Astrology has been around a lot longer than ID and has at least the potential to generate testable predictions (which would of course be instantly falsified by testing). It thus has a leg or two up on ID.
***As far as I can tell, we'll never get rid of those silly horoscopes but that is not the issue. I guess you really did need Kevin OMalley to show you that ;-)
So you didn't dispense with diddly as far as making anything go away. Your wave-aways are breezy, but nothing you're saying bears up under examination as true or logical or sensible.
***I'm looking now.
So your "frustration" before was in never bothering to Google? Your frustration was in never having been on a crevo thread before in your life or made the tiniest effort to see what mainstream science thinks of ID? Here's what you said:
My frustration is, where is the simple, straightforward refutation?So now you say ...
There is a ton of material, suggesting that there has been a rather large, ongoing scientific dispute for some time now. If that were not true, the president wouldn't have waded into these waters. I myself have stayed away for the most part on the crevo threads because the flame wars are too contentious and mean-spirited.
New story! OK. Now your frustrations are over. BTW, the President is the head politician, not the head scientist.
But let's skip ahead to where you answered this from me:
As just shown, it's been done and done and done and done and done.Your answer was:
***Not on this thread. The game has changed now that GWB has stated a position.
Jaw-dropping. You were claiming that mainstream science has not been answering ID. That was wrong. Understand? Wrong. Mainstream science thinks ID has no claim to being science and it has a very good set of arguments for its position. I was linking a sample of that material.
"Not on this thread?" It's on there now and it shows ID is a crock. The President putting his foot in it doesn't change anything. You're either clueless or desperate.
Does it matter for the purposes of science class whether a thing is science or not? Why are there no valid ID arguments? Why is there no theory of ID? The only material the prestigious Discovery Institute can suggest for HS classes is something called "the controversy," a grab-bag of squawks that somehow evolution has not occurred or is not important if it did occur whether or not common descent is true.
"The controversy," BTW, is a political phenomenon quite outside the science journals. No, there has not been a raging controversy inside science. There still isn't, unless you call 70 nutcases worldwide a raging controversy. How many "Steve"s do you know?
Astrology has been around a lot longer than ID and has at least the potential to generate testable predictions (which would of course be instantly falsified by testing). It thus has a leg or two up on ID.
****When astrology gets to the point that the president of the US suggests it should be taught side by side with prevailing scientific theories of origins, then I will reconsider my position on it. Until then, it has not gotten that far.
So you didn't dispense with diddly as far as making anything go away. Your wave-aways are breezy, but nothing you're saying bears up under examination as true or logical or sensible.
****Wow, you really don't get it, do you? Thank you for displaying your genuine attitude. For your colleagues' sake, I'll spell it out just a little bit. Let's say the pres took a position that Astrology should be taught side by side with evolution. In one stroke, it becomes a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). With responses like yours, you really let the cat out of the bag. But… come on… you're just toying with me, right? You know that I'm not a biochemist so you're just moving in for the kill like a Viking kitty… ;-)
So your "frustration" before was in never bothering to Google?
****My “frustration” was with the tone of the argument. And when I google “crevo” I get 13,400 hits. I don't have the time to drill down. Whenever I had the time and looked at the crevo threads on FR, they seem to spiral into flame wars. But now that it becomes a social policy discussion, the tone SHOULD change. If it doesn't, the side that finds itself fighting against the pres tends to lose. Call him dumb if you want, but it hasn't worked so far.
Your frustration was in never having been on a crevo thread before in your life
***I've lurked. I've seen some of the questions I have that others asked & they got slammed. There are people who are lurking right now, thinking the same things I am, and wondering you're your response will be. When I was up against an abiog on a SETI thread, he didn't answer my pointed questions. Recently I saw on another abiog thread that they don't hold the SETI folks in high regard due to their unmerited assumptions. I think both issues are coming to an interesting head.
or made the tiniest effort to see what mainstream science thinks of ID? Here's what you said:
***I've made the effort, but the mass of data is so large that it takes an expert on each area to drill down. I don't have the time, nor do most others. I have given it the time it was due for myself, and stayed away from the discussion on FR for several reasons. The whole thing changed when GWB stated his position. If you can't see how that changes things, that doesn't really concern me. I'm going after certain facts. I'll spend the amount of time that I can. There are probably a thousand other people like me. If I get slammed, they figure they would have gotten slammed, and that's that -- you find yourself facing a public policy position down the road that you disagree with, without knowing how it happened. Chances are, many scientists didn't see this one coming.
