Science on TV Evolves : Intelligent Design Hits Prime Time

BreakPoint ^ | 9 June 03 | Chuck Colson

[f.Christian]

sewer <== offal - smegga - darwin - REASON -- Judgement Day -- Jesus Christ -- Alpha - Omega ==> New Jerusalem

[Aric2000]

What the devil are you talking about?

Evolution is verifiable, makes predictions, is falsifiable, all the hallmarks of a sound scientific theory.

ID on the other hand, is A: NOT verifiable, because you say, irreducably complex/goddidit, that is NOT verifiable.

B: ID makes NO predictions, it says, irreducably complex/goddidit, no need for predictions.

and C: It is NOT falsifiable, when you say goddidit, how can I Prove SCIENTIFICALLY that you are wrong? HOW? You cannot.

ID is NOT a scientific theory, there is NOTHING scientific about it.

You want to call it religion, you want to call it philosophy, Hey, GREAT, I won't argue with you.

BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE!!!

Are we straight yet? or are you gonna argue with me to be argumentative again?

[f.Christian]

evolution <== (( mantras )) tautology - Reason -- KNOWLEDGE // philosphy -- tecchnology // science ==> creation !

[Mr. Silverback]

The way by which speaking in tongues and snake handling can finally be explained.

My, isn't that pretty darn bigoted. Did you get your education on the relationship between science and religion from the Lisa Simpson Holier-And--Smarter-Than-Thou Correspondence School?

For every Creationist who doesn't know their science, there are ten evolutionists who worship a theory.

[Mr. Silverback]

Are you familar with Dr. Carl Baugh?

Nope. Please enlighten me.

[Rudder]

Syntax is our friend.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Again, this may be splitting hairs, but I believe that GR didn't predict this. Actually, the GR described phenomona that Al had been studying concerning Mercury. This was later confirmed by Eddington.

By itself, a theory only describes observations and possible reasons for those observations. Scientists may use it as a predictive tool, but by itself, it predicts nothing. By the same token, a gun is an interesting exercise in theory, but the use of the gun is putting the theory to practice. But by itself, the gun is useless.

[f.Christian]

fC ...

This is quite typical of what is happening on the FR!

Everday!

j8 ...

"Evolution does not move "towards" anything, at least not anything knowable, because there is no static state that can be known as "fitness". Whatever works and whatever succeeds succeeds. Most of the living mass of the planet, by weight, is made up of bacteria. Evolution does not compel any "upward" trend towards "complexity".

"Dispite what any given authority might say, evolution is compatible with any concrete definition of free will. The utility of the mind is in its attempt to know and adjust to the future -- a task that remains and will always remain incomplete and unfulfilled. It is this attempt to predict and manage the future that gives us the "feeling" of free will. It is the impossibility of predicting the future that makes the feeling of freedom consistent with reality."

"Evolution, in fact, turns the usual cause and effect paradigm upside down. In the world of living things, cause operates from the future backwards, rather than from past to present. That's really, in a nutshell, what evolution means."


22 posted on 06/03/2003 10:57 AM PDT by js1138

[f.Christian]

fC ...

science (( no change )) vs the study of science (( change )) !

dh ...

That's a silly quibble. The universe does whatever it damn well pleases, and hasn't the slightest demonstrated notion of what a law is to constrain it. Insofar as what is demonstrable, natural laws are human inventions to help us think more effectively about nature. The claim that they are objectively existing things in and of themselves, is unproven and probably unprovable--as is likewise the claim that there is such a thing as "science" which exists independently of "the study of science".

1,398 posted on 05/14/2003 10:36 PM PDT by donh (u)

[Mr. Silverback]

Dang, gd, tell him how you really feel! :-)

[Rudder]

Evolution does not move "towards" anything, at least not anything knowable...

Correct--and hence the case against eugenics.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There are certainly laws of nature in the Universe. Some we understand (barely), we probably aren't even aware of most of them.

Tell me what would happen if we did not live in a universe that followed certain predefined rules?

[PatrickHenry]

Again, this may be splitting hairs, but I believe that GR didn't predict this.

Perhaps not in specific words, such as: "If you observe the stars during a solar eclipse, then I predict ..." However, a testable consequence of the theory is that light has mass, and that this sould be observable. It's the same with any scientific theory. If the theory is an accurate model of reality, its consequences can be understood and tested.

[f.Christian]

Isn't this (( evolution )) intellectual - moral - social anarchy inc ?

[f.Christian]

fb ...

Tell me what would happen if we did not live in a universe that followed certain predefined rules?

fC ...

explain the liberal (( evolution )) mind ... spin - bias - HYPE !

oj -- scott peterson world ... lies - hate - murder (( anarchy - violence )) !

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

A better statement would be perhaps to assert that we can come to understand the consequences of the theory over time much better. To say that we know all of the theory's consequences is inaccurate (I don't think that you meant to imply that, but your statement was somewhat misleading). However, one can posit a hypothesis or theory that is untestable for a long period of time (such as some of Plato's geocentric ideas). In such a case, the fact that we simply don't know doesn't make the particular case invalid (in Plato's case, the theorem was proven invalid by Copernicus - although many ancient civilizations knew of this well before Plato).

[Aric2000]

So is content, and context, but that never stops him either.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

explain the liberal (( evolution )) mind ... spin - bias - HYPE !

I can't. In that one particular case, I concede that the evolutionists' argument against ID may have some validity :)...

[Rudder]

Isn't this (( evolution )) intellectual - moral - social anarchy inc ?

So far as I can tell, yes.

[Last Visible Dog]

So far you have responded to almost EVERY ONE of my posts, because for some odd reason, you ACTUALLY think that ID is science. When any scientist would look at it, and say. no evidence, no predictons, no nothing.

This is the crap I am talking about. Despite the fact that I have repeated many times I am not arguing for ID – you claim I think ID is science. These are your knee-jerk slogans and you use them no matter how inapplicable.

From my limited study of intelligent design, there are many theories that fall into the category of ID. You argue as if there is only one ID theory.