RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: the post ID world< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,09:06   

ID is starting to meet the legal system and be obliterated. Soon creationists are going to turn to a new strategy. What will the strategy be? I have no idea. But I can tell you what I'd do, if I were them. I would create a system of creationist science classes, and tell parents it's an innoculation against the evils of Darwinism. I'd assemble a network of instructors, which would be creationists with any kind of undergrad science degree. And I'd try to get churches and rich christians to sponsor the meetings. Meetings would be once a week, an hour each time, for perhaps two months. All the creationist 'science' would be taught in those eight lessons. Privileged Planet would be shown, and maybe a tour to a Natural Sciences museum with a creationist tourguide. Since it's not official, no judge could stop me, and I would be able to give the kids creationism with both barrels, not the pussyfooting Intelligent Design business. And a lot of the program would be devoted to things like Icons of Evolution, where scientists are portayed as scheming liars. That way, when the kids do get to high school science classes, they are already suspicious of the whole thing, and find it easier to reject.

That would be my plan. what about the rest of you? What would you do?

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,10:43   

Oh, GREAT, give the other side ideas, why don't you...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,11:00   

I believe a lot of this is already being done.  And I don't think they want too much education for the masses.  The more you tell them, the greater the chance that they will be exposed to counterarguments.  Better to keep them dumb and happy (i.e. preach a few fire and brimstone sermons involving original sin and the Garden of Eden).

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,11:01   

Maybe, after the pendulum swings back and the country realizes that the Bush administration was the worst thing that has ever happened, the religious right will face the fact that that was as close as they'll ever come to actually running the country, and revert to their secessionist mentality.

Here's a letter that appeared in the
the Columbus Dispatch this week:
Quote
Public schools immoral places for children
Monday, February 27, 2006

In December, I submitted a resolution to the State Convention of Baptists in Ohio, urging pastors and parents to investigate the indoctrination of our young people into the homosexual agenda and to encourage concerned Christian parents to remove their children from public schools.

At the heels of the recent 11-4 decision by the State Board of Education to censor any criticism of Darwinian evolution, it has become clear that our young people are being indoctrinated into not only a pro-homosexual, but a humanistic religion, as well. Ohio schools have become officially atheistic, godless and toxic, morally, intellectually and spiritually, to our precious children. Ohio evangelical leaders and pastors must urge parents to remove their children from Pharoah’s oppressive schools and give them a thoroughly Christian education, through either Christian schools or home education. Why send them to Sunday School, only to have their faith torn asunder Monday through Friday? It is time to let the children go.

NICHOLAS A. JACKSON Executive director,
Reform America Ohio coordinator,
Exodus Mandate


--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,11:07   

Quote (Russell @ Mar. 04 2006,17:01)
Maybe, after the pendulum swings back and the country realizes that the Bush administration was the worst thing that has ever happened, the religious right will face the fact that that was as close as they'll ever come to actually running the country, and revert to their secessionist mentality.

Here's a letter that appeared in the
the Columbus Dispatch this week:
Quote
Public schools immoral places for children
Monday, February 27, 2006

In December, I submitted a resolution to the State Convention of Baptists in Ohio, urging pastors and parents to investigate the indoctrination of our young people into the homosexual agenda and to encourage concerned Christian parents to remove their children from public schools.

At the heels of the recent 11-4 decision by the State Board of Education to censor any criticism of Darwinian evolution, it has become clear that our young people are being indoctrinated into not only a pro-homosexual, but a humanistic religion, as well. Ohio schools have become officially atheistic, godless and toxic, morally, intellectually and spiritually, to our precious children. Ohio evangelical leaders and pastors must urge parents to remove their children from Pharoah’s oppressive schools and give them a thoroughly Christian education, through either Christian schools or home education. Why send them to Sunday School, only to have their faith torn asunder Monday through Friday? It is time to let the children go.

NICHOLAS A. JACKSON Executive director,
Reform America Ohio coordinator,
Exodus Mandate

I'm cool with letting all those people leave the country. Give them some chunk of South Carolina or north Florida that no one wants, let them have their 'exodus', and put a huge fence around it.

Watch the national elections suddenly start going Democrat. Sounds like a small price to pay.

:p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,11:08   

Actually there is one major initiative many right-wing creationists would love to see... ditching public education.  Private schools would avoid any first amendment issues with teaching creationism. The wet dream of all nutjobs on the right everywhere is to abolish that "nest of moral turpitude", the Department of Education.

Needless to say, if they ever get their way, it would be a disaster for this country.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,11:13   

a disaster? Why, because it would make Americans into religious nuts who don't know science?

too late.

I'm an atheist who lives in the South. To me, it wouldn't make much difference if every politician in every position in the country, as well as every primary and secondary school teacher, were replaced by Pat Robertson.

What would it change? Would the word god be changed to jesus on the coins in my pocket? would I be asked to put both hands on the bible in court? would the budget of the faith-based initiatives program be doubled? Would Bush stop caring so much about the environment?

I'd hardly notice.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,11:25   

I love the christian exodus movement. that's the first time i've seen 'Phaoro....Pharoa...dammit, how do you spell that...Pharoah. that's the first time I've seen 'Pharoah' used in place of 'government'. That's awesome.

Quote
At the heels of the recent 11-4 decision by the State Board of Education to censor any criticism of Darwinian evolution, it has become clear that our young people are being indoctrinated into not only a pro-homosexual, but a humanistic religion, as well.
Oh no, humanistic religion! That's the kind of vile filth that spawned the constitution and individual rights. Damned Erasmus.

   
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,11:32   

Losing public education would simply make it even harder for the poor and disenfranchised to get a leg up in society.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,11:37   

If this:
SPeech apparently by a VArdy school head of science
is true, and I have no particular reason to doubt it, they are already having their way in the UK.  The bloke whose speech it apaprently is should be sacked, because of his total lack of comprehension of any science later than Galileo.  The mangling of geology and chemistry is particularly vexing, given that they are subjects I know  something about.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,11:45   

Quote
Losing public education would simply make it even harder for the poor and disenfranchised to get a leg up in society.
I guess I'm allowed to share my political perspective here without fear of alienating potential evo-supporters.

I see the current Republican party as a coalition of plutocrats, religious right, and libertarian/gun, um, enthusiasts. Historically, and I think still, the plutocrat wing has called the shots and largely used the other two factions. But this using of other factions is not entirely a one-way street.

When it comes to abolishing - or just weakening - public education, the interests of the plutocrats and religious right overlap.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,12:57   

I really don't think eliminating public education is on the cards.  Emasculating it, yes, in the way the Bush administration and local governement are already doing it.  Starving it of funds.

The week after Dover, I read a newspaper piece by a conservative Christian commentator (Cal Thomas I think?), saying that it was probably the best thing for creationists.  His opinion was that they instead spend their money and energies in home-schooling and Christian schools and so forth, rather than trying to force their agenda onto public schools.

The idea of a large-scale fundamentalist education secession is really scary to me.  Right now, the fundamentalists are at least exposed to some outside influences.  In a little fundie, hothouse cocoon they'll really be indoctrinated to believe that they are God's chosen.  If you never meet or talk to anyone with a different point of view from yours, it becomes easy to demonise whatever groups you think are threatening you.  Or are vulnerable enough to pick on.  Get enough of them, and we'll really start seeing some Christian jihads.  

Maybe even a war with those godless, arrogant, liberal Europeans (once the Muslims have been finished off).  Probably over something like the proper thing to call chipped, fried potatoes.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,15:34   

Quote
The idea of a large-scale fundamentalist education secession is really scary to me.  Right now, the fundamentalists are at least exposed to some outside influences.  In a little fundie, hothouse cocoon they'll really be indoctrinated to believe that they are God's chosen.


it's starting to sound like the plotline from the current season of Stargate on the Sci Fi channel.

and I'm sure you've seen the christian exodus site, yes?

http://www.christianexodus.org/

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,15:40   

I'm watching that right now on the tivo. This Ori thing is kind of interesting. they're a better enemy than the Gou'auou'uould

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2006,14:01   

I think that idea might prove too expensive in the long run. Or at least it would seem that way to the financial recourses of the ID movement. It's true that constant long-term funding is already in effect, but it would be the first time it would be presented as essential for its future planning. And all the fundie funders who were promised fast results via PR and legal actions, will finally start to realise that the whole ID promoting scheme is a money pit.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,04:48   

Would they be clones of Steven J Gou'auou'uould?

Sworn to battle creationists wherever in the galaxy they are?

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,09:04   

Quote
Oh no, humanistic religion! That's the kind of vile filth that spawned the constitution and individual rights. Damned Erasmus.

Folly got us this far, no telling where she leads.

I made a post on my blog about christian exodus a while back. They aren't looking too busy these days. No tally how many have made it etc. One thing though, I've heard Christians are cannibals who routinely use human sacrifice to appease their god. That ought to limit the population if they all go to one place.
:0

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,10:42   

I also didn't see a tally, so last year I emailed them. I was disappointed when they said they had around 700 people so far. I was hoping it was more like 7 million.

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,11:21   

I bet those 700 are quite a bunch.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,15:36   

go take a gander at their forum some time and see.

It's mind boggling.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,21:28   

I think it's quite naive for "scientists" to continue to believe that only they can define science while it is clear to the rest of us ignorant folks that science is being define by judges, teacher's unions, liberal activist groups and so on and so forth.  Why not be defined by ID activists?  This is the fail-proof strategy?  

The gall in thinking that only scientists and those in the clique could define science while others are left to the sidelines, voiceless and oppressed, is so repungantly totalitarian that it is doomed to extinction in a society based on equality, tolerance and non-discrimination.

The masses will not stand for this elitists mentality that only serves to fatten the pockets and egos of those same elitists whether they be highminded scientists or low-brow liberal politicians.  What's fair is fair.

This is purely a propaganda war and the scientists need to quit thinking they can win this in the lab.  The fight is elsewhere.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,21:30   

that's right, shake your fist harder, boy!

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,22:52   

Quote
The masses will not stand for this elitists mentality that only serves to fatten the pockets and egos of those same elitists whether they be highminded scientists or low-brow liberal politicians.


The unwashed masses, no less!  :D  :D

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,22:58   

So what is your definition of science, thordaddy?  Throwing rocks?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,23:30   

guthrie,

That's the point.  The definition of science is out of the scientist's hands?

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,00:17   

You did not answer the question, Boywithanidioticnickname.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,01:13   

So, basically thordaddy is saying that the definition of science right now is out of scientists hands, and presumably is in public hands or, even, judges!  OR teachers!

You'll excuse me if I wonder why you seem to think this is the case.  Sure, I know about the Dover ruling.  I understand that both parties deferred to certain broadly agreed standards of science (That had been thought up by scientists) early on in the trial.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,02:51   

Thorthingymagingy. What you are really saying is that the fundie population of America should define what science is, not just for America, but also the rest of the world. Arrogant!

Kiss my *ss! You should go far in life boy, the futher, the better. :angry:

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,09:21   

If this is the level of exchange to be most commonly found within "scientific" community then it should be clear that the battle with be lost to those with much more persuasive verbal skills in the court of public opinion.

Renier opines,

What you are really saying is that the fundie population of America should define what science is, not just for America, but also the rest of the world. Arrogant!


No, actually I am saying that it is no more unfair for religious people to try and define science as it has been for judges, teachers, politicians and the like to define science.  Do you have a problem with this notion?  

What is science?

It is the interpretation of empirical evidence and the subsequent meaning given to those interpretations.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,09:34   

Quote
If this is the level of exchange to be most commonly found within "scientific" community then it should be clear that the battle with be lost to those with much more persuasive verbal skills in the court of public opinion.


BWAHAHAHAHA!

funniest thing I've seen so far today.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,19:20   

Thorthingy. Science is a method. Get that, or should I draw you a picture?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,19:30   

Renier,

Would that be an evolving method?

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,20:17   

There is one possible scenario I would be happy to see where we never get to a post-ID world.  That would be the one where an advanced alien race landed on Earth saying "Mea culpa, we accidentally contaminated your planet with some biological goop which escaped from our lab. Sorry about that."

A smug DaveSnot would be a small price to pay for the utter defeat of all those creationist (and vast majority of IDists) who are absolutely convinced that we are here by supernatural design.

(Yeah, they could argue that God created the aliens first, but I'm sure the aliens would have their own ideas as to how they came about... :) )

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,20:45   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 08 2006,20:30)
Renier,

Would that be an evolving method?

Thordaddy

Quote
Would that be an evolving method?


Now you're getting the idea. Science is also work in progress. It does indeed evolve. Well done!

  
Baratos



Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2006,14:35   

Quote
This is purely a propaganda war and the scientists need to quit thinking they can win this in the lab.  The fight is elsewhere.

The question is, what will you fight with?  Not guns, those are profoundly scientific weapons.  Scientists in many fields have been working on those for centuries.  Knives are out, too, since those are made in factories tainted by the horrors of science.  You cant wear any clothes while you fight,either, since the fabric is probably artificial.  If you get hurt in the fighting, no medicines of any kind.  Those so-called "microbes" are just a myth to create jobs for doctors.  Take that bullet to the head like a man!  Using anything other than a club will get you lynched by the others, since you obviously support science by using such blasphemous items!  But you wont need them, anyway, since your god will help you win.  Unless you prayed to the wrong god, in which case you are doomed. :p

Seriously, a dozen guys with guns killed thousands of Aztecs, and took over their empire.  One person today can press a button and kill millions.  This is why we work so hard to educate the masses, so they can understand and appreciate science.  That way everybody can use the results of science without fear, knowing even the deadliest weapon is harmless if you are wise enough never to use it.  Thor, you slipped through a crack in the in the system and ended up where you are today.


P.S.: If you can read this, you are using a computer.  Smash it imeadiately.  Evil scientists made it.  Then go repent at the nearest church for your sins.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2006,19:06   

Baratos,

You don't see the silliness of claiming a post-ID world?  It's as though science can end the speculation of a designer?  Do you propose your little diatribe as part of the effort?  LOL.

At best, scientists can claim no empirical evidence for an IDer.  Even this assertion is highly questionable as no scientist I am aware of is outfitted with all the known  and unknown empirical evidence and must chalk up the "faith" of several billion believers as some yet unidentified delusionary physical process.  

This is a war of 2 competing ideas that is being fought in the courtroom, classroom, bedroom and public square.  You show yourself to be one of those that thinks the only battle be in the laboratory room.  Here, you seem blind to the empirical evidence.  

If the masses can't even understand the most basic biological and physical theories of our universe because science can't convey this "truth" clearly then another theory that is much older and identifiable will win the day.  

This doesn't mean the end of science because science is merely the afterthought.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2006,22:25   

Quote
This is a war of 2 competing ideas that is being fought in the courtroom, classroom, bedroom and public square.