New story! OK. Now your frustrations are over.
****Well, I wouldn't say that my frustrations are over. So I suppose I shouldn't let you say it either.
BTW, the President is the head politician, not the head scientist.
****Ya think? We all might want to chew on that one for just awhile. Here's a hint: An illustration between the difference between public policy and science policy is DNA evidence at the OJ Simpson trial. Those 12 votes count the same as 12 scientists' votes.
Jaw-dropping.
****Really? You folks have been debating numbskulls like me for 5 or 6 years and you find that “jaw-dropping”? Nooo… you're just toying, right? Hyperbole? If not, you might have a rude awakening headed your way. This is becoming a public policy issue, so the doors are opening for more jaw-dropping, knuckle-dragging boneheads like me to enter the debate. If you lost patience before, dude…
You were claiming that mainstream science has not been answering ID. That was wrong. Understand? Wrong.
***You have your way of seeing it and I have mine. I wasn't claiming that unless that's what I wrote. But if you want to discuss that straw claim, you will need to address the fact that the president of the US consulted his science advisers on a public policy issue and chose differently than how you and they see it. If mainstream science was answering ID properly at that point, the pres probably would have seen it in a more scientific light. Mainstream science failed at that point. Take it up with George if you don't like it.
Mainstream science thinks ID has no claim to being science and it has a very good set of arguments for its position.
****Apparently not good enough for the guy I voted for. It really is a mystery to me at this stage how & why he chose his position, because I had actually started to think that ID was losing intellectual ground to abiog. I was caught kind of by surprise.
I was linking a sample of that material.
****I'll get to it when I can.
"Not on this thread?" It's on there now and it shows ID is a crock.
****Good. That saves me a lot of time. Try to have patience. 2 years from now, when people Google for ID & abiogenesis, they'll come to this thread.
The President putting his foot in it doesn't change anything. You're either clueless or desperate.
****Clueless is closer to the truth than desperate. But thanks for the false dilemma. Keep throwin' them fallacies at me. I happen to believe that it did change things, and that's why I'm here, now.
Does it matter for the purposes of science class whether a thing is science or not?
****I think it does. If it doesn't follow the scientific method, it shouldn't be allowed in a science class. It should be put into a philosophy class. That goes for evolution as well as abiogenesis and creation, Astrology, and any other philosophy. Maybe that's what GWB is hanging his hat on. I think it has merit. It would be healthy for science to encourage discussion in this area and get rid of that tendency to ridicule people just for their faith.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468966/posts?page=12#12
Why are there no valid ID arguments?
****I don't know. I'm here for the numbers for now. As far as valid ID arguments, I'll just hang my hat on trusting ol' George that he found them valid, with his high-falutin' Harvard education & all.
Why is there no theory of ID?
****I don't know. See previous comment. Perhaps there is no theory of ID for the same reason that there is no theory of gravitation: There just isn't enough known yet to postulate. But I really do not know, and it doesn't matter to me for purposes of social policy discussions. It would have mattered to me for purposes of entering the crevo threads prior to GWB stating his position. But that's just me.
The only material the prestigious Discovery Institute can suggest for HS classes is something called "the controversy," a grab-bag of squawks that somehow evolution has not occurred or is not important if it did occur whether or not common descent is true.
****Um, I'll take it that your use of the word Prestigious is sarcasm. From what I can see, it is a legitimate scientific controversy for purposes of discussing public policy. It was legitimate enough for the president to come out with a position on the controversy.
"The controversy," BTW, is a political phenomenon quite outside the science journals. No, there has not been a raging controversy inside science. There still isn't, unless you call 70 nutcases worldwide a raging controversy. How many "Steve"s do you know?
****It appears that the abiogs' problem is that the president of the US, being the political authority that he is, has listened to scientific “nutcases” in determining his public policy. Do I have that correct? How do I verify that they are nutcases? Actually, the Project Steve thing is worthwhile to comment on, because I never heard of it till this thread. It is a “tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of 'scientists who doubt evolution' or 'scientists who dissent from Darwinism.'” That makes my task even more difficult, trying to find the trusted creat/ID sources that the abiogs give the nod to. Does anyone know who the creats were that GWB spoke with in determining his policy stance?