Joined: Jan. 2006
|Because science ultimately requires that conclusions are based on objective evidence. Evidence that others can verify for themselves, if they so choose.|
Science also requires that accepted hypotheses and theories must accurately predict new observations. Otherwise, the hypotheses or theories must be modified or discarded. An accepted theory says "under these conditions, expect to see A, not B." That's why theories are useful in understanding our world.
ID doesn't do that. It makes no useful predictions (that I know of). At most, it predicts "such and such biological structure or system is too complicated to have evolved 'naturally' without intelligent intervention." That's an unproveable (and thus useless) prediction. Moreover, for many specific systems and structures, it's been proven wrong.
But you're changing the subject of which I was commenting. Your claim was that people come to believe in an IDer through indoctrination by others. I say that science is no different in that regard. And there is that word objective again. What is so objective about gravity, mass or force? Do you observe any of these phenomenon or do you merely infer them from other observations? Science regularly plays fast and loose with the "facts." It distorts the true meaning of empirical evidence while it liberalizes the meaning of observation. Can you not see this?
You say the ID claim of directed evolution is unproveable, but don't seem to think the same of undirected evolution. Why is that? Is undirected evolution proveable?
Then you say,
|You can't agree that people sometimes believe things without evidence? Seriously? I'm flabbergasted.|
The only way I can make sense of that is if you define evidence to mean anything that influences belief. I guess that's what you meant by "no such thing as non-evidence." That's not exactly the standard definition of evidence, though.
If you could provide an example of someone believing something without evidence, by all means, enlighten me. Secondly, I don't define evidence, but simply use the common definition. Look it up and realize that SCIENCE distorts and limits the meaning of evidence (empirical or otherwise).
Next you say,
|I'm not claiming self-delusion is the explanation. I'm saying it's a possible explanation.|
Even "self-delusion" requires an interpretation of empirical evidence, albeit, a faulty one perhaps. If you are aware of an instance of "self-delusion" that does NOT require this process, again, enlighten me.
And then on you say,
|I was merely disproving your claim. Self-delusion is ONE process outside the interpretation of empirical evidence in which a person may come to "believe" or have "faith" in an IDer. (Unless one plays Humpty-Dumpty with the definition of evidence.)|
ONE possible process is adequate to refute a claim of NO possible process.
By what process does one self-delude himself? Again, clearly articulate this process of self-delusion and how it is able to bypass the process of interpreting empirical evidence. Remember, use the REAL definition of evidence and not the distorted and limited one used to define science. You do understand that science limits the true meaning of empirical evidence to define itself?
|The point is, you seem to be arguing that if someone believes something, that proves there is evidence to support their belief, because all beliefs are based on evidence. But, as has been repeatedly explained, that is wrong. People are perfectly capable of believing things in the complete absence of evidence, or even in direct contradiction of the evidence.|
Therefore, the sole fact that someone believes in "X" (e.g., an "IDer") tells us nothing about whether there is evidence for "X."
This would be an example of self-delusion. My argument is that there is no process outside the interpretation of empirical evidence by which one comes to believe in a creator. If this is the case, we must utilize reductionism to ask how the first human came to interpret the creator with no evidence of such a creator? How did he/she ponder the unponderable? Do you have an explanation for this first interpretation outside the process of interpreting the empirical evidence?
Then you say,
|Close. Public schools are mandated to not teach religion. It's based on the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. (Maybe you've heard of it?) If someone thinks a public school is teaching religion, they can sue to make them stop. Then a judge may have to decide who's right. If the school claims they're teaching science, not religion, the judge will have to decide if that's true. In the Dover case, it was clear that ID is NOT science and it IS religiously motivated.|
In the meantime, you and everyone else are entirely free to point out all the flaws you like. Just don't try to teach religion in public schools.
Public schools are mandated to NOT ENDORSE any particular religion. Teaching it is fine. It's history for goodness sake and a major force in the evolution of our world.
But you're right that people can sue and claim a particular religion is being endorsed. Did the judge say which particular religion was being endorsed? Is ID a particular religion? What particular religion is it? Maybe, you need to freshen up on your Constitution?
But just who are these plaintiffs? What is their agenda? Why do they fear ID redefining science but not the judicial bureaucracy? Are they scientists that scoff at ID, but go to court to defend their well-established scientific "beliefs?" Are they athiests that hijack science for there own religious beliefs? Afterall, ID is the athiest's best friend. Without ID, the athiests have something to NOT believe in? Or, are they other religious folks fearful of Christianity and its majority status and will use whatever tactics available to weaken it? Some things for you to ponder.
|I don't fear ID per se, and I doubt scientists in general do either. I fear religious zealots who want to force their religious beliefs into public schools. I happen to believe that separation of church and state is an important, fundamental principle in the US. I despise efforts to undermine that principle by dressing up simple religious apologetics, calling it ID, claiming it's science, and trying to wedge it into public science classes. I welcome the role of the judicial bureaucracy in preventing that.|
The belief in an IDer effects science in what way? Was the Dover case an example of what you are stating? Why do you have such a fear of religious zealots as you seem so far removed from their influence? What Church does ID originate? What religion is it again?
And please provide the quote where I identify this judge as "conservative."