No, this is a war between Religious nuts who wants to force their c_rap(doctrine) down the throats of kids, and people who does not want to allow it. Science is under attack by religion because some religious nuts are to dumb, arrogant and ignorant to think for themselves (or are just dishonest money making maths people), and wants everyone else to be like they are. This is a war that ONLY appears where there is a strong fanatical religion base. Religious nuts wants science to prove their doctrines(Maybe because they are faithless freaks). Science does not. That's why the religious nuts wants to change what science is, in order to make it say what they want it to say. I only have 2 words for them : F them. They need to sort themselves out before they try and sort everyone else out. As for me, I don't give a rats *ss for their doctrines. They should leave science and the rest of humanity alone, or leave the planet and find their own.

This, Thordaddy, is what it is all about. We are doing just fine without your religious creationist c_rap in science. It is unwelcome in science, until the useless, lazy, talkers, the ID scientists, get their lazy bu_tts into the labs and start giving us evidence. If not, they should shut up and carry on teaching their "science" in church, where it belongs. The rest of us (including some Christians) are sick and tired of their fluffy bunny arguments and dishonesty.

In my view Thordaddy, you are :
1) Dishonest
or
2) Sincere, but indoctrinated.
or
3) Hiding a faith crisis behind your antics, mostly preaching to yourself, and thus, in denial.
or
4) You are suffering from http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html

Apologies to rational religious people. The comments above (religious nuts) deals with Fundies, not human beings.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,03:00   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,01:06)
At best, scientists can claim no empirical evidence for an IDer.  Even this assertion is highly questionable as no scientist I am aware of is outfitted with all the known  and unknown empirical evidence and must chalk up the "faith" of several billion believers as some yet unidentified delusionary physical process.  

Which believers?  I know some people who think Odin is a great guy, and others who have some allegiance to strange Indian practises.  

The point being, there are all these competing religions with different ideas of how things started.  Which one is correct?  They cant all be.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,03:15   

Quote
thordaddy



Posts: 14
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 10 2006,01:06  
Baratos,

You don't see the silliness of claiming a post-ID world?  It's as though science can end the speculation of a designer?
Nobody said theological speculation would end. ID is a political strategy for getting creationism past the courts. It is going down in flames, and we're entering the post-ID world as we speak.

   
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,03:39   

It seems with the way things have been going on uncommondescent.com, the next debate post ID will be dualism. Almost every post on that site has somebody saying that intelligence is beyond nature.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,06:06   

Dembski is a dualist, I believe.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,11:17   

Renier,

You sound like you're fighting for a cause that rivals any religious fanatic.  Are you unaware of those that are neither positively nor negatively inclined towards either side?  Do you think such people exist?  I exist.  Your rant shows a very ugly side of science.  A side that believes it is protecting some kind of dogma.  You can't protect science.  It is but a method that has evolved with time and will continue to evolve.  You can't stop it.  Don't be naive in believing that science is completely objective while scientists regularly toy with concepts like "observation," empirical evidence and the like.

Your fear is not persuasive.  In fact, it's more like paranoia.  I don't fear IDers indoctrinating my children and more than I fear the scientist that claims he isn't sure whether life begins at conception.  Both sides  have flaws because both sides represents human endeavors.

guthrie,

This is a question that no scientist has been willing to answer.  

What does the "faith" of billions of people in an IDer represent?  If this "faith" is not an interpretation of the empirical evidence then what is it?  How does the scientist describe "faith" in terms of science?

stevestory,

What one court does another can undo.  It's silly to laud the idea that this debate is being settled in the courts.  It means judges are defining science and scientists are not.  This is what I'm talking about when I say this battle isn't just in the lab.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,11:45   

I hadn't read your posts before, and now I have, and you actually think ID is science, so best of luck, but I'm not going to bother trying to explain anything to you. I'm sure one of the numerous people who likes to talk to creationists will oblige you.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,11:59   

Quote
If this "faith" is not an interpretation of the empirical evidence then what is it?  How does the scientist describe "faith" in terms of science?


Wow. Just, wow.

Unless I'm misreading this, Thordaddy seems to be saying is that if 'billions' of people have 'faith' in something, that means it has to be true. And therefore science has to explain it. And that anything believed in with this 'faith' can therefore contradict science.

So this is how he wants to force scientists to accept ID/C -- by saying all these people believe it, so that makes it empirical.

Again, just, wow.

So I suppose this strategy can work with ANY religion, really -- not only would this 'prove' Christianity, but it would equally well 'prove' Islam and Hinduism, Scientology. Any religion, really. Unless TD has some cutoff number of believers necessary to turn faith into a 'fact' -- what would it be, 500 million? A billion?

This reminds me of the Kansas BOE's attempts to redefine science so that it can include the supernatural. Ultimately this is a battle as to who gets to define what truth is, what empericism is, what reality is.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,12:00   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,17:17)
What does the "faith" of billions of people in an IDer represent?  If this "faith" is not an interpretation of the empirical evidence then what is it?  How does the scientist describe "faith" in terms of science?

Ummm, which definition of faith are you using?

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

All the deinitions I have come across say that faith doesnt usually involve empirical evidence.  Therefore, why should we pay any more attention to all these people, who, as you keep avoiding, all have apparently had different experiences of religion and the world in general?  

People used to think that the earth was orbited by the sun.  Then eventually they worked out it was not the case.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,12:51   

stevestory,

Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?  

Arden,

You seem to be arguing that "faith" is acquired by some  method other than interpreting the empirical evidence and giving that interpretation meaning.  Do you care to elaborate on this method?  

guthrie,

If "faith" is not acquired via the empirical evidence then by what process is it acquired?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,13:15   

Quote
Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?

I hesitate to call it a 'method,' but yes, there is.
You start with the conclusion, and 'prove' it, using data acquired by others.

This is all ID does. There is no research program. There are no publications or conferences. In short, there are no ID scientists.

A point I believe you're missing, a step in the method you're leaving out, is the actual acquisition of data, before its given any interpretation at all. Yes, in a sense, the universe is just there for the observing. But it's been a long time since the naturalist just went out in the field, cataloging specimens and musing about conclusions. What scientists these days are willing to call "data" is acquired through selective observation and good experimental design.

IDers skip this entirely, and "cherry pick" their data from real science, then slather it with what you're calling "interpretation," all the while looking for only those bits that will support a foregone conclusion.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,13:45   

Thordaddy, I could kiss you.
Quote
Your rant shows a very ugly side of science.  A side that believes it is protecting some kind of dogma.  You can't protect science.  It is but a method that has evolved with time and will continue to evolve.  You can't stop it.  Don't be naive in believing that science is completely objective while scientists regularly toy with concepts like "observation," empirical evidence and the like.

First, his rant is not showing an ugly side of science. It is showing an angry side of Renier.
Second, It is but a method that has evolved over time??? Are you really that stupid? Look, you can have your kooky views of Jesus playing poker with his father and the Holy Ghost while Satan and Gabriel take bets on the winner. Keep them. I suspect you know that they are utterly ridiculous. If not, read This or This or, if you can bend your brain around analogy, this.
but how is it that you are saying anything in that statement?

Third: "Don't be naive in believing that science is completely objective while scientists regularly toy with concepts like "observation," empirical evidence and the like."- You mean like the voices in your head "toy" with you? :0

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,13:58   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
You seem to be arguing that "faith" is acquired by some method other than interpreting the empirical evidence and giving that interpretation meaning.  Do you care to elaborate on this method?  

It ain't empericism, that's obvious. People practice whatever religion they were raised in, or they find some belief that makes them feel good, or that is societally rewarded, and they 'believe' it. Whether there's any authentic emperical evidence for its truth is an entirely separate matter.

People believe stuff with no demonstrable basis in reality all the time. In fact, I'd say it's basically the norm of human behavior. If you want  to look at it benignly, things believed in by 'faith' are simply outside the realm of science and empericism. If you want to look at it harshly, they're just deluding themselves. Happens all the time.

The burden of proof is on you if you want to claim that everyone's religions/superstitions are based on emperical evidence. Silly ass word games and obfuscation won't cut it. ID ain't science, and saying that anything that certain people believe in hard enough somehow becomes true won't make it science. Nice try.

Science and religion/faith are different things. That's why there are different words for the two concepts.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,14:06   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
stevestory,

Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?  



There is something horribly wrong with your logic.

Science is a discipline that requires certain actions. It is not the only subject that is a worthwhile persuit. But any worthwhile subject that does not obey the rules of science, is not science.

That does not mean it is useless. It simply means it is not science.

You are correct in stating ID is an explanation of why we are here. But it is not scientific. Peoples degrees/qualifications do not matter. Unless ID makes falsifiable predictions and produces repeatable experiments, it will never be science.

Sorry this post has so many words, I did not have the time or inclination to write a shorter response.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,14:08   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?  

If you call junk science a 'method', sure. Distort findings, cherry pick other's research, ignore your errors when they're pointed out to you, and ignore inconvenient facts that would contradict your desired conclusion. Making stuff up (AKA lying) also helps.

As another example, Scientologists believe that Xenu is a galactic ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy", and that "75 million years ago, he brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause problems today."

You tell me: could any method other than the scientific method have brought them to that conclusion?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,10:17   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
If "faith" is not acquired via the empirical evidence then by what process is it acquired?

I dont exactly know.  It would appear to be something to do with the person deciding that they have faith in something.  I note youhavnt tackled the problem that all these millions of different people seem to have faith thanks to different empirical evidence.  That would lead to me to suspect that either there are many, many gods, or else, that faith is not aquired by empirical evidence.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,12:22   

Is there a better predictive factor for religion, that what religion the parents were? People primarily get their religion in their childhood from the nearby adults.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,13:08   

guthrie opines,

I dont exactly know.  It would appear to be something to do with the person deciding that they have faith in something.  I note youhavnt tackled the problem that all these millions of different people seem to have faith thanks to different empirical evidence.  That would lead to me to suspect that either there are many, many gods, or else, that faith is not aquired by empirical evidence.

But where is that something if it is not within the physical world?

The underlying point is that this "faith" is in a creator/designer regardless of how the believer decides to act on his "faith."  

So what does a scientist say about billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned the known history of man?

Is this really evidence of nothing?  Can it not be measured?  Can NO predictions be made?

According to science "faith" must be attained the same way any system of belief is attained, namely, through interpretation of the empirical evidence.

Feel free to claim this interpretation a mass delusion.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,13:29   

Some have, ol' one-eyes, some have. Whole nations once sacrificed horses and drank calva in honor of your username, more or less: would you say that those were delusional? or were they sane, they had a point, and we should be searching the ocean to find scientific evidence for the Great Wyrm? Or the root of Hyggdrasil or whatever it was called?
However, you do understand that applying validity to a theory because of its popularity is not how science works, right? 'x people believe in this' is not empirical evidence.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,13:46   

TD:

I would ask you again:

Quote
Scientologists believe that Xenu is a galactic ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy", and that "75 million years ago, he brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause problems today."


From what I gather, many scientologists really believe this.

Feel free to tell me where the evidence for this is, if not in the scientific, emperical realm.

Having done that, feel free to tell me in what principled way any other religion is any different.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,22:23   

Td wrote :
Quote
According to science "faith" must be attained the same way any system of belief is attained, namely, through interpretation of the empirical evidence.


When you have evidence for something, then you do not have faith in it, you KNOW it. Faith is required where there is a lack of evidence, or even contrary evidence. I don't believe the computer in front of me is there, I KNOW it is.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,00:31   

Faid opines,

However, you do understand that applying validity to a theory because of its popularity is not how science works, right? 'x people believe in this' is not empirical evidence.

But you are claiming this belief to be evidence of nothing?  Is this your claim?  Again, how is "faith" acquired if NOT through the interpretation on empirical evidence?

Arden opines,

From what I gather, many scientologists really believe this.

Feel free to tell me where the evidence for this is, if not in the scientific, emperical realm.

Having done that, feel free to tell me in what principled way any other religion is any different.


Was your second statement correct?  All the concepts in their belief system are either known facts or conceptualization of facts.

Again, how is "faith" acquired if not through the interpretation of empirical evidence?

Renier opines,

When you have evidence for something, then you do not have faith in it, you KNOW it. Faith is required where there is a lack of evidence, or even contrary evidence. I don't believe the computer in front of me is there, I KNOW it is.

Then billions of believers that have spanned human history is evidence of nothing?  Is this your claim?  Again, if "faith" is NOT acquired through the interpretation of empirical evidence then please tell me the process that takes place.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,02:15   

*Sigh*

Quote
Faid opines,

However, you do understand that applying validity to a theory because of its popularity is not how science works, right? 'x people believe in this' is not empirical evidence.

But you are claiming this belief to be evidence of nothing?  Is this your claim?


No, I do not consider this evidence for nothing. I do not consider it evidence of any kind. How hard is that to grasp?


Quote
Again, how is "faith" acquired if NOT through the interpretation on empirical evidence?


Well, you tell me, thordad. Seems like your field, after all. How did the Norse interpret empirical evidence to believe that a giant snake circles the world, biting its tail? That Valkyries will carry their souls to Valhalla if they die in battle? What empirical observations led them to predict Ragnarok?

You see, religious faith is aquired in any other way BUT "interpretation of empirical evidence".
Unless of course, in your book, that phrase actually means "looking at the world and making up stories about it round the fire".
But that is not what science does, whether you like it or not.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,06:51   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 12 2006,06:31)
Arden opines,

From what I gather, many scientologists really believe this.

Feel free to tell me where the evidence for this is, if not in the scientific, emperical realm.

Having done that, feel free to tell me in what principled way any other religion is any different.


Was your second statement correct?  All the concepts in their belief system are either known facts or conceptualization of facts.

Congratulations on a spectacularly weaselly avoidance of answering the question.

'Second statement'? You mean do Scientologists really believe it? Yes, many do.

My other two statements were imperatives, so one cannot ask if they were 'correct' or not.

Your final statement is just so much empty verbiage, and has nothing to do with anything we're discussing here. I think you realize all you're doing is laying down a smokescreen.

But no matter. I now know everything I need to know about your ability and willingness to actually debate this rationally. Bye.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,08:51   

That use of "opines" seems very familiar to me. Some previous commenter over-used that word. Can't for the life of me think who it was. It wasn't a certain Mr Farfarman, was it?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,08:59   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 12 2006,14:51)
That use of "opines" seems very familiar to me. Some previous commenter over-used that word. Can't for the life of me think who it was. It wasn't a certain Mr Farfarman, was it?

Thordaddy & Larry F aren't the same person. They have totally different styles. Also, try googling them and comparing the stuff they post to various blogs, and also to the 'letters to the editor' that Larry posts. Very different 'paper trails'.

As far as I can tell, I don't think Larry F has posted here at AtBC yet.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,09:02   

Sorry folks

It was in fact Thordaddy on PT (23 comments in less than two days in January). Déjŕ-vu all over again.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,09:06   

Thanks Arden

Your post crossed with mine. All has become clear to me now.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,10:29   

So while I'm still trying to get an answer to how one acquires "faith" outside the process of interpreting empirical evidence, the "scientists" are quabbling about Norse gods and fake identities.  LOL!

