What makes ID a non-credible idea is that it is impossible to frame an ID experiment in a way that makes it different from a mainstream experiment. There is simply nothing about ID that makes it different from science except its assertion that traditional science can't explain certain things. This is an assertion which, when made sufficiently specific, is constantly in retreat. What makes it maddening to scientists is that there is an implied moral imperative not to attempt to explain certain things.

And I say that an ID experiment IS credible!

I'll even let you use your own dirt, or lifeforms or anything else that an Evolutionist thinks can be changed into something else.

Zap it, heat it, cool it, irradiate it, get it wetter, drier, hungrier or leaner: your choice.

Use YOUR intelligence to create YOUR design- using existing stuff.

If what you CLAIM is true is REALLY true, then a tremendous time compression of "E" will occur and mutations (helpful more than not) will also occur and your results can be published.

Well I'd like to examine your list of "non-controversy's.

There is no controversy in science over the shape of the earth.

No and there hasn't been much controversy historically either. As a link I believe I sent you earlier pointed out that the church has been wrongly accused and never supported a flat earth view. But this was a view promoted by evolutionists in the late 1800's and early 1900's as a way of discrediting the church.

There is no controversy in science over the age of the earth or the age of the universe; at least nothing that would change accepted numbers by more than 10 percent.

I beg to differ. There are scientists who question the assumptions underlying dating methods. That you refuse to acknowledge them does not mean that there is not a controversy, it simply means that you wish to ignore the controversy and have the world adopt a groupthink mentality that agrees with your world view.

There is no controversy in science over the geologic column

Again, I disagree. There are scientists who disagree with the geologic column. This whole thread touches on this. How can you say there is no controversy. Wishful thinking.

There is no controversy in science over common descent.

Absolutely there is controversy over common descent. Again this thread is proof. Only in your super narrowly defined world of science is there no controversy.

There is no controversy over the age of fossils, give or take about five percent.

Yes there is controversy. There is controversy over the assumptions underlying dating methods. There is no way to know how often different dating methods do not correlate. And there is bias built into the dating game used by scientists.

There is no controversy in science over the constancy of the speed of light.

Actually there is still some very small controversy over this. I saw an article published this year that was again questioning this, from yet another angle.

There is nothing in science that points to a coding function for 95 percent of human DNA.

This is the one that you have already mentioned has been questioned by someone you trust and I appreciate your honesty in mentioning that. But I will go ahead and add, that in addition to finding function for some of the code previously thought about as junk. That all of the "junk" code seems to play a part in cell size and definition. Without that "junk" DNA, we might be very different creatures if we were viable at all.