Posted on 04/01/2002 1:50:07 PM PST by thinkster
OK, let me just point out that this definition of science is so reductive as to be idiotic. Astonishingly, something can be scientific even if it is neither observed nor repeated in the lab. Science consists of taking pieces of evidence that you can observe, and putting them together into a coherent (hopefully) theory, which in turn can make predicitions that can also be tested.
Being concrete here, let's look at astronomy. We have solid models of solar dynamics (how the Sun works). I think it can go without saying that we have never been to the Sun, nor have we inserted any instrument packets into it. We have some good observations of the outside of the Sun, of course. And we've got experiments in plasma physics that we believe are relevent. We have put these together into models that make sense based on what we know, and use them to model Solar processes. We talk confidently about hot spots, convection, and the age of the Sun. And I defy you to call it faith instead of science.
So at least get your basic premise correct when you start an argument.
Drew Garrett
And so endeth the argument.
Behe is ignorant. I am ignorant.
No, so endth your misrepresentation of what I wrote.
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. In the "creation science" version it that claims that if we cannot prove how to get from A to B then it can't have happened. This is not real logic and one would think the basic fallacy of this "logic" would be obvious.
I was not in fact calling you ignorant. But I suppose that was a more convenient assumption for you.
The bottom line is that "creation science" isn't science. Where it criticizes evolution, that's fine and good. Either evolution will survive the criticism stronger or it won't. But that wouldn't make "creation science" right. For "creation science" to be a real science, it would instead have to form an internally consistent theory, with testable hypotheses. No proponent of "creation science" has ever done this, none has ever actually practiced science accordingly.
Right on the first point. The second and third, I don't think so. He should be paid attention to because the ADL is a key player in the Democratic Party coalition. Identity politics and victimology is the life blood of the Democratic Party. The ADL administers the IV to keep the rotten stinking corpse alive.
Anyone who chooses to not listen to the ADL and Abe Foxman should be aware that the ADL and Abe Foxman are listening to them.
Save the band width replying to me Larry, IMO you don't have much to add. I've heard your rants about the ongoing Jewish conspiracies to persecute Christians and of course I'm just one of those liberal "Jews" masquerading as an FR conservative, you know. I'm just here to bash Bush, like all the Jews.
Just remember, when you sell trinkets to those blue haired ladies in Boca tomorrow, keep your opinions to yourself, might be bad for business. Vent your frustrations here on FR to us masquerading liberal/conservative Bush bashing Jews.
Bye
You have nothing to say of substance to my critique of the ADL so you scurry down the personal attack rat hole as I figured you would. Won't dare say the ADL is no darn good from top to bottom will you? A fan of the NAACP too? They do so much to fight racism just as, you claim, the ADL has done so so much to fight antisemitism. Ever think of joining GLSEN or GLAAD? They do a bang up job of fighting homophobia.
And your credentials are?
I've created a number of systems that you may have seen (at Epcot e.g.), and some you aren't aware of, but you use indirectly when you watch TV. None of these systems happened by accident. Not even a single component of any of these systems was creatorless. Some think these systems are complicated, but I can tell you that trivial is insufficient to describe their relationship to the complexity to a paramecium. It wasn't creatorless either. You might call this an argument from ignorance if you like, but that assertion says more about you than about me.
I might agree that some of what passes for "creation science" is not science, but neither is evolution.
ML/NJ
I’ve ADL has done a fine job of combating anti-semitism the last hundred years or so. When they delve into politics, they are not only a failure, but they betray there fundamental reason to exist. But no, I don’t see them creating the anti-semitism of the last century, clearly you do.
Same for the NAACP, effective dealing with their core problem. Like the ADL, their success requires a much smaller organization, they’ve preferred politics. But I don’t think they’ve created racism.
By your own admission, you think hatred of Jews like me stems from the ADL. Why? Do you hate blacks because of the NAACP?
You seem to carry a lot of hatred around with you. I don’t know GLSEN or GLAAD, from your comments I assume they’re groups supporting homosexual rights. From my posts you know I’m a Jew, why would you think I need to join a homosexual support group? It’s a strange, bigoted comment. Do you think since I’m a Jew, I’m gay? Hope it’s not too hot down in your rat hole.
Your continual attempts to turn my comments into ad hominems are both dishonest and juvenile.
Nice.
I'm dishonest and juvenile, and I'm the one who is acused of arguments from ignorance. How could I ever have the timerity to suggest that you would make an ad hominem argument?
Don't bother to reply unless you address the questions I raised in my previous post.
ML/NJ
The ADL, the SPLC and the NAACP are the ones in the "hate" business. They both need it to exist. If it doesn't, they try to create it. That is what the reparations racket is all about.
Even some on the left are sick of what the ADL is doing to Americans. Check this out from CounterPunch:
If a Christian group ever did this, the media would go ballistic.
From so-called Conservatives who seem to be overly concerned with Democrats and Jews?
I'd still love to hear why you think I need to join a homosexual support group though, just because I'm a Jew.
When Lebanon was Created
On the sixth day, God turned to the Angels and said: "Today, I am going to create a land called Lebanon, it will be a land of outstanding natural beauty. It shall have tall majestic mountains full of snow, beautiful sparkly lakes cutting forests full of all kinds of trees, high cliffs overlooking sandy beaches with an abundance of sea life." God continued, "I shall make the land rich so to make the inhabitants prosper, I shall call these inhabitants Lebanese, and they shall be known as the most friendly people on earth."
"But Lord", asked the Angels, "don't you think you are being too generous to the lebanese ? "Not really", replied God, "just wait and see the neighbors I am going to give them !"
Seek the origin of every component of every component; examine every concept used and all their precedents going back to the beginning of recorded history; consider every mathematical and physical tool employed in the construction of your system. Do you recognize the pattern of evolution? Are these systems that you "create" entirely and completely the product of your mind alone or did you, in fact, depend on the work of countless others who came before you and whose contribution may have been little more than a chance observation or a happenstance discovery? The accumulated knowledge of mankind, externally stored and readily accessible, coupled with enormous quantities of energy, manpower, and money generates complex systems through the possibility of rapid directed recombination of unlimited quantities of disparate simple bits of information. This kind of cross fertilization on a massive scale superficially resembles creation but is much more akin to evolution.
I'm not talking about "creation" here. I'm talking about intelligent design. I am not taking a position against any sort of "evolution," just random, Darwinian evolution. I guess the Bible does suggest that all of the intelligent design happened at once, but I wouldn't rule out a creation in steps not too different from the way you characterize the evolution of systems designed by humans.
ML/NJ
Randomness only refers to the mutations that produce the possibility of variation. Do you acknowledge the existence of genetic variation? The three central tenets -- overproduction, heritability, and variation -- exist with absolute certainty. What do these properties imply for a system? If you now add Darwin's contribution -- natural selection -- you have an algorithm for producing "design" in an entirely mindless fashion.
"produce the possibility of variation"?
What does this mean? Do you think that random mutations are the only possible mechanism of variation? And there is a BIG difference between variation (like green hair) and a new species. (Random) Mutations might produce green hair but they are not going to, and never have, produced a new species.
Do you acknowledge the existence of genetic variation? The three central tenets -- overproduction, heritability, and variation -- exist with absolute certainty.
Probably. I think you might mean something different from what I mean by "variation" though.
What do these properties imply for a system? If you now add Darwin's contribution -- natural selection -- you have an algorithm for producing "design" in an entirely mindless fashion.
This I don't buy at all. System Design does not happen in a mindless fashion.
ML/NJ (occasional system designer)
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.