A simple IP check would show me to be in Pacific Beach, San Diego.  Crown Point to be exact.  Since my middle name is Thor and I have children, viola, thordaddy.  I never have looked into the history of Thor or the vikings because it's just a name for me.  

Just answer the question.  

How is "faith" acquired if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?

Arden,

I've answered your question.  "Faith" is acquired by interpreting the empirical evidence.  Science DOES NOT allow any other process.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,11:07   

hey thordaddy. don't be rude. this thread is supposed to be about what the creationists are going to do now that ID is mortally wounded. If you want to talk about how incredibly scientific your parents' religion is, why don't you start a thread for that instead of hijacking mine?

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,11:24   

Quote
I've answered your question.


No you did not. You repeated a lot of empty verbiage and mostly just asked questions.

Quote
"Faith" is acquired by interpreting the empirical evidence.  Science DOES NOT allow any other process.


Do you draw any distinction between interpreting real or imaginary 'emperical evidence'?

Quote
How is "faith" acquired if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?


We answered this question already. Most people are whatever 'faith' they were raised in. Or people 'acquire their faith' through societal pressure, or societal approbation. Millions of people maintain their faith by finding false patterns or ignoring evidence that contradicts their faith. (The fact that millions of people passionately believe extremely different faiths makes it pretty much impossible that everybody acquires their faith thru 'interpretation of empirical evidence'.) They interpret random evidence in such a way as to support what they already believe or want to believe. Self-delusion, in other words.

That is not the same thing as interpretation of emperical evidence. If you think it is, prove it by going to see a faith healer next time you become seriously ill.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,11:33   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 12 2006,16:29)

WEll, I note you havent actually denied that different people experience different realities, and thus, if your line of reasoning is correct, there are millions or billions of gods about.  Indeed, you cant even make much of the dictionary definition, which doesnt say much about empiricla evidence.

In short, you are a bloviating fool.  What evidence do you have for your position?  None.  Thats why you cant present it.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,12:35   

So, Thor, besides trying to insult us by using the word scientist in quotes (still a praise for me) and repeating your (already answered) mantra for the bajillionth time, do you have anything constructive to add? Didn't think so.

Quote
"Faith" is acquired by interpreting the empirical evidence.  Science DOES NOT allow any other process.


Wait wait- science determines how faith is aquired?
"Faith" in quotation marks?
Are we still talking about "millions of believers throughout history" here? Or are you trying to change the subject and claim you were talking about something else all along? Because you're not doing a very good job.
So, please clarify: What do you mean by "faith"?

...not that I expect a straight answer.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,12:51   

too bad I can't move you to the bathroom wall.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,13:08   

Ok, here we go again.

stevestory,

What does post-ID mean?  Has there ever been such a period?  

You say,

If you want to talk about how incredibly scientific your parents' religion is, why don't you start a thread for that instead of hijacking mine?

I can't do anything but laugh at such an empirically paultry assumption.  My parents didn't espouse ANY religion.  They were too busy running their business and raising 6 boys.  That's a lot of ball games and homework, you know!

Arden opines,

Do you draw any distinction between interpreting real or imaginary 'emperical evidence'?

Please do define "imaginary 'empirical evidence?'"  You may call the interpretation fallacious, but that's a mighty bold claim.

And for someone that apparently has no "faith," you sure seem awfully knowledgeable about how it's acquired?  Have you done a scientific study as to how the information contained within this universe has led billions to interpret a creator?  If that information within the universe contains NO evidence of an IDer then how was the intepretation made?  Delusion?  Even that's an interpretation.

guthrie,

You've already conceded that you "don't know" how "faith" is acquired.  Put your scientific mind to work and come back with a better answer.  You can make the bold claim similar to Arden that it's a mass delusion that has spanned the history of man.  I'm not that confident.

Faid

So you are arguing about a term that you can't define?  The topic is "faith" in an IDer.  How that "faith" is acquired is the question?  Do you have an answer?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,13:15   

Empiracally paultry? First of all it's 'paltry', and second of all, I hear that all beliefs are based on studying the empirical evidence, so I don't know how you could say mine wasn't. Now will the lot of you start your own thread? it's rude to hijack mine.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,13:43   

I can't define it? Hey, I'm not the one who keeps putting quotation marks on it... What is the reason for that, anyway?

And of course, if you are going to keep referring to all those millions of people who "believed in an IDer over the centuries" as evidence, I'll just have to keep reminding you that those people believed in gods, and religious beliefs have nothing to do with "interpreting empirical evidence" or with any kind of science whatsoever (well except History of Religion etc).
That's what we've been telling you all this time, but you just don't listen, do you?

Oh and steve is right; you better make a new thread to answer. We'll answer there.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,19:16   

Quote
How is "faith" acquired if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?


Memes.... ever though of that?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2006,00:00   

stevestory opines,

Empiracally paultry? First of all it's 'paltry', and second of all, I hear that all beliefs are based on studying the empirical evidence, so I don't know how you could say mine wasn't. Now will the lot of you start your own thread? it's rude to hijack mine.

How am I hijacking your thread when my question was in direct reference to the thread?  And before you start doing spelling checks for me, try your own (empiracally??).

What does post-ID mean?  Such a thing has never existed as far as I know?  Could you explain?

Renier,

Let's try the reductionist method and ask how the FIRST human acquired his "faith" in an IDer?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2006,00:09   

Thordaddy, if you want to show that you're really interested in discussing and you're not just trying to be provoking and irritating, take this to the "Thordaddy post here" thread.

Oh, and while you're at it, please explain why you're putting those quotes round "faith" again kthx

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2006,08:47   

Faid,

I can't control your irritation.  Grow some thicker skin.  The thread title asks about a "post-ID" world?  What does that mean to you?  Since stevestory started the thread, it seemed to make sense to ask him what it meant.  And so I've asked and have yet to receive and answer.  Instead, I get silly responses that pertain to nothing being discussed.

I said very emphatically that there is NO "post-ID" world because science was merely an afterthought.  What do you think?

PS  Do think there are those that are neither positively nor negatively inclined towards either IDism or neo-Darwinism?  Do you think there are those that are very much sitting on the fence?  The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist.  That is an absurd assumption.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2006,09:01   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 15 2006,14:47)
The thread title asks about a "post-ID" world?  What does that mean to you?  Since stevestory started the thread, it seemed to make sense to ask him what it meant.  And so I've asked and have yet to receive and answer.  Instead, I get silly responses that pertain to nothing being discussed.

Gee, I don't know.  Maybe it would help if you actually read the post that started this thread?  I mean, just a suggestion....

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2006,09:37   

Re "The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist. "

That would depend on what one means by "question evolution". Does it mean asking how a particular conclusion was reached? Or does it mean claiming there's no evidence for something for which plenty of evidence has been described?

Henry

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2006,10:46   

That's just great, Thor. Your first post in this thread was:

Quote
I think it's quite naive for "scientists" to continue to believe that only they can define science while it is clear to the rest of us ignorant folks that science is being define by judges, teacher's unions, liberal activist groups and so on and so forth.  Why not be defined by ID activists?  This is the fail-proof strategy?  

The gall in thinking that only scientists and those in the clique could define science while others are left to the sidelines, voiceless and oppressed, is so repungantly totalitarian that it is doomed to extinction in a society based on equality, tolerance and non-discrimination.

The masses will not stand for this elitists mentality that only serves to fatten the pockets and egos of those same elitists whether they be highminded scientists or low-brow liberal politicians.  What's fair is fair.

This is purely a propaganda war and the scientists need to quit thinking they can win this in the lab.  The fight is elsewhere.


Straight and to the point of the thread, I see.
After that, you post your "faith" question fourteen times, in spite of it being answered the first time, while avoiding and ignoring all calls for clarifying your position.
And now, you claim you were discussing "the post ID world" from the start.

How did that Commandment go again, Thordaddy?

Anyway, I'll be waiting in the thread made for you to explain what the word <quote>faith<unquote> means in your mind, and how exactly belief in gods comes from "interpreting empirical evidence".

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:15   

stevestory opined,

ID is starting to meet the legal system and be obliterated.

This is naive.  I thought the scientific method determined what was scientific, but stevestory seems to be lauding the "legal system" and its obliteration of ID.  Some would suggest this is tantamount to defining science...  judges defining science!  Is this what stevestory is all giggly about?  What makes stevestory think that such a trend will continue?  What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?  

As I said, this battle is being fought on many fronts and not just in the laboratory.

Henry J opines,

Does it mean asking how a particular conclusion was reached? Or does it mean claiming there's no evidence for something for which plenty of evidence has been described?

You're not referencing me, are you?  If so, please provide the appropriate quotes where I state "no evidence" for evolution?

In fact, it is the "scientists" that claim NO EVIDENCE for an IDer which leads one to ask,

How did the belief (faith) in an IDer come into existence starting with the very first human that looked above and said something greater and more powerful must have had a hand in all of this?  How did this belief (faith) arise outside of the process of interpreting the empirical evidence?

Faid,

I will say it again, there is NO process outside the interpretation of empirical evidence in which a person comes to "believe" or have "faith" in an IDer.  If there is, please explain?  Remember, let's focus on that first human that looked into the sky and pondered the creator.  What was the process that allowed such insight and speculation?  Physics theory doesn't leave you much wiggle room, does it?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:26   

thordaddy,

Quote
Henry J opines,

Re "The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist. "

Does it mean asking how a particular conclusion was reached? Or does it mean claiming there's no evidence for something for which plenty of evidence has been described?

You're not referencing me, are you?  If so, please provide the appropriate quotes where I state "no evidence" for evolution?


I was asking for clarification as to what you meant by "question evolution".

henry

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:40   

Let's first keep in mind that monotheism, and thus belief in specifically a creator, is a late arrival to human spirituality (which term I am using in the sense of 'religious feeling' ).

The first gods were probably 'small gods,' or animistic spirits, the 'god' of a specific river, or of a species of tree, for instance. Now, you'd like to claim, I suppose, that it was close examination of those various empirical phenomena that led our ancestors to attribute their vagaries to the action of supernatural forces?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:45   

Quote
This is naive.  I thought the scientific method determined what was scientific, but stevestory seems to be lauding the "legal system" and its obliteration of ID.  Some would suggest this is tantamount to defining science...  judges defining science!  Is this what stevestory is all giggly about?  What makes stevestory think that such a trend will continue?  What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?  
We were trying to fool everyone, and we would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you pesky kids! Yes, you saw right through us. Intelligent Design is a phenomenal revolution in science. The theory is such an amazing paradigm that it has led to an explosion of experiments and results. But since we control the journals, we have so far managed to supress the hundreds, nay thousands, of resulting papers. Though Intelligent Design has led to phenomenal new results and technologies in the lab, we have kept it all illegal and hidden thanks to a sympathetic judge who, like the rest of us, is secretly an atheist.

Well, we tried, but you beat us.

   
Stranger than fiction



Posts: 22
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,13:24   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 16 2006,18:15)
What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?

A few things.

1. A little thing called precedent, of which Judge Jones's ruling is a particularly strong example.

2. The fact that judges are supposed to base their decisions on expert testimonies for cases in which they lack expertise.  Consider the huge gap between expert witnesses for and against ID, in terms of both quantity and quality.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,13:33   

Quote
But since we control the journals, we have so far managed to supress the hundreds, nay thousands, of resulting papers.
I always find it ironic that they claim ID is being kept out of the literature and at the same time give a list of 'peer reviewed ID articles'.

In my opinion in the 'post ID world' a new generation of spokespeople will emerge who will argue what they will probably call 'non-darwinian evolution', or possibly 'guided evolution'. They will no longer argue for a designer, but when pushed will say that their theories likely point to a designer in the same way the current proponents will say that the designer is likely god. Then if we're lucky this dilution will continue there is nothing left and we can get back to more productive things.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,14:00   

Thordaddy, to quote:
Quote
How did the belief (faith) in an IDer come into existence starting with the very first human that looked above and said something greater and more powerful must have had a hand in all of this?  How did this belief (faith) arise outside of the process of interpreting the empirical evidence?

In Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District , the judge ruled that ID was not science, it was religion.  Your quote makes the same point.  ID may be philosopy, but it isn't science. The ID people tried their darndest, but they ran headlong into the Establishment clause, and specifically the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test states that all laws in the United States must have a clear secular purpose (Lemon v. Kurtzman).  That's all. </Troll Feeding>

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,14:26   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,18:45)
I thought the scientific method determined what was scientific, but stevestory seems to be lauding the "legal system" and its obliteration of ID.  Some would suggest this is tantamount to defining science...  judges defining science!  Is this what stevestory is all giggly about?  What makes stevestory think that such a trend will continue?  What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?  

The IDC crowd really seems to be scarcely bothering to go thru the motions of doing (or being) real science anymore. They're now banking everything on some rightwing fundamentalist/activist judge giving them a favorable ruling despite everything -- a scenario where they're plucked out from the burning building by the helicopter. Everything else the IDC folks are doing is just to bide their time til this mythic judge comes along and rescues them.

And I seem to be hearing this whole "redefine science" meme a LOT more than I used to -- since they've failed dismally to convince anyone IDC isn't religion, they're now dreaming of some judge mandating that 'science' now officially must include the supernatural. I always ask whether this will include other notions of the origins of the world like what the Hindus or Neopagans believe, but they never answer.

Remarkably totalitarian -- imagine the Supreme Court intervening in what the valid definition of, say, history, chemistry or medicine was. For a bunch of folks who hate Islam so much, fundies sure seem to share a lot of the worst habits of Islamist countries.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,15:26   

Henry J asks,

Quote
I was asking for clarification as to what you meant by "question evolution."


Well, since you have no evidence for "no evidence" then it leaves only one possible answer, doesn't it?

CJ O'Brien opines,

Quote
Now, you'd like to claim, I suppose, that it was close examination of those various empirical phenomena that led our ancestors to attribute their vagaries to the action of supernatural forces?


The claim is very simple.  There is NO process outside of interpreting empirical evidence for the "belief" in a creator or creators.  Take your pick!  If no empirical evidence exists for an IDer(s) then how, scientifically speaking, did such a belief come into existence?  What's the process that initiated this pondering of an IDer where NO evidence existed for such a pondering?

stevestory,

I don't believe you to be a serious participator in this thread.  The point is simple.  Judges are defining science.  This begs the question.

Why can't preachers define science?
Why can't teachers define science?
Why can't politicians define science?

Judges do!

Please come up with a good answer for these questions.

Stanger than fiction opines,

Quote
1. A little thing called precedent, of which Judge Jones's ruling is a particularly strong example.

2. The fact that judges are supposed to base their decisions on expert testimonies for cases in which they lack expertise.  Consider the huge gap between expert witnesses for and against ID, in terms of both quantity and quality.


Precedent is a legal mechanism that has NO business residing in the scientific sphere.  Science doesn't seek stability, but the truth.

On point 2, it seems that you concede that those with less than the required expertise are defining science based on their less than expert interpretation of what the experts say.  Huh??  Why does this power to define science only include judges?  Why can't preachers, teachers and politicians define science as well?

