Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/10/2005 | Uriah Kriegel

[xzins]

I have no problem with Rockefeller having a lot of money. I have problems with any tactics he ever used that were intentionally designed to keep all others out of the oil market.

To the extent that he used goons to break kneecaps, lowball pricing to ruin others, and/or paid off politicians to prevent others, then I have a problem. That is not a free market.

It is clear in our day that extremely rich men draw a lot of attention to themselves when they try to influence politics. George Soros is an example.

I guess it is not possible for Soros to do ANYTHING at all with his own money that would be negative for the nation.

That's why everyone loves him so much.

[From many - one.]

A human generation is more like 20 years.

A generation is not a lifespan.

[RogueIsland]

My memory of history classes (near ancient by now) says that anti-trust legislation first came about to control John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

The big court case ended up being the Northern Securities Trust, which was Morgan's baby, but TR's anti-trust vision was pretty broad. It certainly wasn't confined to any one particular oligarch.

[highball]

Do you accept as truth the first 10 words of the Bible?

Or does the Bible start out by telling lies?

This is about science. Show me some scientific evidence to support "the first 10 words of the Bible" amd we can talk. Until then, it has no place in science class.

My personal religious beliefs are not the point here, because I don't get those beliefs confused with science.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I have problems with any tactics he ever used that were intentionally designed to keep all others out of the oil market.

To the extent that he used goons to break kneecaps, lowball pricing to ruin others, and/or paid off politicians to prevent others, then I have a problem. That is not a free market."

Physical violence is wrong, but *lowball pricing* isn't. It was his oil, to price as he pleased. If he wanted to give it away, that would have been his right. If he owned ALL of the oil and said he wasn't going to give ANY away, that would be his right too. We do not have a right to someone else's goods; we are not entitled.

"I guess it is not possible for Soros to do ANYTHING at all with his own money that would be negative for the nation."

I never said that, that's your view. I never said that all wealthy people are wealthy legitimately. You're just changing the subject now. I was talking about antitrust, which is a fiction for anti-capitalists to use to control what they can't create on their own.

[P-Marlowe]

This is about science.

Dodging the question, eh?

I don't know if you've been following the discussion, but the discussion has, for the most part, been on the issue of whether belief in evolution (or more specifically, the denial of intelligent design) is consistent with a belief in the God revealed in the Bible.

So why don't you just answer the question? Do you accept as truth the first 10 words of the Bible? Or does the Bible start out by spouting lies?

[xzins]

I really do oppose real distortions in free markets.

I don't oppose imaginary ones created by liberals.

I always worry about these big oil companies always funding environmental ads, PBS documentaries, and liberal politicians. You'd think they had overlapping directorates with the Sierra Club they're so cozy with each other.

[From many - one.]

Yes, that was my pre-caffeine version of "Golden Rule"

I do not see "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as being even the slightest bit self-sacrifcing


It's sort of like the iterated prisoner's dilemma...you be nice to me, I'll be nice to you; but if you're not nice to me you should have no expectation of me being nice to you and I perfectly well know that if I'm not nice to you I should have expectation of you being nice to me.

[xzins]

I do have a problem with a plan by one person to give oil away for free until he drives the competition out of the market.

The only reason for doing that is to create a "non-Free market."

[drlevy88]

But on a higher level, this is about philosophy. Science is a philosophy.

[highball]

I'm not dodging the question. Personally, I believe that the Bible contains more parables than just the ones attributed to Jesus.

But again, that's not the point. If you have to believe that the first 10 words of the Bible (in whichever translation you prefer) are literally true for ID to make any sense whatsoever, then that tells us a lot about how "intelligent" it really is.

[highball]

But on a higher level, this is about philosophy. Science is a philosophy.

That doesn't mean all philosophy is scientific.

[drlevy88]

Just like not all fruits are apples. So?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I do have a problem with a plan by one person to give oil away for free until he drives the competition out of the market.

The only reason for doing that is to create a "non-Free market."

As long as everybody is free to make their own choices in the deals, then it is none of your business what an oil company does with it's property. It is not a *non-free market*, it's the essence of a free market. You want to punish those that succeed, and you will do so at the expense of everybody's property rights. Very leftist.

[highball]

So we shouldn't confuse the two.

Creationists confuse philosophy and science. That leads to bad science.

[drlevy88]

At the same time, science should be recognized as a philosophy. It is a philosophy that has played an important role, to be sure, but at root it is a philosophy. Other philosophies have played important roles too.

[xzins]

"Love your neighbor as yourself" does imply sacrifice. It is not a quid pro quo as is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

People do make sacrifices on their own behalf. To do that for your neighbor would be altruistic. There is no trade/swap/barter hints in there at all.

[js1138]

ID is not about God. ID advocates have sworn to that under oath. But I would conclude that the designer postulated by ID advocates is evil.

[xzins]

Not so.

When someone else INTENT becomes crystal clear, and that intent is to injure others, then there is good reason to act.

This is similar to freedom of speech and the "man shouting fire in a crowded theater."

He has no right to misuse his freedom to intentionally injure another.

[smug]

I appreciate your remarks. On this subject I know that I don't know. I just don't know what it is I don't know. But I have questions. I was taught that in nature all things "wind down", and that things move from "order to chaos". I find that these supposedly scientific facts do not square well with other scientific facts. I do not dismiss evolution out of hand even though I have never observed it. Neither do I except Intelligent Design just because I sense a programmer behind the Genetic Code.