Posted on 12/18/2001 7:05:45 AM PST by shrinkermd
Nothing like kicking off a crevo thread with a bang.
Biblical scripture was not made up by goat herders 200 years ago. Some of the earlier parts of Genesis may be based on oral traditions that go back 10,000 years or more. Biblical scripture is also inspired by God (at least for me). Even in a naturalistic sense there is a tremendous amount of truths in scripture. For example, the Bible says sodomy is bad. Science has finally caught up with the goat herders in this instance.
"In 1996, NOVA Online asked two leading spokesmen in the evolution/creation debate to discuss the question, "How did we get here?" The participants have agreed to keep their letters to less than 500 words and have been given equal time to write them. It should be noted that neither Miller nor Johnson were involved in the production of NOVA's Odyssey of Life."
Reading this exchange of letters makes it fairly clear that Miller would prefer to discuss science and Johnson would rather not.
I firmly believe that those people who get their panties in a bundle over my last statement forget the fundamental tenet of science: An theory should be testable or an experiment should be repeatable. If you invoke a creator who dabbles here and there, then you can have neither. Scientific thought should say nothing about either. This is my intent here.
ID theory is not about proving a Creator; it's about dis -proving evolutionary theory by making it testable. ID theorists test evolutionary concepts by the tenents of the information sciences, and that's not ground where evolution fairs well. When you want to find out where and how a complex, molecular, programmed system comes about, you don't ask a biologist. You ask an information theorist and/or a chemist.
To put it firmly: I'll believe it when I see it print.
We are getting back to the original statement I cut and pasted not too long ago in post 23" "I've read the books, and I've been to the conferences, and I think it's intriguing," he says. "What I want to see is some science being done based on that paradigm that produces results that could not be produced by the Darwinian paradigm." (Derrick Chignell).
Or, as Dr. Kenneth Miller says of Prof. Behe, "If I thought I had an idea that would completely revolutionize cell biology in the same way that Professor Behe thinks he has an idea that would revolutionize biochemistry," he says, "I would be talking about that idea at every single meeting of my peers I could possibly get to."
Putting tin-foil hat arguments aside, why does the ID crowd insist on attacking evolution in the public forum rather than the scientific forum? If their arguments are so incredibly strong, why isn't he pushing it in a scientific forum? If the data is there, why aren't the ID at every meeting? Despite the tin-foil hat crowd's protestations, the scientific field may have considerable inertia when it comes to new ideas, but it isn't immovable. Look at the troubles Punctuated Equilibrium had when it was introduced in the 70's.
Perhaps if Behe, Wells, and Johnson spent more time working on scientific papers and devising experiments instead of criss-crossing the country giving talks and debates, there would be a working Intelligent Design theory that is testable. Perhaps the fact that ID is more interested in disproving evolution instead of proving it's own ideas is a sign of its validity, no?
Perhaps if Behe, Wells, and Johnson spent more time working on scientific papers and devising experiments instead of criss-crossing the country giving talks and debates, there would be a working Intelligent Design theory that is testable.
Your response answers your own question. I wrote six lines: just six. Do you really think your credibility isn't injured when you can't address six lines without misdirection?
Don't you see how weak a position looks when it insists it's exempt from considering something because it doesn't comes from the journals? You might as well say the Pro-Life movement is just a few fringe people because you never see it on TV.
I read what the ID theorists had to say...Behe, Dembski, et al. I wouldn't presume to write to you if you were answering the issues they brought up. You're not. Insult me all you want. It won't change the fact you just aren't refuting these guys. When you write a paper disproving Dembski's math instead of relying on why the editor of your favorite journal thinks he's full of it, I'll start to believe you're not sticking your fingers in your ears and humming real loud.
Exactly.....
In terms of establishing a scientific basis for their ideas, to get into the debate they have to follow the established scientific norms (presentations at scientific meetings, papers in scientific journals). If they don't, then isn't a matter of them being "allowed in the debate"; they are operationally excluding themselves.
Science operates according to one basic method: you put your data and conclusions on the table for everyone to see and potentially cut to pieces. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Behe, Wells, Dembski and Johnson (and other less notable lights) haven't even tried to get into the kitchen.
(I might be watching too much Iron Chef.)
Apparently, they don't. Their ideas are getting out anyway. You can find them all over the Internet. What could it hurt? Evaluate them for yourself!
We'd love to hear back from you.
Did I say somewhere that I wanted to outlaw the teaching of evolution? I'm in favor of teaching facts, not promoting a particular theory.
Since relativity and quantum mechanics are both presented in college physics course, I'm presuming from your post that you're in favor of teaching the merits of both intelligent design AND evolution. If not, then why not? Why is it okay to present conflicting theories for physics but not for the origin of life?
That's the ideal, I agree. But unfortunately that's not the way it always works, either in science or politics. Dissent is often not tolerated and woe be to the graduate student who selects a doctoral thesis that is at odds with the beliefs of the majority of the department.
Straw man argument, try again. (Note that the length of the response is likely directly correlated to the quality. Funny that, eh?)
But, consider this: if Dembski publishes his work, even as poster paper at a scientific meeting, his work enters the mindset of some of the more brilliant minds in their fields. Now, Dembski's a pretty bright fella, I have no doubt, as his argument is fairly complex. But he's just one mind, and the field is large. If his ideas have merit, then you have the advantage of a multitude of people working on the same problem from different angles. But he's got to put it out there. He's no stranger to publishing, as his resume has about 3-4 published papers, so why doesn't he do it?
I read what the ID theorists had to say...Behe, Dembski, et al. I wouldn't presume to write to you if you were answering the issues they brought up. You're not. Insult me all you want. It won't change the fact you just aren't refuting these guys. When you write a paper disproving Dembski's math instead of relying on why the editor of your favorite journal thinks he's full of it, I'll start to believe you're not sticking your fingers in your ears and humming real loud.
Sounds like that is also what you are doing with respect to my question. I'm just a humble astronomer asking an interesting question to other humble people. While I have not read Dembski's books, I have read some of his published work on his websites, however, since you dislike long arguments (and frankly, I don't have the time to type in the book it would require), I'll pass for the moment. Perhaps after the Christmas season.
No...you guys never do. I won't hold my breath. HMMMMMMMMMM.
QM and SR give reasonable results for the regimes in which they are valid. Outside their respective areas of validity, they aren't very good at explaining things. QM is especially good at explaining the physical behavior of atoms and molecules, while SR is especially good at explaining things that move closer to the speed of light. So, while they conflict in some places, there is a good consensus that they explain things very well.
Compare this to ID and Evolution, where one has a consensus that it best explains observations, and ID has really not had time to formally present a few ideas. Perhaps when ID has had a chance to be fully developed and if ID can explain things to a greater degree than evolution, then it deserves a spot in the scientific classroom. It has a long way to go first.
I see, so you can insult me, but I can't insult you? Whatever. So far I haven't seen anything in your arguments that can't be applied at yourself. When you post something substantative, let me know.
Is your name Phaedrus or something? What is it with IDers anyway? Show us these great analytical minds of yours! You had to arrive at your conclusion somehow! Cross our palms with knowledge, O great ones!
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.