Arden,

You haven't even gone passed the most basic question.  If there is no empirical evidence for an IDer then by what process did such a "belief" manifest?  How did the first "creationist" come by his "belief" if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,15:35   

Thordaddy, to quote
Quote

I don't believe you to be a serious participator in this thread.  The point is simple.  Judges are defining science.  This begs the question.

Why can't preachers define science?
Why can't teachers define science?
Why can't politicians define science?

 A conservative Judge listened to Scientists defined science.  Then he listened to ID proponents.  The ID proponents were forced to admit that they had nothing but faith (no science experiments) to back up ID.  The judge applied the Lemon standard, and ruled accordingly.  No appeals to Ex Machina will change this.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,15:51   

Seven Popes opines,

Quote
A conservative Judge listened to Scientists defined science.  Then he listened to ID proponents.  The ID proponents were forced to admit that they had nothing but faith (no science experiments) to back up ID.  The judge applied the Lemon standard, and ruled accordingly.  No appeals to Ex Machina will change this.


Read through this forum a little and you will see a pattern emerge.  No one outside evolutionary science seems to understand it even with all the "expert" testimony.  Did this "conservative" judge get the crash course of ToE and properly decide this case?  How was he able to understand what so many outside science are still vigorously debating and trying to comprehend?  Remember, he's supposedly a "conservative" judge.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,16:43   

The Judge didn't have to understand Evolution.  He just had to decide whether I.D. was science.  And it was shown that it wasn't.  I have made this point before.  ID failed the Lemon test.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,16:50   

Quote
Read through this forum a little and you will see a pattern emerge.  No one outside evolutionary science seems to understand it even with all the "expert" testimony.  Did this "conservative" judge get the crash course of ToE and properly decide this case?  How was he able to understand what so many outside science are still vigorously debating and trying to comprehend?

Thordaddy, does this mean you think we shouldn't teach evolution in schools because some people don't understand it?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,17:18   

It seems that the "teach the controversy" is the next step in the post-ID world.  Ken Miller mentioned it in his January presentation that he, too, expects this to be the next big battle.  It's also considerably more nefarious than ID since it seems innocuous and common sense to laypeople.  I'm still waiting for someone to define exactly what "the controversy" is, for it doesn't mean what "they" think it means. . . .

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,17:38   

Re "Well, since you have no evidence for "no evidence" then it leaves only one possible answer, doesn't it?"

I don't know, since you jumped on one of the two examples in my question and didn't address the question of what you meant by "question evolution".

Henry

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,19:13   

Quote
thordaddy:
I will say it again, there is NO process outside the interpretation of empirical evidence in which a person comes to "believe" or have "faith" in an IDer.  If there is, please explain?

Easy. Most people come to believe in an "IDer" because they are raised in religious households and indoctrinated into religious traditions from an early age. Empirical evidence has nothing to do with that.

Quote
Remember, let's focus on that first human that looked into the sky and pondered the creator.  What was the process that allowed such insight and speculation?  Physics theory doesn't leave you much wiggle room, does it?

So we agree there are processes for some people to believe without evidence, right? Now the question is, how did the first person come to believe?

Who knows? My guess is, s/he looked at the available evidence and misinterpreted it to mean that "IDers" (gods) existed. That's not the same as claiming there was (or is) actual evidence for an IDer.

Or maybe, s/he realized s/he could get others to do what s/he wanted, if s/he claimed to represent some powerful but invisible IDer.

It doesn't really matter. Just because someone believes something, that doesn't prove there must be evidence to support their belief.

Quote
Well, since you have no evidence for "no evidence" then it leaves only one possible answer, doesn't it?


Apparently, the "answer" is for you to dodge the question by spouting nonsense.

Quote
The claim is very simple.  There is NO process outside of interpreting empirical evidence for the "belief" in a creator or creators.

This claim is very simple and very wrong, as already explained.

Quote
If no empirical evidence exists for an IDer(s) then how, scientifically speaking, did such a belief come into existence?  What's the process that initiated this pondering of an IDer where NO evidence existed for such a pondering?

In case you missed my answer above, there are many possible processes. Self-delusion. Desire to control others. Wrongly interpreting evidence. (Note - I'm not claiming this proves there really is no evidence. I'm just pointing out that evidence isn't required to explain belief.)

Quote
stevestory,

I don't believe you to be a serious participator in this thread.  The point is simple.  Judges are defining science.  This begs the question.

Why can't preachers define science?
Why can't teachers define science?
Why can't politicians define science?

Judges do!

Please come up with a good answer for these questions.

Another simple one. Judges are doing this because people are bringing suit in court. You may remember from civics class that judges are expected to make rulings during court cases.

For example, in Dover, parents alleged that the school board was unconstitutionally trying to introduce religion into the classroom. So in that case, the judge was required to decide whether ID was science or religion. Pretty simple, huh?

Now, preachers, teachers, and politicians are all welcome to come up with their own personal definitions of science, too, if they want to. But, they're not allowed to decide court cases. So their definitions don't matter in court. Which is where lawsuits get decided. As in, lawsuits over unconstitutionally teaching religion in public schools.

This stuff isn't that hard; you can get this. And the best part is, once you understand why judges are doing this, you're still allowed to think they're wrong. Try it; you'll be amazed how easy it is!

Quote
Read through this forum a little and you will see a pattern emerge.  No one outside evolutionary science seems to understand it even with all the "expert" testimony.

No, that's wrong. Lots of people outside evolutionary science are able to understand it, at least at a basic level. It really isn't too difficult. Many of those people even accept evolution (gasp!;). Others understand it, but reject it, usually for religious or philosophical reasons. (Of course, there are some who are incapable of understanding even the basics, or are so threatened by the whole concept that they refuse to even attempt to understand. Ring any bells?)

Quote
Did this "conservative" judge get the crash course of ToE and properly decide this case?  How was he able to understand what so many outside science are still vigorously debating and trying to comprehend?

Well, the judge was able to understand all this because there was a trial, and both sides presented evidence. Judges are trained and experienced in evaluating evidence. This judge was able to see that one side presented a lot of evidence in favor of their arguments, and the other side presented none. So I don't think it was really that hard for him.

I hope I was able to answer some of your questions. I tried to give simple answers that you could understand, since it's clear you've had some trouble following previous answers.

Now perhaps you can answer a question for me. What did you mean when you said:

Quote
Remember, he's supposedly a "conservative" judge.


Are you saying real conservative judges aren't smart enough to understand this? Or maybe that real conservative judges would rule in favor of religion regardless of the laws or the evidence?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,19:36   

seven popes opines,

Quote
He just had to decide whether I.D. was science.  And it was shown that it wasn't.  I have made this point before.  ID failed the Lemon test.


I don't see anything in the Lemon test that discusses science nor am I as giddy at the prospect of judges defining what is and isn't science.  Are you giddy about a judge defining what isn't science and thereby defining what is science?  Why stop with ID?

Unmark,

IMHO, the controversy is how "faith" is acquired outside the materialist philosophy of interpreting empirical evidence and giving it the interpretation meaning.

Henry J,

See above.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,21:01   

qetzal,

Ah, after we wade through the condescension, we finally make some miniscule progress.  I guess something is better to nothing.

Tell me though... How is anything you've said not equally applicable to science?  Afterall, you aren't suggesting that the majority of those that believe "descent with modification" actually go through the rigors of the scientific method to give meaning to their interpretations of the empirical evidence?

Most "believers" in the ToE don't even call their belief by the correct name (descent with modification).  How's that for anecdotal evidence?  In this regard, there is little difference between religion and science as it pertains to how people gain their beliefs.  A minority of elite feed us "knowledge."  Take this to its logical extreme!  Is this evidence?

Then you state,

Quote
So we agree there are processes for some people to believe without evidence, right? Now the question is, how did the first person come to believe?

Who knows? My guess is, s/he looked at the available evidence and misinterpreted it to mean that "IDers" (gods) existed. That's not the same as claiming there was (or is) actual evidence for an IDer.

Or maybe, s/he realized s/he could get others to do what s/he wanted, if s/he claimed to represent some powerful but invisible IDer.

It doesn't really matter. Just because someone believes something, that doesn't prove there must be evidence to support their belief.


I can't say I agree with your first statement because materialist philosophy seems to suggests it's not possible.  All that exists is evidence in one context or another.  There seems to be no such thing as non-evidence.  The Universe is wholly comprised of information (evidence) and we are constantly and perpetually interpreting it.  

This seems to lead one to the conclusion that evidence of an IDer is embedded within the material Universe.  If it was not embedded within the material Universe then it does not exist.  The question then becomes how did the first human come to interpret the creator only to be followed by billions of other "believers" if the creator does not exist?  That's a heck of a mass "self-delusion" and a bold claim indeed.

Next you say,

Quote
Another simple one. Judges are doing this because people are bringing suit in court. You may remember from civics class that judges are expected to make rulings during court cases.

For example, in Dover, parents alleged that the school board was unconstitutionally trying to introduce religion into the classroom. So in that case, the judge was required to decide whether ID was science or religion. Pretty simple, huh?

Now, preachers, teachers, and politicians are all welcome to come up with their own personal definitions of science, too, if they want to. But, they're not allowed to decide court cases. So their definitions don't matter in court. Which is where lawsuits get decided. As in, lawsuits over unconstitutionally teaching religion in public schools.

This stuff isn't that hard; you can get this. And the best part is, once you understand why judges are doing this, you're still allowed to think they're wrong. Try it; you'll be amazed how easy it is!


This could be pretty simple for those that are beholden to one side or another.  For me, I see problems.  

If one claims ID isn't science does this mean it is religion?  If one claims ID is religion does this mean it isn't scientific?  

It seems to me that science can never be religious, but religion could be scientific.  Remember, science by definition limits the full meaning of empirical evidence while it continues to expand the definition of "observation."  Do you really observe gravity, mass or force?  Who cares about experiments when the fundamentals are so much more important.

So know we have a judge deciding the definition of science, but only those in the public sphere are mandated to accept the definition while the rest of us have the freedom to point out the flaws. It seems odd that scientists fear the infusion of ID and welcome the infusion of the judicial bureaucracy?  It is quite the contradiction.

Lastly,

Quote
Are you saying real conservative judges aren't smart enough to understand this? Or maybe that real conservative judges would rule in favor of religion regardless of the laws or the evidence?


Actually, that was your point or else why include the desciptor in the first place?  Was I supposed to be impressed that this was a "conservative" judge?  Why?  They claim President Bush is a "conservative," too.  How do you know that of which you do not know?

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,04:21   

Quote
Tell me though... How is anything you've said not equally applicable to science?

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.

Quote
Afterall, you aren't suggesting that the majority of those that believe "descent with modification" actually go through the rigors of the scientific method to give meaning to their interpretations of the empirical evidence?


Of course I'm not. Most of what any of us "know" is based on what others tell us. That's simple expedience. So what?

I guess you're trying to say "belief" in evolution is no more valid than "belief" in ID, because most people can only base such beliefs on what others tell them. If that's your point, it's bull.

Quote
I can't say I agree with your first statement because materialist philosophy seems to suggests it's not possible.


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.

Quote
The question then becomes how did the first human come to interpret the creator only to be followed by billions of other "believers" if the creator does not exist?  That's a heck of a mass "self-delusion" and a bold claim indeed.

I'm not claiming self-delusion is the explanation. I'm saying it's a possible explanation.

You were the one making a bold claim:
Quote
...there is NO process outside the interpretation of empirical evidence in which a person comes to "believe" or have "faith" in an IDer.

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.

I did not claiming that belief in a creator IS based on self-delusion. See, I even said as much in my previous post:

Quote
...there are many possible processes. Self-delusion. Desire to control others. Wrongly interpreting evidence. (Note - I'm not claiming this proves there really is no evidence. I'm just pointing out that evidence isn't required to explain belief.)


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."

Quote
So know we have a judge deciding the definition of science, but only those in the public sphere are mandated to accept the definition while the rest of us have the freedom to point out the flaws.


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.

Quote
It seems odd that scientists fear the infusion of ID and welcome the infusion of the judicial bureaucracy?  It is quite the contradiction.

No, it's quite the misunderstanding. On your part.

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.

Outside of public schools, I welcome ID to step up and prove its scientific worth. Make some predictions. Do some experiments. Generate some real data that supports ID and undercuts evolution. In short, if ID proponents are convinced that ID is really science, then do some #### science!

Quote
Lastly,

[re:] Are you saying real conservative judges aren't smart enough to understand this? Or maybe that real conservative judges would rule in favor of religion regardless of the laws or the evidence?

Actually, that was your point or else why include the desciptor in the first place?  Was I supposed to be impressed that this was a "conservative" judge?  Why?  They claim President Bush is a "conservative," too.  How do you know that of which you do not know?


No, that wasn't my quote. I took the descriptor from your post. I was quoting you. Why did you include the descriptor in the first place?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,06:21   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 16 2006,21:26)
I don't believe you to be a serious participator in this thread.  The point is simple.  Judges are defining science.  This begs the question.

Why can't preachers define science?
Why can't teachers define science?
Why can't politicians define science?

Judges do!

Now that is untrue.

Judge Jones did not define science. He looked at a definition of science and ruled that ID did not meet it.

Just because you obscure that, does not mean that is not what he (Judge Jones) did.

He did not rule that there is no God. He did not rule that ID could not become scientific. He did not rule that people can't look at life through a Theistic POV.

All he said was atm ID has no base in science and the school board wanted to introduce kids to ID because of a religious motivation.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind, who had followed the trial could see the logic in his decision.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,06:35   

Quote

Why can't preachers define science?

Why can't a cat with a ouija board define science?

   
Stranger than fiction



Posts: 22
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,07:53   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,01:36)
seven popes opines,

Quote
He just had to decide whether I.D. was science.  And it was shown that it wasn't.  I have made this point before.  ID failed the Lemon test.


I don't see anything in the Lemon test that discusses science nor am I as giddy at the prospect of judges defining what is and isn't science.

It was obvious that the proponents of ID in Dover had a religious agenda, but that isn't enough to keep ID out of the school.  If ID were a legitimate scientific theory, then that would constitute a valid secular reason for teaching it, and the judge would have had to rule for the defendants.  So the judge had to rule on the question of whether ID is a legitimate scientific theory.  In doing so, he deferred to the community of experts, which is exactly what he was supposed to do.

Quote
Are you giddy about a judge defining what isn't science and thereby defining what is science?  Why stop with ID?

I have no problem with a judge doing this as long as they defer to the scientific community, as Judge Jones did.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,10:36   

qetzal opines,

Quote
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,

Quote
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,

Quote
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,

Quote
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?

Next,

Quote
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,

Quote
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.

Lastly,

Quote
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."

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,10:50   

Stephen Elliot opines,

Quote
Now that is untrue.

Judge Jones did not define science. He looked at a definition of science and ruled that ID did not meet it.

