Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

The Royal Society ^ | 11 Apr 2006 | Staff (press release)

[Dimensio]

Do you beleive there is a God?

I do not. This is not relevant to Thatcherite's questions. The question of whether or not humans are vertebrates has no relevance to the existence of any deities.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Your questions have been asked and answered repeatedly.

I asked one single time where you got those "tests" for a theory. You have not answered the question.

I asked one single time whether those tests have been empirically tested so we know for certain if a theory passes these tests, the theory meets the criteria of being "scientific?" You have not answered the question.

I asked one single time how you know falsification is absolutely necessary before an idea can be considered "scientific?" You have not answered the question.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . established biological taxonomic classifications.

They're fine. Anyone can pigeonhole data. But to be a real scientist one must substitute the word "nature" for "God." ***POOF!*** You are a real scientist!

[RunningWolf]

Anyone can pigeonhole data. But to be a real scientist one must substitute the word "nature" for "God." ***POOF!*** You are a real scientist!

Ha ha pretty good there.

I guess pretty much anyone can be a real scientist then. That must be where they get all the real scientists for the poll results we always see on these threads.

Wolf

[Fester Chugabrew]

I'm not sure. I think a real scientist is one who gets paid to pigeonhole data. At any rate, the definition is bound by law to exclude anyone who accepts the accuracy and authority of biblical texts. It's one of those "special" clubs, ya know.

[Dimensio]

At any rate, the definition is bound by law to exclude anyone who accepts the accuracy and authority of biblical texts.

Please cite the law to which you refer.

[RunningWolf]

Well I am as much a techy - science and theory geek (amateur) as anyone can be. But if thats what it takes to be 'in the club' count me out.

And there is plenty of evidence for that assertion (the club exclusion policy LOL), only none of it will be accepted before the evo-peoples tribunal /sarc>

Wolf

[Fester Chugabrew]

Please cite the law to which you refer.

The law in your head which equates intelligent design with non-science. The same law that accepts only "peer reviewed" publications in accord with evolutionism as being truly "scientific." The same law(s) that prohibit public school boards and publishers of science curricula from suggesting that organized matter performing specific functions MIGHT be a product of intelligent design.

[PatrickHenry]

Bailing out of a hopeless thread, placemarker.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . only none of it will be accepted before the evo-peoples . . .

How true. The "custodians" of objective reality have this complex entailing the denial of subjectivism. They are superhuman and thus above biases, beliefs, and boners. If you've got a solid pair of knee pads you might get a hearing and some respect from their quarters. Only be sure to preface any remarks with the qualification that you believe the biblical texts to be a wholly human product; literature from poets for poets; sheer allegory; phantasmagoric fabrications and such.

[Fester Chugabrew]

IOW, time to cut and run before the Truth catches up with you.

[Thatcherite]

I beleive that man was made in the image of God. There is nothing that any man can say that will change my mind on this subject.

But what does that have to do with the following questions:

Are people mammals?

Are people vertebrates?

[Thatcherite]

At any rate, the definition is bound by law to exclude anyone who accepts the accuracy and authority of biblical texts. It's one of those "special" clubs, ya know.

So, are you against at the idea that those who decide the veracity of Biblical texts in advance of examining the physical evidence are scientists?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I am against the idea that those who reject the accuracy and authority of the biblical texts are, by virtue of said rejection, the sole custodians of science and objective reality. I am against the idea that intelligent design must be outlawed in science classes because it happens to comport with the biblical texts. I am against the idea of monopolies in science and in public education.

[katana]

The three books are Quicksilver, The Confusion, and The System of the World. Preceding these in publication was The Cryptonomicon which is sort of a "postlude" set in the 20th century and featuring the decendants of the main characters (plus one fellow who is apparently immortal) in the trilogy.

[Thatcherite]

I am against the idea that those who reject the accuracy and authority of the biblical texts are, by virtue of said rejection, the sole custodians of science and objective reality.

None of your response is an answer to the question I asked you. I asked if you agree that scientists shouldn't decide on the veracity of Biblical texts before examining the physical evidence? It is a simple enough question.

I am against the idea that intelligent design must be outlawed in science classes because it happens to comport with the biblical texts.

But that isn't why it is outlawed in science class. It is outlawed in science class because even its proponents agree that it doesn't meet the entry requirements of being considered science. Moreover, Intelligent Design scientists (Behe, Denton, Dembski, Meyer) agree the following (Behe under oath):

• The earth is billions of years old.
• Evolution is a fact
• The scientific theory of evolution is the best explanation for the fact of evolution found so far
• All of life on earth shares common descent
• There is no physical evidence to suggest that the Designer has intervened for millions of years

Do those beliefs "comport with the biblical texts", or is it just wishful thinking on your part that you would like there to be a version of ID that does so? Or perhaps you are aware of another group of scientists who promote a scientific Intelligent Design hypothesis that *does* comport with Biblical texts. If so perhaps you could name them and share their hypothesis with us.

I am against the idea of monopolies in science and in public education.

There is a monopoly in science, that it should be done using observation, prediction, and potential falsification. You may want to investigate the world some other way, perhaps using supernatural claims, and perhaps you'll find the Truth, but you won't be doing science, which is, by definition, the study of the natural world.

[Dimensio]

You have still not answered my question.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You didn't ask me a question. You told me to cite a law. I responded, but not to your satisfaction. Do you deny there are people attempting to use the force of law to suppress mention of intelligent design in public school classrooms?

[Dimensio]

The law in your head which equates intelligent design with non-science.

How is "intelligent design" science? Please explain how it conforms to the scientific method.

The same law(s) that prohibit public school boards and publishers of science curricula from suggesting that organized matter performing specific functions MIGHT be a product of intelligent design.

What you are describing is an unsupported assertion with no positive evidence and no established falsification criteria. As such, it is decidedly not science. Moreover, what you have described is not "Intelligent Design" as promoted by the authors of the claim.

[Dimensio]

I responded, but not to your satisfaction.

Actually, I had not seen your reply. I apologize for that.

Do you deny there are people attempting to use the force of law to suppress mention of intelligent design in public school classrooms?

Yes.