Printable View
Such arrogance to think you have it all figured out... no???Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
I don't agree with your definition of science... (again I have had several civilized discussions with you to know that we have agreed to disagree on many principles... we just have to add another to the list).
First you say ID "is a perfectly fine realm of study" and then you go on and claim that they don't fall in your definition of science... intriguing.
You are proposing the methods will work themselves out in a 9th grade science class? Why don't IDers spend a little time to develop some methods before trying to include the discussion in a science class room? Scientists just don't come up with theories and start teaching them in classes and then hope they can find evidence for them later. By your own admission, it sounds like ID hasn't been thought out too well.Quote:
As for the methods, I'm suggesting that the pursuit itself will generate them... but all you care about is stifling that pursuit.... Without the aid of advanced instruments we wouldn't even be able to look at the complexity behind our genomes. Fortunately our desire to understand how genes can be used to prevent and eradicate diseases is enough of an incentive to keep generating technologies and methods to further that pursuit.
Study is not always science. It can be religious, philosophical, literary, etc. I'm sure you knew this.Quote:
Originally Posted by hegamboa
Who said the intelligence has to be God? Why not an alien species? You seem too eager to box ID theorists into a theistic constraint. When, in fact, there are ID theorists that are either agnostic or atheistic as well. They merely deduce from the scientific evidence that the only explanation for some of the characteristics of biological life is intelligent design. The theory, itself, doesn't pretend to say where that intelligence originates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
I also take exception to your back-handed insult that "serious" scientists eschew this theory -- inferring there are no serious scientific minds doing this research.
This actually hurts your argument. Na-Nu Na-Nu. And the author of your article quotes philosophy journals, and goes on the Michael Medved (right-wing nut job) show supporting ID. and it's not a scientific paper, it's an editorial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Dude... chill out.. You didn't have to go Inspector Javert to point out I was Christian... In fact to make it easier for you all you had to do was paste links to other threads where I have embraced my Christianity... I haven't tried to hide this fact....Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons
Notice that whole paragraph was positioned at the end of the argument... I was simply trying to point out that scientific endeavors should not be dismissed on the "possibility" that is has any religious implication. I happen to believe in "full-blown" creationism.... but that has lesser grounds being taught in the classroom than ID is. Proposing ID for the classroom, however, is not the same as trying to instill a more philosophically involved Creationism theory in school.
Yeah... so before you go on another "inspector"-like tirade and question people's motives at least bring out more concrete proof....
No, they don't. That's your presumption...and, if I may say, the premise behind why there are so many opponents to even exploring the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
God, is a religious construct that confers more than intelligence. It also conveys omnipotency, omnipresence, and omniscience. Intelligent Design theory merely poses the intriguing question of how do you explain the apparent design features of biology? It doesn't go on to say that the intelligence behind the design is still present or directing the progress of it's creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!
You're making that leap...not the serious ID theorists and scientists.
So, ID says we know there's an intelligent designer, but we can't figure out who it is, what it is, it's characteristics, etc. First, that's even worse than what I originally thought about ID (assuming you're right and I was wrong). Second, that's bullshit. ID is about God, probably the Judeo-Christian God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
The genetic code does not fall under the other categories... I'm sure you knew this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hegamboa
but belief in a first mover, intelligent designer does. I'm sure you know this deep down inside but won't admit it
My point being that ID theory doesn't identify the intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2004):213-239.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).
S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417.I.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In i>Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)
In fact, of the long page of references there were exactly FIVE philosphy journals mentioned ... at the end of the bibliography.
I think the National Academy of Science disagrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in The Design Inference, well-known physicist and science writer Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149.
Why? Darwinism presumes the evolution of species without addressing their origin. Plus, we're no closer to solving the mystery if serious scientists are ostracized simply for positing a theory based on the available scientific data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
That's a prejudicial and inflammatory characterization you cannot support. And, one with which I personally disagree. I believe Intelligent Design theory and research are about explaining why the substructures of biological life have the appearance of design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!
Can you name another field that is exploring that question?
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...%20-%20Science
.... is that ALL there is?
I think ID'ers and Yoni for that matter are not geniune in their stated motives.
Hey Yon, I think you represent a very small minority of the people pushing ID.
Youre open to any explanation of the Designer, be it God, aliens, Alla, etc.
Whereas your contemporaries (I believe) do not. They are pushing the 7-days theory (theology) and they barely attempt to hide it.
The point is, for as much sense as you may or may not make, youre objective and thoughtful. Open to possibilities. I am sure you could care less, but I think thats good.
ID in its current form, pushed by the current people pushing it, is not. Its Judeo-Christian with no argument about it. Its a religious masqarade. It IS what it IS, in its current form.
Without knowing all the points made in the ID argument, I sincerely doubt anyone of those school board morons put half as much effort as you did into this thread.
Sorry, but youre not a mover or a shaker (nor am I). Thumbs down to being Joe-nobody (me too).
That's all well and good, I think anti-ID Darwinians are not genuine about their motives either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
What's that got to do with trying to understand the appearance of intelligent design at a micro-biological level?
The major "mainstream" media didn't pay any attention to the blogosphere because they didn't understand the media and felt it inconsequential.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
That perception led to Dan Rather's early retirement and is beating the hell out of the "paper of record," The New York Times over their repeated misrepresentations and missteps.
interesting article on the subject:
http://templeofpolemic.proboards42.c...ead=1130126466
Did you not catch my point about there being other fields of study besides science?Quote:
Originally Posted by hegamboa
ID also does not fall into my definition of art, or literature, or engineering. I imagine you will not be irritated at all about my saying those things, which gets back to my point about the unreasonable pedestal upon which we place science in this society.
Interestingly, the cartoon doesn't conflict with the ideas of the Intelligent Design theory. Thanks, I'll save that one for the file.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
The article is about creationism -- not intelligent design. Two different topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by velik_m
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
nice try
read itQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Here are some problems I have with the way scientists pursue evolution:
1)Methodological naturalism: they assume that everything can be explained naturalistically. This gets passed off as science; however, it is just a philosophy about science. There is a difference between keeping this as an operative in the practice of science versus building one's whole Weltanschauung around it. This, to me, would be the analog to ID, not evolution itself.
2)Biological reductionism: A prime example of what I mean by this would be in brain science, where scientists have discovered a part of the brain that predisposes man to believe in a Deity. On the one hand, a Christian, upon hearing that, might recognize the Biblical teaching that man was created to recognize and worship God, and think that brain science is pretty cool to have found that. On the other hand, an atheist, upon hearing that, would say, "Oh, that explains why it's so hard to get rid of religion -- it's biological. There must be an evolutionary reason why the human brain developed that way." They try to reduce everything down to a material base. And they pass that off as science.
What also bugs me is that the theistic side, rather than arguing those points, cedes them and tries instead to find naturalistic and biological evidence of God.