Just because you obscure that, does not mean that is not what he (Judge Jones) did.

He did not rule that there is no God. He did not rule that ID could not become scientific. He did not rule that people can't look at life through a Theistic POV.

All he said was atm ID has no base in science and the school board wanted to introduce kids to ID because of a religious motivation.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind, who had followed the trial could see the logic in his decision.


Firstly, I did not identify Judge Jones, but judges in general.  Judges are (re)defining science because science is being dragged into the judicial bureaucracy.  This isn't the first case of its kind.  We can debate who's fault this is, but it always takes two to tango.

Secondly, the definition of science IS NOT static and never was and never will be.  The best that can be said of ID is that it is not "scientific" at this point.  To be more honest, one can really only say that ID doesn't fulfull ALL the requirements of science, but then again, as long as science can redefine itself at will then such a hurdle may always exist especially given the ingrained fear of an intelligent designer for many in the profession.

As for the logic of his decision, what is logical about  professing the primacy of an educational endeavor that by definition limits the scope of empirical evidence while it plays fast and loose with the concept of "observation?"  Aren't our kids supposed to be learning?

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,11:06   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,16:50)
Firstly, I did not identify Judge Jones, but judges in general.  Judges are (re)defining science because science is being dragged into the judicial bureaucracy.  This isn't the first case of its kind.  We can debate who's fault this is, but it always takes two to tango.

It only takes one to tapdance, thordaddy.  Creationists tapdanced religion into school lessons, they tapdanced it into court, and they specifically requested that Judge Jones critique their tango skills as they tapdanced away.

People who are at fault usually don't want that fact to be pointed out.  If you weren't at fault, you could dismiss the issue -- since you are, you're just being self-serving.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,11:14   

Stranger than Fiction,

There was NO teaching to commence in Dover, but a mere statement to be read before the 9th grade biology class stating,

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.


link

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,11:18   

Caledonian,

You are obviously not familiar with the chain of events.  Perhaps my link will enlighten you.  You're not afraid of the unknown, are you?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,11:23   

Quote
...what is logical about  professing the primacy of an educational endeavor that by definition limits the scope of empirical evidence...


sounds like thordaddy is having the same problem as poor Paul Nelson.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,11:25   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,16:50)
Stephen Elliot opines,

Quote
Now that is untrue.

Judge Jones did not define science. He looked at a definition of science and ruled that ID did not meet it.

Just because you obscure that, does not mean that is not what he (Judge Jones) did.

He did not rule that there is no God. He did not rule that ID could not become scientific. He did not rule that people can't look at life through a Theistic POV.

All he said was atm ID has no base in science and the school board wanted to introduce kids to ID because of a religious motivation.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind, who had followed the trial could see the logic in his decision.


Firstly, I did not identify Judge Jones, but judges in general.  Judges are (re)defining science because science is being dragged into the judicial bureaucracy.  This isn't the first case of its kind.  We can debate who's fault this is, but it always takes two to tango.

Secondly, the definition of science IS NOT static and never was and never will be.  The best that can be said of ID is that it is not "scientific" at this point.  To be more honest, one can really only say that ID doesn't fulfull ALL the requirements of science, but then again, as long as science can redefine itself at will then such a hurdle may always exist especially given the ingrained fear of an intelligent designer for many in the profession.

As for the logic of his decision, what is logical about  professing the primacy of an educational endeavor that by definition limits the scope of empirical evidence while it plays fast and loose with the concept of "observation?"  Aren't our kids supposed to be learning?

This is ridiculous!

How many Judges have made the point that ID is not scientific lately? So you did not say "Judge Jones", how many other candidates are there?

ID is not scientific at this point? That is exactly what I claimed.

Your 3rd point...you obscured it so much that I can't see a point. Seriously.
Quote
As for the logic of his decision, what is logical about  professing the primacy of an educational endeavor that by definition limits the scope of empirical evidence while it plays fast and loose with the concept of "observation?"  Aren't our kids supposed to be learning?
WTF does that mean?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,11:46   

Stephen Elliot,

One is left to wonder how something so useless, ridiculous and silly can cause such fear and consternation?  Do you have an explanation?

What is science when the fundamentals of the endeavor (empirical evidence and observation) are constantly evolving and being liberalized?  You don't really observe gravity, mass or force, but simply infer it from measurements of time and distance.  If something is observed, but not measured, does that make it unscientific?  Science doesn't include all empirical evidence, but only that which gains consensus.  What of the other empirical evidence?  Is it to be discarded although it is still empirical evidence and doesn't fit the existing paradigm?

Science, by definition, limits the scope of empirical evidence lest science be all and everything observed and experienced (the TRUE definition of empirical evidence).  This means there is empirical evidence outside of science for which it can't or won't "observe" (measure).  Why the limitation for that which seeks to be the gatekeeper to the truth?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,11:50   

okay, scratch that, he looks like he might be much crazier than Paul Nelson. OTOH, Paul is a YEC. Hmm. I'll wait and see.

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,12:12   

Quote
One is left to wonder how something so useless, ridiculous and silly can cause such fear and consternation?  Do you have an explanation?

I do. The dishonest purveyors of ID, having utterly failed to get their vacuous drivel taken seriously by science, are trying to push it on schoolchildren.

In case anybody's still confused, thordaddy is simply espousing a kind of academic affirmative action for bad ideas.

Science is a process. Its definition, while perhaps not "static" as you say, is still much more constrained than you think.

The funniest thing about the ID movement, by far, is the fundies getting in bed with the post-modern relativists.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,12:40   

CJ O'Brien,

Any political observer will tell you that when one evokes the mantra "doing it for the children," red flags are automatic.

You seem to be caught in this science versus "fundies" paradigm.  What of those outside of this paradigm?  I for one don't see any appreciable difference between unguided evolution versus guided evolution other than the "un."  But apparently, you don't see it that way.  You seemingly have a fear of guided evolution because the claim is that no empirical evidence exists for such a conclusion.  Yet, you must concede that science is "constrained."  This can't mean anything other than saying that science DOES NOT include or evaluate ALL empirical evidence.  The question is why?  Either it can't or it won't.  Which is it?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,13:16   

I'm not doing it "for the children". I'm doing it to do my part to expose arrogance and dishonesty that has as its target young and impressionable minds. For, I guess, the goal of not living in a world where misguided indoctrinated children are the up-and-coming generation of leaders in all fields. So keep your red flags down. I'm not trying to hide my contempt for ID and pseudoscience behind pieties.

The difference (and you don't sound like Ken Miller to me) is that it's just bad pedagogy to teach that evolution "might be guided." First of all, it's illegal in the US, because the first question is "by whom?" second, it distorts the central truth of evolution by natural selection: contingency. There is, and can be, no goal. It just doesn't work that way, whatever your definition of "empirical evidence". Now, if in your private musings, you prefer to believe that a benevolent intelligence set the ball spinning just so, in order to contrive a universe that would result in li'l ol' us, all the while obscuring any indication that such an intelligence exists, go ahead. It seems silly, and certainly unnecessary, but how you waste your time and energy is really your business.

How public school teachers waste children's time and energy is, too bad for you, all of our business.

Finally, if there is not a very large overlap between IDers and fundies, how come the Kansas BoE couldn't find anybody but lunatic YECers to come testify as "experts" at their cute little "hearings"?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,13:30   

Quote
This can't mean anything other than saying that science DOES NOT include or evaluate ALL empirical evidence.
As far as I know, the empirical evidence science evaluates are measurable phenomena. Evidences are measurements. How fast, how many times, what wavelength, what percentage of the time. Note that measurements aren't necessarily numerical, a measurement could be whether a person describes an experience as 'pleasant' or 'unpleasant'. What measurable phenomenon is science ignoring?

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,14:55   

CJ O'Brien opines,

Quote
I'm not doing it "for the children". I'm doing it to do my part to expose arrogance and dishonesty that has as its target young and impressionable minds. For, I guess, the goal of not living in a world where misguided indoctrinated children are the up-and-coming generation of leaders in all fields. So keep your red flags down. I'm not trying to hide my contempt for ID and pseudoscience behind pieties.

The difference (and you don't sound like Ken Miller to me) is that it's just bad pedagogy to teach that evolution "might be guided." First of all, it's illegal in the US, because the first question is "by whom?" second, it distorts the central truth of evolution by natural selection: contingency. There is, and can be, no goal. It just doesn't work that way, whatever your definition of "empirical evidence". Now, if in your private musings, you prefer to believe that a benevolent intelligence set the ball spinning just so, in order to contrive a universe that would result in li'l ol' us, all the while obscuring any indication that such an intelligence exists, go ahead. It seems silly, and certainly unnecessary, but how you waste your time and energy is really your business.

How public school teachers waste children's time and energy is, too bad for you, all of our business.

Finally, if there is not a very large overlap between IDers and fundies, how come the Kansas BoE couldn't find anybody but lunatic YECers to come testify as "experts" at their cute little "hearings"?


Since when were children not the target of all kinds of indoctrination?  Why you find ID especially egregious is the question?  The best you can muster is the idea that it's arrogant and dishonest.  I don't think this qualifies as reasonable justification.  Afterall, some of the greatest minds in human history have pondered the relevance and evidence of an intelligent designer.  Could I assume that you take these great thinkers to also be arrogant and dishonest?  Let's not forget, science is but an afterthought.

Secondly, the Dover case did not involve teaching ID, but merely required a brief statement that evolution may be guided as opposed to unguided and left students to decide whether they might take interest in the only other alternative explanation to the conventional wisdom.  Wow, what a very arrogant and dishonest view.

And what is this nonsense about it being illegal to teach guided evolution?  Does a theory that many claim a "fact" need the judicial system to secure its standing within the public school system?  Apparently so!  The question is why?  Clearly this "fact" is not so persuasive now is it?  

But the whopper is this whole notion of being "no goal" as you fight for that very thing.  If there is indeed "no goal" for evolution then lay it to rest and let it be.  What's the difference to you in how it all began?  You don't really care do you?  Talk about "unnecessary" and "silly!"  What is it that makes you so fearful of goal-oriented evolution as opposed to goalless evolution?  What's the fundamental difference in your mind?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,15:04   

stevestory asks,

Quote
What measurable phenomenon is science ignoring?


The measurable phenomenon of billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned most of recorded history.  What do scientists have to say about this phenomenon?  What does science have to say about how this belief in an IDer is acquired?  Do scientists really claim there exists no empirical evidence for a designer?  Such a claim posits that science is in possession of all empirical evidence.  By its very definition, science must exclude empirical evidence it can't measure or explain.  This means empirical evidence exists outside of science and science is NOT privy to all empirical evidence.  Now what do we do with such empirical evidence is the question.  Since science is either unwilling or incapable of dealing with such empirical evidence, it will naturally be left to others to interpret such evidence.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,18:23   

Quote
But the whopper is this whole notion of being "no goal" as you fight for that very thing.  If there is indeed "no goal" for evolution then lay it to rest and let it be.  What's the difference to you in how it all began?  You don't really care do you?  Talk about "unnecessary" and "silly!"  What is it that makes you so fearful of goal-oriented evolution as opposed to goalless evolution?  What's the fundamental difference in your mind?

It's you who lack understanding of the actual claims of the neo-Darwinian account and therefore can't see the difference. Trust me, I do care.

The answer to your penultimate interrogation is: What makes you so fearful of "goalless evolution", and furthermore, do you fear it so much that it actually excuses your chronic shoplifting problem?

The answer to your final question, generously assuming that you actually want an answer, is: The fact of the matter versus wishful thinking. That's a fundamental difference.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,18:31   

Quote
Since when were children not the target of all kinds of indoctrination?  Why you find ID especially egregious is the question?  The best you can muster is the idea that it's arrogant and dishonest.  I don't think this qualifies as reasonable justification.  Afterall, some of the greatest minds in human history have pondered the relevance and evidence of an intelligent designer.  Could I assume that you take these great thinkers to also be arrogant and dishonest?  Let's not forget, science is but an afterthought.

Emphasis mine, and on the subject, yes, I do think arrogance and dishonesty are bad pedagogy.

Glad someone's on their side, though. It's only fair.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,21:58   

Thordaady.

Why do you consider ID as being scientific as it stands now?

There is glaringly obvious evidence against ID as science. The most obvious being the "Wedge document". This clearly lays out a political/religious motivation behind the movement.

Then look at other actions. Why should they be using PR to promote their claims? Why have people been trying to have it taught in schools as science, rather than presenting evidence to scientists?

There is something rotten in the state of ID (apologies to the bard). I can see it and I am sure that you can as well.

As I understand it, science is about trying to understand how the universe (and all it contains) works. Supernatural explanations have to be ruled out or progress will halt. If "God did it" is an acceptable answer there would be no need for further investigation.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,00:12   

Stephen Elliot asks,

Quote
Why do you consider ID as being scientific as it stands now?


As opposed to seeing science and religion as antithetical to each other, they appear to me as fundamentally identical.  Could we say they are subject to descent with modification?  Both endeavors represent a search for the truth, an interpretation of empirical evidence.  The only difference is one pertains to what is measurable while the other tends to that which is not currently measurable.  It only makes sense to think that science would come after religion in the lineage of human endeavors.  So it's hard to see the stark dichotomy that is presented when both science and religion share a common lineage, structure and function.  

Quote
There is glaringly obvious evidence against ID as science. The most obvious being the "Wedge document". This clearly lays out a political/religious motivation behind the movement.


I see the Wedge document as the obvious reaction to those that politicize science and betray its constraints.  If science is going to stand by the claim that it cannot account for the Origins then under what rationale do you think that others will not take on the task and scoff at science when it tries to interject ITS rules?  You seem to be oblivious to the political and social ramifications of current scientific conventional wisdom.  How you could expect no opposition on top of being able to make up the rules is bewildering to me.

Quote
Then look at other actions. Why should they be using PR to promote their claims? Why have people been trying to have it taught in schools as science, rather than presenting evidence to scientists?

There is something rotten in the state of ID (apologies to the bard). I can see it and I am sure that you can as well.


I can't say I see anything rotten because I don't have this fear of Christianity.  I've never experienced its "oppressive" forces in any manner that I am aware of.
Why are they using PR?  Well first, it's undoubtedly an uphill battle.  The task at hand is currently beyond the reach of science and all its technology and brain power.  All science has to do is explain what is obvious.

Quote
As I understand it, science is about trying to understand how the universe (and all it contains) works. Supernatural explanations have to be ruled out or progress will halt. If "God did it" is an acceptable answer there would be no need for further investigation.


Then how did science EVER come about?  Are murder and rape a part of the Universe?  What can science really say about either?  It can count how many times each happened, it may be able to create a probable offender profile, it may be able to predict patterns in motivating factors, but it can saying nothing about whether it is right or wrong.  In fact, science is entirely neutral.  I, for one, am glad that a purely scientific society does not exist without religion to infuse a much needed value system.  I don't have your fear of ID nor a fear of science.  Both bring value to our lives, but can also be used in a nefarious manner, no doubt.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,00:25   

CJ O'Brien,

Can I assume you have no children of your own?

I have no more fear of "goalless evolution" than I have affinity for "goal-oriented evolution."  Neither side was ever presented in any significant manner in the course of my life.  I stand here as a third-party observer that finds the debate most illuminating and feel compelled to participate with what I see.  The irony is that many on this forum spout the scientific line while simultaneously engaging in wild and unsubstantiated assumptions and rabid name-calling.  Both, undoubtly, unscientific.  This, honestly, comes as a shock and in part helps to undermine the claims of nefarious motives on the part of the IDers.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,02:24   

Thordaddy,
How do rationalise science and religion as being identical?

Science uses experiments and produces evidence to back up it's claims. I can't recall religion doing that.

Of course ID faces an uphill struggle. So it should, if it claims to be scientific then oposing views would be quite the  correct atitude. The response should be to gather evidence and present it.

Can I assume you are aware of the history of "plate tectonics"? They faced the exact same atitude from the scientific community when the idea was first presented. Supporters of that idea had the correct response. It is now well established because data was gathered and presented.

BTW. From your responses I get the idea that you think I believe science can answer any question. I do not think that. I doubt science will ever be able to give answers to some questions. Subjective questions I imagine will always be outside the scope of science.

Also, I am not antireligious or an atheist, (I got the impression you think I am) but I do not consider my religious opinion to be in any way scientific.

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,07:01   

:04-->
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,21:04)
 Do scientists really claim there exists no empirical evidence for a designer?  Such a claim posits that science is in possession of all empirical evidence.  By its very definition, science must exclude empirical evidence it can't measure or explain.  This means empirical evidence exists outside of science and science is NOT privy to all empirical evidence.  Now what do we do with such empirical evidence is the question.  Since science is either unwilling or incapable of dealing with such empirical evidence, it will naturally be left to others to interpret such evidence.

Quote
The measurable phenomenon of billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned most of recorded history.  What do scientists have to say about this phenomenon?  


Argumentum ad Populum

Quote
What does science have to say about how this belief in an IDer is acquired?

Spurious Accuracy
Post Hoc

Quote
Do scientists really claim there exists no empirical evidence for a designer?  Such a claim posits that science is in possession of all empirical evidence.

No, the claim is that none has been found, nor has a method been found for detecting "design".  The only method thus far is "it looks designed to me," supported by some magic maths.  Come up with a reliable method, and maybe we'll talk.

Quote
By its very definition, science must exclude empirical evidence it can't measure....

If it can't be measured, observed, or tested, how is it empirical?  If it can't be measured, observed, or tested, it's magical!  How can science, the method for observing and testing things, deal with unobservable, untestable things?

Now go away.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,07:36   

I observe that occasionally, my socks disappear in the washer/dryer cycle.  

My hypothesis is that an undetectable sock gnome is making off with them.

Evidence

1) My socks disappear during the washer/dryer cycle
2) In fact, this seems to be a widely reported phenomenon that crosses national and cultural boundaries.
3) I believe that responsible agent is the sock gnome.
4) Other people have strongly asserted that their socks disappearance is a result of an undetectable, concious agent of one kind or another.

Conclusion  

The sock gnome is real, based on empirical, measurable evidence.  We observe that socks disappear, and we can collect data on the frequency of the disappearance and on what kinds and variations of socks the gnome prefers.  We also observe that this phenomenon is attributed to a similar agent by peoples around the globe.  A more ambitious study could even count heads.

The sock gnome is real, people!  Because we believe in it!

Also notice that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot (and his cousins), UFOs are all contained within the proof-by-belief paradigm.

I can't wait until this class comes to my local university!

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,09:11   

Quote
CJ O'Brien,

Can I assume you have no children of your own?

I don't really care; it would be typical, but factually incorrect.

Can I assume you're dodging the issue?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,09:16   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 18 2006,06:25)
Can I assume you have no children of your own?

I haven't been keeping track of this thread for a while so I might have missed something, but may I ask why it is relevant whether O'Brien has children?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,11:05   

Quote
thordaddy



Posts: 41
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 17 2006,21:04  
stevestory asks,

Quote
What measurable phenomenon is science ignoring?


The measurable phenomenon of billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned most of recorded history.  What do scientists have to say about this phenomenon?

You will make progress when you understand that science is not denying the measurement that 'billions of people believe in ID'. No scientist would say that empirical statement is untrue. The evidence that billions of people believe in religion/ID/whatever is absolutely uncontested. Science is not denying this empirical fact. What science is not accepting is your interpretation of that fact. If you want to think more clearly on this issue, you need to distinguish the evidence from the interpretation. You are wrong that the evidence of widespread belief is ignored. Here's an example of a scientist trying to account for that fact-- http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155
Science is ignoring your argument that 'because so and so many people believe x, x should be taken seriously'. And science is right to ignore that argument. It is a stupid argument.

Of course I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because your writing isn't clear. It may be that your argument is 'because so and so many people believe in x, x is true'. If that's your argument, you're way way way out to lunch.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,17:36   

Quote
We observe that socks disappear, and we can collect data on the frequency of the disappearance and on what kinds and variations of socks the gnome prefers.
That's more research than intelligent design currently has, although to be fair the need to account for the loss of socks has been around longer than the need to stem the tide of feminists and homosexuals.
Disclaimer: the second half of the previous sentence is intended as a joke, and should not be taken as proof that scientists make baseless insulting accusations, so I don't want any complaints. The stuff before the comma is as true as the day is long.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,22:18   

Quote
We observe that socks disappear


Are you sure about that, Jay Ray?

Quote
How can science, the method for observing and testing things, deal with unobservable, untestable things?


That's a very succinct way of putting it, may I use it when appropriate?

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,22:28   

Heck yeah.  I've got a whole sock drawer with unmatched single socks.  Some of them have been unmatched for more than a year.

What are you, some kind of gnomeless heathen?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,22:49   

Now I come to check, bloodyhe11, you're right.

You should publish :D

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,23:15   

Publish? Hel no. He should teach!

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,23:18   

Quote (Jay Ray @ Mar. 19 2006,04:28)
Heck yeah.  I've got a whole sock drawer with unmatched single socks.  Some of them have been unmatched for more than a year.

What are you, some kind of gnomeless heathen?

The gnome that raids my socks is more cunning.

It always seems to steal just one sock. But a few days later the missing sock usually reapears. Obviously the gnome is just trying to convince me I wasn't paying full atention when doing my washing.

Sneaky little bugger he is.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,00:08   

Stephen Elliot opines,

Quote
How do rationalise science and religion as being identical?


First, I said fundamentally identical.  Which, to put it in scientific terms, is like saying a human is fundamentally identical to a fish as science is fundamentally identical to religion.  They both share common lineage, structure and function.  Call it descent with modification in the realm of intelligence.

Quote
Science uses experiments and produces evidence to back up it's claims. I can't recall religion doing that.


That would be a modification in intelligence, but it nonetheless does nothing to change science and religion's fundamental commonality.

Quote
Of course ID faces an uphill struggle. So it should, if it claims to be scientific then oposing views would be quite the  correct atitude. The response should be to gather evidence and present it.


There are billions of pieces of evidence that span most of human history.  Why aren't scientists findings ways to measure this evidence and give it meaning?  As of now, they take the position that NO evidence exists.  How could one possibly do what the scientist demands given this conventional wisdom?

Quote
Can I assume you are aware of the history of "plate tectonics"? They faced the exact same atitude from the scientific community when the idea was first presented. Supporters of that idea had the correct response. It is now well established because data was gathered and presented.


So, it is clear that science has in times past made it difficult for truths to come forward?  Is this the lesson you wish to portend?

Quote
BTW. From your responses I get the idea that you think I believe science can answer any question. I do not think that. I doubt science will ever be able to give answers to some questions. Subjective questions I imagine will always be outside the scope of science.


This is exactly opposite of what I think.  I think science can't answer the ultimate question and it says so itself.  The question then becomes, if this is the stance of science then by what rationale can they tell those that seek this answer that it can't be done unless it's within the framework of "science?"  You want to take the ball and go home but still make the rules?  This is silly.

Quote
Also, I am not antireligious or an atheist, (I got the impression you think I am) but I do not consider my religious opinion to be in any way scientific.


Well, then you can't believe in descent with modification.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,00:16   

UnMark,

You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,00:32   

stevestory opines,

Quote
You will make progress when you understand that science is not denying the measurement that 'billions of people believe in ID'. No scientist would say that empirical statement is untrue. The evidence that billions of people believe in religion/ID/whatever is absolutely uncontested. Science is not denying this empirical fact. What science is not accepting is your interpretation of that fact. If you want to think more clearly on this issue, you need to distinguish the evidence from the interpretation. You are wrong that the evidence of widespread belief is ignored. Here's an example of a scientist trying to account for that fact-- http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155
Science is ignoring your argument that 'because so and so many people believe x, x should be taken seriously'. And science is right to ignore that argument. It is a stupid argument.


This is why science ALONE is not adequate.  If 6 billion people thought it was wrong to murder, you would claim this shouldn't "be taken seriously."  You make this claim because science is devoid of a value system.  

But more to the point, I have said nothing about whether billions of people believing in an IDer represents the existence of an IDer.  I have only said that this belief was an interpretation of empirical evidence.  It seems you concede this point?  Such a concession is an indictment on science because it will not pursue this "known" empirical evidence with scientific vigor.

Quote
Of course I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because your writing isn't clear. It may be that your argument is 'because so and so many people believe in x, x is true'. If that's your argument, you're way way way out to lunch.


No, the argument is the schizophrenic nature of science.  Is there empirical evidence for an IDer or isn't there?  Can science answer all our questions or can't it?  Is science a static endeavor or will its structure and function evolve?  Is science not religion and vice versa or are they fundamentally identical in structure and function and beholden to descent with modification?

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,02:11   

> This is why science ALONE is not adequate.

No, is quite adequate in explaining the world around us.

>  If 6 billion people thought it was wrong to murder, you would claim this shouldn't "be taken seriously."  You make this claim because science is devoid of a value system.

Morality doesn't nearly come into play here.

> I have only said that this belief was an interpretation of empirical evidence.

It isn't. It is a blind belief, nothing more.

> Such a concession is an indictment on science because it will not pursue this "known" empirical evidence with scientific vigor.

There is no known empirical evidence for IDer.

> No, the argument is the schizophrenic nature of science.  Is there empirical evidence for an IDer or isn't there?

There is no empirical evidence for an IDer.

> Can science answer all our questions or can't it?

It can't.

> Is science a static endeavor or will its structure and function evolve?

The methodology will be the same.

> Is science not religion and vice versa or are they fundamentally identical in structure and function and beholden to descent with modification?

Science is not religion.

So, in conclusion, there is nothing schizophrenic in science, but you write as if you were a schizophrenic.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,03:44   

Quote
I have only said that this belief was an interpretation of empirical evidence.  It seems you concede this point?
Wrong wrong wrong. I didn't say anything about what the belief was w/r/t evidence. You said science was ignoring the evidence of 6 billion people believing. Now you try to swap in a point of ethics for a point of fact? You are confusing evidence of a belief, with the evidence that supports the belief. Among other things. You're just such a tangled mess of an argument I don't see the point in continuing. I'll let everybody else here try to fight through your spaghetti logic. Mysteriously, everyone here seems to think you've got your wires crossed. Can't imagine why.

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,06:27   

Quote
Is this the lesson you wish to portend?


  1.  To serve as an omen or a warning of; presage: black clouds that portend a storm.
  2. To indicate by prediction; forecast: leading economic indicators that portend a recession.

Perhaps you meant convey.

Quote
You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.


  1.
        1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
        2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
  2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Stones, glass houses?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,08:24   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 19 2006,06:16)
UnMark,

You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical.

I think Thordaddy gets Creationist Post of the Week for this one.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,11:51   

You've got to admit though Alan, compared to calling science and religion identical, an incorrect use of 'portend' is hardly noticeable.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,12:18   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 19 2006,17:51)
You've got to admit though Alan, compared to calling science and religion identical, an incorrect use of 'portend' is hardly noticeable.

Thordaddy is just trying out a new Republican strategy: all opinions and ideologies are equally correct, and reality is relative. Therefore, the reality we decide to go with as a nation must be chosen by public opinion polls. Whatever opinion or ideology a plurality of the American public prefers becomes official policy. So therefore, if 51% of the American public says the world is 5,000 years old, the world is 5,000 years old.

I've been seeing more veiled versions of this for a while, but few people state it as baldly as TD.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,12:39   

Quote

The gnome that raids my socks is more cunning.

It always seems to steal just one sock. But a few days later the missing sock usually reapears. Obviously the gnome is just trying to convince me I wasn't paying full atention when doing my washing.

Sneaky little bugger he is.



Sometimes I get in a snit about my lost socks and question my faith in the sock gnome.  I barge into the laundry room and excavate furiously behind and between the washer/dryer.  Every so often, buried underneath the strata of ancient grimy lint, I find a fossil sock that is the perfect match to a lonely brother upstairs in my dresser. Its at times like these that I question my faith in the sock gnome.  I have to ask why would the sock gnome go to all the effort to place that sock in just such a way so as to suggest that maybe there is a material explanation after all?

And after many sleepless nights tumbling my doubt around and around in my brain like damp clothes in a broken down dryer, I come to the realization that warm feet is all that matters, and I thank the sock gnome for providing.  So I get up, open my sock drawer, and pick out the fluffiest pair of socks I own.   I pull them on so nice and comfy, and I thank the sock gnome for  providing me with the stretchy, fluffy nylon/cotton blend I once thought was lost to me.  I curl up in bed with a smile, wiggle my toasty toes, and sleep like a lamb, content to know that the sock gnome giveth even as he taketh away.  I believe in the sock gnome.  He is as real as you and me.

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,16:34   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 19 2006,06:16)
UnMark,

You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical.

Yes, Arden, this certainly is the creationist post of the week!  Were it not so sad, it'd be hilarious!  I can't help but respond. . . .

Quote
You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical.

A dictionary lists the common meanings of words.  dictionary.com offers these definitions for empirical:
Quote
1.a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Thordaddy, please point out which of these definitions you're using.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,18:36   

Quote
Thordaddy, please point out which of these definitions you're using.


he already did...

the "true" one.

*snicker*

really, I do wonder why you all even bother replying to it.

His drivel is barely comprehensible, and his thinking is about elementary school level.

I guess things are getting pretty slow round these parts.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,19:41   

empirical -1 : originating in or based on observation or experience -empirical data-
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment -empirical laws-
4 : of or relating to empiricism

I am using 1 and 2, of course!

Portend-1 : to give an omen or anticipatory sign of
2 : INDICATE , SIGNIFY

It was clear through our conversation that stevestory indicated that science has at times inhibited greater truths to come forward.  This is not the message he intended to convey, but was instead ASKED if this was the message he intended to portend?  And yes, it would be an omen if science were in the habit of obstructing the truth.

Lastly, I didn't not say science and religion were identical much like a scientist wouldn't say a human and a fish were identical.  What I said was that science and religion were fundamentally identical similar to how fish and humans are fundamentally identical.  They both share a common lineage, common structure and common function.  Call it descent with modification.

You fellas really need to get your act together if you expect science to get the respect you demand.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,20:02   

guess what.

nobody gives a rat's ass if someone who is as clueless as yourself doesn't respect science.

a better question is - why on earth should anybody care what your opnion is?

based on your vast repetoire of knowlege?

based on your witty reparte?

*snicker*

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,21:08   

sir toejam,

Your reply betrays your sentiments.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,22:30   

Thordaddy,

Why say fundamentaly identical? Identical is a very poor choice of word. If you meant similar or vaguely similar you should have said that.

You consider science to be holding back knowledge. When what it is actually doing is testing ideas before pronouncing them to be a usefull explanation.

Trying to converse with you is a bit like herding cats or knitting fog. It is very difficult to make any headway. What is worse, you apear to be deliberately making it so.

Unless you post your ideas, clearly I give up. Also we are on completely the wrong thread here and should move over to your own thread.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,01:05   

Quote
Trying to converse with you is a bit like herding cats or knitting fog. It is very difficult to make any headway. What is worse, you apear to be deliberately making it so.

Unless you post your ideas, clearly I give up. Also we are on completely the wrong thread here and should move over to your own thread.


Hear hear.

Thordaddy, if you are not just another troll, and you actually have a point besides trying to show how "faith" is not faith and "evidence" is not evidence and "identical" is not identical, please make a clear and cohesive post -or just any post, really- stating your views, in your own thread (it's got your name, you can't miss it). And we'll take it from there.
Stop hijacking this one, and maybe I'll take you seriously.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,01:56   

No point in discontinuing the hijacking now, this plane's nearly to cuba.

   
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,04:28   

Tacitus:
Quote
There is one possible scenario I would be happy to see where we never get to a post-ID world.  That would be the one where an advanced alien race landed on Earth saying "Mea culpa, we accidentally contaminated your planet with some biological goop which escaped from our lab. Sorry about that."

Can we call this the "Alien Meth Lab" hypothosis?
Earth as an inter-galactic trailer park.  Thanks, this explains a lot, suddenly Britney Spears, trucker hats, yelling "Play Freebird" and not doing your own reading  fall into some kind of context.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,04:31   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 20 2006,01:41)
Lastly, I didn't not say science and religion were identical much like a scientist wouldn't say a human and a fish were identical.  What I said was that science and religion were fundamentally identical similar to how fish and humans are fundamentally identical.  They both share a common lineage, common structure and common function.  Call it descent with modification.

You fellas really need to get your act together if you expect science to get the respect you demand.

So, science and religion are identical in the way humans and fish are identical. Cool.

Yup, TD, til we're just like you, us scientists just won't get no respect. Dang.



Whoa, tough crowd!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,04:36   

I didn't say you were pregnant, I said you were kinda pregnant.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,07:58   

Quote
Your reply betrays your sentiments.


LOL.

talk about stating the obvious.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,09:35   

Stephen Elliot,

I can not help it if your decide not to read or your comprehension is poor.  

First, I didn't say science was holding back the truth, but instead asked stevestory if that was what HE was saying about science in regards to plate tetonics?

Secondly, at the fundamental level (structure and function), science and religion are of the same lineage.  If you dispute this assertion then say so and lay down your argument.  Both endeavors are unique to human intelligence, both seek greater truth and both interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  The ONLY appreciable difference is the idea that science makes predictions and does experiments.  Call it descent with modification.   You do believe in evolution, no?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,09:46   

Quote
Are murder and rape a part of the Universe?


wow. Just...wow.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:36   

Thordaddy,
I have answerwed you on your own thread.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,21:28   

Stephen Elliot opines,

Quote
Science is supposed to make it difficult for ideas to be accepted. It does this by requiring measurable evidence. Experiments/predictions etc.

Portend? I am not trying to portend a message. I am trying to give it.

You may think science and religion are fundamentaly identical. I certainly think you used the wrong word with "identical". But feel free to blame my comprehension.

Had tou said. "Science and Religion have a similar goal in-that they both try to explain the world we live in". I would have agreed. But what you said was "Science and Religion are fundamentally identical" and unqualified I consider that to be nonsense.

Finally. Yes, I believe evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment for the diversity of life.


First, I apologize for mistaking attribution of certain things said.  Secondly, I agree that science requires "measurable evidence."  I think I had said as much and labeled this a modification in intelligence.  

As for the little dispute over "portend," your simple answer was suffice to my simple question, but surely you can understand a different perspective?  Afterall, you stated that establishment scientists obtructed greater scientific truths.  Are you sure that we don't have a similar situation with ID?

Lastly, what isn't identical except for the measurable evidence (modification)?  At the fundamental level, both religion and science are common in structure and function.  In fact, without religion there would seemingly be no science.  

Descent with modification... you do believe in it, no?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:05   

Thordaddy,
This is a debating forum.  Words here are everything, so don't be upset if we point out that you are using words you don't understand.  Having said that, I think you are using words you don't understand, and I want to know why.  Are you trying to impress us with your vocabulary?  Please stop it.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:12   

Don't listen to him Thordaddy. Keep on using words incorrectly. It adds flavor to your crazy ideas.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:34   

So you mean science without God is like a fish without a bicycle?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:37   

Now I'll just get an irate message asking if I think that only the "smart" people can use the "Big Words".
Reminds me of word salad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
"Look Ma! I'm an elitest"

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,12:17   

Seven Popes,

You need to be a little more specific if you wish to be taken seriously.  I've noticed that the rebuttals are short on specifics.  Do you have a word in mind and a quote in which it was wrongly used?  Don't be scared to defend your position, but as of now how could I possibly respond to what you have stated?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,12:26   

Quote
You need to be a little more specific if you wish to be taken seriously.


Oh, the irony!

Quote
how could I possibly respond to what you have stated?


I'm sure no one will be too disappointed if you resist the urge.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,12:46   

DaveScot Loses What Was Left of His Mind

Category:
Posted on: March 21, 2006 5:49 PM

You gotta hand it to this cretin - when he loses it, he loses it big.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....t_o.php

   
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,13:17   

Thordaddy:
Quote
Don't be scared to defend your position

Uh, okee dokee ???, What does the word 'Portend' mean? No peeking in a dictionary either.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,13:42   

SteveStory,
I apologize for uh, rehijacking your thread.  I prepose we start a "Thordaddies Gems" thread.  With stuff like
Quote
You sound like you're fighting for a cause that rivals any religious fanatic.  
well, where do I start? ??? A cause that rivals any religious fanatic?  Is this an example of ESL? I think he meant to say "You sound like you're fighting for a cause that with the zeal of a religious fanatic."  But who knows?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,14:03   

Why bother leaving now?

Huh. I see above I posted DaveScot Loses What Was Left of His Mind on the wrong thread. I meant that for OUPDT.

   
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,14:07   

Ha!
SteveStory derails his OWN thread!

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,14:14   

stevestory is gone. -dt

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,14:16   

Quote (Seven Popes @ Mar. 21 2006,20:07)
Ha!
SteveStory derails his OWN thread!

I'm derailing YOU, pal. You're gone.-dt

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,14:21   

Quote

I'm derailing YOU, pal. You're gone.-dt
Hey me, I already banned him. You're ...uh...we're gone. -dt

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,14:53   

Get out of my country, Stevestory. Right now. Pack your trash and g-e-t o-u-t.-dt

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,15:01   

Seven Hopes,

I've already listed the definition for "portend."  Needless to say, it was used correctly.  As for your next gripe, actually I can't hear you and so "sound" would probably be the wrong choice of word, but I don't understand your point?  Is it that you can't understand what was being said or is it because it wasn't grammactically correct?  Your stance, rhetoric, position, etc. gives the impression that you fight for a cause and because religious fanatics are known for fighting for specific causes, in this regard you become a rival fanatic.  But I digress, as this is exactly what you understood me to say and so the scientist is now critiquing grammar.  But if you have any more, please correct me.  I'm in no way afraid of being corrected.  

But we can also get this topic back on track.

Stevestory,

What the heck does "post-ID" mean?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,15:04   

trying to expain to you, for the n-th time, what post-ID means, is not the point of the thread. There were a few relevant comments for a while, and I appreciate the people who left those.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,15:15   

Yes stevestory,

The point was to brainstorm about what IDT would do next during this time of defeat and alienation.  The problem of course is that you're a scientist and so your thinking on the matter at hand will be quite limited.  You think that IDT need to play by the rules of "science," but seem unwilling to concede that no such constraints exist for IDT.  Science has given up and gone home with the ball on the issue of Origins.  Why would anyone need follow your scientific protocol? Remember, science isn't even in the game.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,15:44   

Quote
The problem of course is that you're a scientist and so your thinking on the matter at hand will be quite limited..


well, actually it's more to do with rational thought limiting irrational drivel like your own, than any
relation to science in a more specific sense.

If you're saying that IDiots don't limit themselves to rational thought and logic, well, you're certainly correct there.

whacky...  just... whacky.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,15:58   

sir toejam,

What can science say about a mother that drowns her five children one by one... nothing!  What can science say about my motivation for posting to this forum... nothing!  And lastly, what can science say about the Origins...????  If you think science is sufficient to navigate this world then it is only because your world is so scientifically limited.  Rationality and logic don't reside within science, but reside within human intelligence.

So back to the point.  How can a scientist speculate about ID's course of action when he has no knowledge of the subject and triumphantly claims as much.  How can one possibly contrive ideas for that which one considers irrational and illogical?  Wouldn't one's ideas be equally irrational and illogical?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,16:05   

Quote
What can science say about a mother that drowns her five children one by one... nothing!


hmm.  what makes you say that?  your gross unfamiliarity with psychology?

can your total ignorance be any more glaring or amusing?

as to your motivations for posting here.

you're a sociopath.

look it up.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,16:30   

sir toejam,

You can play cute.  It doesn't bother me.  But can science tell us whether drowning one's kids is good or bad, wrong or right, justified or unjustified?  Can science tell why teachers want to teach 5 years olds about AIDS without reference to homosexuals or intravenous drug users?  What can science say about the Origins? Are these not situations that require answers?   I can go on and on with questions that science can give no answer.  You seem to be implying that science can give all the answers.  Sociopath?

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,16:50   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 21 2006,21:58)
What can science say about a mother that drowns her five children one by one... nothing!

If, solely for the sake of argument, I accept this, what does the Bible say about this?
Psalms 137:9: " How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!"

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,19:21   

UnMark,

I don't know what the Bible says about such things, but I could imagine it's not held with righteous regard.  But more to the point, I don't need the Bible to tell me that a mother that drowns her 5 children in a methodically cruel way is evil and sick.  Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, science can only be neutral as such action merely represents a measurable phenomenon.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Science is great at some things and useless in others.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,20:17   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 22 2006,01:21)
...  Science is great at some things and useless in others.

Very true. Science is good for discovering how things work. It is rubbish at evaluating subjective things.

Drowning your children would get you judged by peoples morals.

I would imagine a subject that tried to adress "everything" would be a tad unwieldy.

EDIT: By the way, does anyone know what is happening with "Suden Emergence Theory"? It was rumoured to be the next mask for creationism, should it lose it's ID one.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,20:28   

Stephen Elliot,

Then what of psychology?  Is science not delving into the subjective?  Does this mean that science is acquiring a value system in which some subjective enterprises are embraced while others are rejected?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,21:15   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 21 2006,21:58)
...
What can science say about a mother that drowns her five children one by one... nothing!  What can science say about my motivation for posting to this forum... nothing!  ...

H'mmmm. You say that then. and then contradictoraly say.

Quote

thordaddy


Stephen Elliot,

Then what of psychology?  Is science not delving into the subjective?  Does this mean that science is acquiring a value system in which some subjective enterprises are embraced while others are rejected?  


Psychology may be able to explain why someone may behave in a certain way, it does not say wether it is "right" or "wrong" to do so. That is the matter of morals.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,00:55   

I seem to recall that some of the early psychology was very subjective.  Modern psychologists are well aware of this now, and try and avoid it or take account of it.  Thus, when they do so, they are being scientific.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,02:23   

Can't we scientifically look at the evolution of culture and morality and see from whence the immoratily of drowning children arose?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,02:38   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 21 2006,21:58)
So back to the point.  How can a scientist speculate about ID's course of action when he has no knowledge of the subject and triumphantly claims as much.

Since no one else seems to have taken you to task on this, I'll take a shot at it.  Your assupmtion is wildly off base.  The truth is that nearly all of us here know and understand the subject very well.  Most of us have examined ID in depth and know exactly what it's made of.  This is not a case of something being dismissed out-of-hand.  Rather, we are constantly scrutinizing ID.  When we say "there is no there there", we do so after an extensive search for whatever "there" ID has to offer.

One of the main misconceptions among ID proponents is that ID hasn't been given a "fair shake" by the scientific community.  The reality is that it's been thoroughly shaken, stirred, poked, prodded, churned, filtered, weighed, sniffed, and sifted through before being deemed "thereless".

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,08:22   

Quote
What can science say about my motivation for posting to this forum... nothing!

So, it's God of the gaps, but, in this case, the 'gap' in question appears to reside between thordaddy's ears.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,08:25   

improvius, several of us haven't taken him to task on this because go back and look at what happens when someone does explain something to him. He misconstrues it and makes demands for more explanations. It only makes things worse.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,20:25   

Stephen Elliot,

A contradiction needs to involve two declarative statements and not one statement with a follow-up question.

I should clarify that science can say something about a women who drowns her five children, but it seems it's limited to describing the action and parroting the women's thoughts about the situation.  Where's the real science, I wonder?  In essence, science is saying nothing profound on the situation.  It's a futile exercise that gives the illusion that science is breaking new barriers.

I brought up psychology because it was brought up as a rebuttal to my statement about science being incapable of saying enlightening things on certain subjects.  

Improvius,

I don't think the statement is any more off base than the very exact same thing being said about those there are supposedly ignorant of science and ToE in general.

If, as you say, science has thoroughly vetted IDT, what does it say of "faith" in a creator.  What's the conventional scientific wisdom?  Giant delusion?

CJ O'Brien,

I think the point should be clear.  Science has limitations and can't say anything about IDT.  If this is the case then some other human endeavor will seek to gain consensus on an answer.  But as science delves farther and farther into subjective phenomenon, there is "no there there" will be an insufficient answer.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,04:33   

Thordaddy,

You remind me of a "psychic". You tend to say something that is a bit "airy-fairy" then wait for a reply, then start defining/redefining what you said.

That is a fairly good debating trick. However, it doesn't realy belong on a forum such as this one.

Just about everyone here can already see that your posts are normaly vacuus.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,10:02   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,02:25)
I should clarify that science can say something about a women who drowns her five children, but it seems it's limited to describing the action and parroting the women's thoughts about the situation.  Where's the real science, I wonder?  In essence, science is saying nothing profound on the situation.  It's a futile exercise that gives the illusion that science is breaking new barriers.


What if science could study the women's thoughts and actions, and thereby learn to predict which women might do that and when? Yep, that would be futile, wouldn't it.

Quote
If, as you say, science has thoroughly vetted IDT, what does it say of "faith" in a creator.  What's the conventional scientific wisdom?  Giant delusion?


The conventional scientific wisdom is simply that there is no scientific evidence of a creator. Anyone who chooses to have "faith" in a creator will have to base that "faith" on something other than scientific evidence. (By the way, why are we putting scare quotes on "faith?")

Quote
I think the point should be clear.  Science has limitations and can't say anything about IDT.


Yes, it can. It can say that ID"T" is not science. Which helps judges to say that ID"T" doesn't belong in public science classes. (By the way, I put scare quotes around "T" because we're talking about science, and ID is not a theory in any scientific sense.)

You yourself admitted that ID isn't science when you claimed that it isn't constrained by the rules of science.

Really, thordaddy, these are some of the dumbest comments I have yet seen. Do yourself a favor and think before you type.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,10:09   

Stephen Elliot,

I'm just trying to get the gist of what science can do and how it can claim that "ID isn't science."  

We now have those that claim that science (psychology) can say something about a unique event (a mother drowning her 5 children in a tub one by one), but it's unclear where or how prediction and experimentation come into play, ie. science?  It seems that this science is nothing more than an interpretation of the empirical evidence?  We have also now recognized that some other evaluating tool (morality/religion) is needed to say anything PROFOUND about this unique event and yet we don't call it science.  Why?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,10:38   

qetzal opines,

Quote
What if science could study the women's thoughts and actions, and thereby learn to predict which women might do that and when? Yep, that would be futile, wouldn't it.


I would love to see the science that predicted a mother drowning here 5 children one by one in a tub.  Better yet, how about the experiments?

Next you say,

Quote
The conventional scientific wisdom is simply that there is no scientific evidence of a creator. Anyone who chooses to have "faith" in a creator will have to base that "faith" on something other than scientific evidence. (By the way, why are we putting scare quotes on "faith?")

I thought "science" used empirical evidence, ie. observation and experience, in which to utilize the scientific method?  And herein lies the problem.  Are you saying no empirical evidence exists period, or are you simply saying the empirical evidence doesn't qualify because it's not measurable and lies within the constraints of science?

Lastly you say,

[QUOTE]Yes, it can. It can say that ID"T" is not science. Which helps judges to say that ID"T" doesn't belong in public science classes. (By the way, I put scare quotes around "T" because we're talking about science, and ID is not a theory in any scientific sense.)

You yourself admitted that ID isn't science when you claimed that it isn't constrained by the rules of science.

Really, thordaddy, these are some of the dumbest comments I have yet seen. Do yourself a favor and think before you type.


Well, it seems we can't decide on what "science" is?  Is it a tool?  Is it truth?  What is it, scientist?  I don't see how one can truthfully claim that ID isn't a scientific theory when it clearly utilizes observation and experience including those observations and experiences of some of the greatest thinkers in human history.

But alas, you say science is constrained and I agree, but I don't agree that these constraints are set in stone.  Clearly they are not!  Both the definition of empirical evidence and observation/experience are continuously being liberalized, ie., expanded to incorporate more of what we observe and experience.  

You seem to be fighting a losing cause?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:07   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,16:38)
You seem to be fighting a losing cause?

Oh man, there goes my new irony meter too, and I just bought it...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:56   

Faid,

You don't seem to understand that ID will never be proven wrong, but can only be proven right.  You also don't seem to understand that the path to providing evidence for an IDer is within the EVER expanding scope of science.  The very same science you naively believe to be strict and static.  Once you bend the rules, you have no say in others bending the rules.  Get it?

  
Xavier du Barry



Posts: 4
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,12:27   

Thordaddy

You miss the point.

“Sexual identity is part of the stasis of reality,” says Behe. The subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes language as a whole. In a sense, Lacan’s model of subdialectic discourse suggests that the law is intrinsically used in the service of outmoded perceptions of society.

“Class is elitist,” says Sontag; however, according to Geoffrey, it is not so much class that is elitist, but rather the dialectic of class. If modern predialectic theory holds, we have to choose between subdialectic discourse and Marxist class. Therefore, Lacan uses the term ’structuralist discourse’ to denote the difference between reality and sexual identity.

If one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Batailleist `powerful communication’ or conclude that discourse comes from communication, but only if neotextual dedeconstructivism is valid. Cameron implies that we have to choose between subdialectic discourse and dialectic capitalism. In a sense, Foucault uses the term ‘neotextual dedeconstructivism’ to denote the stasis, and hence the meaninglessness, of subdeconstructive class.

The characteristic theme of the works of Madonna is not, in fact, situationism, but presituationism. If social realism holds, we have to choose between subdialectic discourse and conceptualist discourse. Therefore, Lacan promotes the use of postcultural narrative to deconstruct sexism.

The primary theme of Drucker’s essay on subdialectic discourse is the bridge between society and class. It could be said that Sartre suggests the use of social realism to attack and modify society.

Hamburger holds that we have to choose between modern precapitalist theory and textual capitalism. In a sense, any number of narratives concerning not theory as such, but neotheory may be found.

The characteristic theme of the works of Madonna is the difference between narrativity and class. Thus, in Material Girl, Madonna denies neotextual dedeconstructivism; in Erotica, although, she affirms social realism.

The subject is interpolated into a neotextual dedeconstructivism that includes sexuality as a totality. Therefore, the main theme of Werther’s analysis of the subcultural paradigm of discourse is not narrative, but neonarrative.

A number of discourses concerning subdialectic discourse exist. But the primary theme of the works of Stone is a mythopoetical whole.

The premise of semanticist postcapitalist theory suggests that language is fundamentally impossible. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes reality as a paradox.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,13:34   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,17:56)
?

What I get is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to say that the fact ID can never be proven wrong and can only once (who knows?) be proven right makes it scientific for some reason. You seem to say that if you redefine "evidence" to mean just about anything anyone claims they perceive, redefine "empirical" to mean anything up to personal delirium, and redefine "intrepreting" to mean anything down to making stories up in your head, then ID can be considered science. And religion. Because religion would also be considered science. Or something. Then you say that we bend the rules.
Seriously, one post from that postmodernist generator above (seems quite a good one, btw) has more actual content than all your posts combined.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2006,13:42   

Oh oh also: since, unlike religion, psychology can do no predictions and have nothing fundamental to say about the behavior of the mentally ill, then whaddaya say we let all those who have been deemed dangerous for themselves and others out of the mental institutions and send them to the nearest Christian colleges? Sounds a swell idea, don't it?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Dante



Posts: 61
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,11:53   

Quote
Can we call this the "Alien Meth Lab" hypothosis?


If I had more time on my hands I could be petioning to get that taught in Kansas Science classes by dinner time.

Quote
You don't seem to understand that ID will never be proven wrong, but can only be proven right.


If it can't be proven wrong, is it still science?

Why don't you crawl back to whatever meth lab it was where your crack-whore mom gave birth to you? -ds

--------------
Dembski said it, I laughed at it, that settles it!

    
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,13:49   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,17:56)
Faid,

You don't seem to understand that ID will never be proven wrong, but can only be proven right.  You also don't seem to understand that the path to providing evidence for an IDer is within the EVER expanding scope of science.  The very same science you naively believe to be strict and static.  Once you bend the rules, you have no say in others bending the rules.  Get it?

Nope. You are the one missing the point. The FSM can also never be proven wrong, but it could be proven right.

This is what makes these claims unscientific.

The whole point of science theories is that they could be proven wrong.

The rest of your post meanders into confusion once again. Why are you unable to post simple ideas in a simple way?

Science is anything but static. The best theory/hypothesis changes regularly. Atoms where once considered indivisible, nuclear physics changed that. Newtonian gravity was considered correct and Einstein changed that.

These examples prove that the claim of science as dogma are lies. The most celebrated and rewarded scientists are the ones that overturn universally accepted ideas.

The only thing science demands is evidence. Provide that and scientists will happily abandon cherished ideas.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,13:59   

Dante,

The point is simple.  The theory of an intelligent designer will ALWAYS persist until we make that leap from theory to fact.  Science already admits that it cannot deny the existence of an IDer, but science can't admit to it either because there is NO empirical evidence.  This actually means that empirical evidence may exist, but it can't be "observed."  This in turn means it may be observed (faith/belief), but it cannot be measured.  This in turn means that the empirical evidence observed (faith/belief) can't be predicted and hence no experiments can be performed to give the empirical evidence observed measurable validity.  Yet, as we see, science readily makes predictions about unique phenomenon (psychology).

So in a nut shell, science will either make the final leap and except IDT as Origins "fact" or the debate will continue to rage.  It's a no win situation.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,14:07   

Quote (Xavier du Barry @ Mar. 23 2006,18:27)
Thordaddy

You miss the point.

“Sexual identity is part of the stasis of reality,” says Behe. The subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes language as a whole. In a sense, Lacan’s model of subdialectic discourse suggests that the law is intrinsically used in the service of outmoded perceptions of society...

Please stop doing that. I keep forgeting and trying to read the posts.

They are almost as bad as Thordaddy's.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,14:34   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,19:59)
Dante,

The point is simple.  
[... :0  :(  ???  :angry:  :p  ;)  :(  :0  :0  :D ...]

Stephen, I think Xavier and Trolldaddy use the same generator.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,14:45   

Quote (Faid @ Mar. 27 2006,20:34)
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,19:59)
Dante,

The point is simple.  
[... :0  :(  ???  :angry:  :p  ;)  :(  :0  :0  :D ...]

Stephen, I think Xavier and Trolldaddy use the same generator.

The difference is that Thordaddy believes he is thinking.

I supose he is in a way. Thordaddy certainly seems to spend a lot of time trying to make his posts difficult to read while posting a simple idea.

Xavier just generates nonsense. The fact that it difficult to distinguish a difference speaks volumes about Thordaddy.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,14:56   

Well, in Xavier's defense, I don't think he's spamming around: He's just making fun of thordaddy's incoherrent posts. He's actually using a programm to generate its babble, I think: Looks like the Postmodernist Generator (can't find a link right now) but it seems better; I'd really like to know what it is.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,15:13   

Faid and Stephen

What exactly are your complaints?  What are the flaws in thinking?  Please educate me?

Do you think IDT will become a "fact" of science or that the debate will continue to rage?  I don't see either of these possibilities as ludicrous.  In fact, they seem the ONLY two possibilities.  Please add more if you wish.

  
Xavier du Barry



Posts: 4
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,19:36   

for Faid

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,22:52   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,21:13)
Faid and Stephen

What exactly are your complaints?  What are the flaws in thinking?  Please educate me?

Do you think IDT will become a "fact" of science or that the debate will continue to rage?  I don't see either of these possibilities as ludicrous.  In fact, they seem the ONLY two possibilities.  Please add more if you wish.

My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points.

You deliberately make it difficult to communicate.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,23:36   

Stephen Elliot,

Shouldn't you then ask for clarification on specific points?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,04:37   

Quote
My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points.

You deliberately make it difficult to communicate.
How do you know it's deliberate? How do you know his skill at communication isn't just as weak as his skill at logic?

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,05:01   

[quote=thordaddy,Mar. 27 2006,19:59][/quote]
The biggest problem is that nothing you write makes any sense.  There is no logic whatsoever connecting your statements.  Examples:

Quote
Science already admits that it cannot deny the existence of an IDer, but science can't admit to it either because there is NO empirical evidence.

So science simultaneously admits something and yet can't admit it.  This makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote
This actually means that empirical evidence may exist, but it can't be "observed."

This makes no sense AND demonstrates that you don't know what the word "empirical" means.

Quote
This in turn means it may be observed (faith/belief), but it cannot be measured.

You're building on your previous nonsense, which obviously isn't getting you anywhere.

Quote
Yet, as we see, science readily makes predictions about unique phenomenon (psychology).

This doesn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with your previous statements.  The term "unique phenonmenon" is also confusing.  It is unclear what you are trying to say about psychology.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,05:02   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,10:37)
Quote
My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points.

You deliberately make it difficult to communicate.
How do you know it's deliberate? How do you know his skill at communication isn't just as weak as his skill at logic?

For the first couple weeks he was here, I thought TD's incoherent writing style was some kind of deliberate debating strategy to avoid being pinned down with any statements that could later be refuted. I now think it well and truly is the best he can do.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,05:22   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 28 2006,11:02)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,10:37)
Quote
My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points.

You deliberately make it difficult to communicate.
How do you know it's deliberate? How do you know his skill at communication isn't just as weak as his skill at logic?

For the first couple weeks he was here, I thought TD's incoherent writing style was some kind of deliberate debating strategy to avoid being pinned down with any statements that could later be refuted. I now think it well and truly is the best he can do.

I think that he sits with a thesaurus and picks either the longest, most obscure or scientific-sounding word to replace a simple one.

The "not get pinned down" is also an element I believe.

His "science and religion are fundamentaly identical" comment was typical.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,14:39   

improvious opines,

Quote
So science simultaneously admits something and yet can't admit it.  This makes no sense whatsoever.


It makes perfect sense if you recognize the mixed messages sent out by "science."  The ID versus science debate persists because science can't say an IDer doesn't exist but still claims NO empirical evidence for an IDer.  If there is NO empirical evidence for an IDer then it doesn't exist scientifically-speaking, but a scientist can't make this claim.

Next you say,

Quote
This makes no sense AND demonstrates that you don't know what the word "empirical" means.


Empirical is ALL that is observed and/or experienced.  When a scientist claims NO empirical evidence for an IDer, he is merely saying that he knows of no measurable empirical evidence for an IDer.  He is not actually saying that an IDer DOES NOT EXIST.  But since the scientist can't disprove the existence of an IDer then he must concede that some empirical evidence may exist that he can't observe (measure).

Lastly you say,

Quote
This doesn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with your previous statements.  The term "unique phenonmenon" is also confusing.  It is unclear what you are trying to say about psychology.


The stance is that NO empirical evidence for an IDer exists.  This in turn means that NO measurable empirical evidence exists for an IDer.  This in turn means faith/belief are not considered measurable empirical evidence for an IDer.  So what does this make out of psychology?  

How could the study of a mother (psychology) that drowns her 5 children bring any insight of why a mother drowns her 5 children?  How can you make predictions and perform experiments in this unique situation?  That is what differentiates science from faith and belief, no?  Yet, psychology says it can gain insight into unique situations and rare events, but can get nothing from the mass belief in an IDer that has spanned most of human history and encompasses billions of people.

It seems a question of willingness versus capability.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,16:32   

Quote
Empirical is ALL that is observed and/or experienced.  When a scientist claims NO empirical evidence for an IDer, he is merely saying that he knows of no measurable empirical evidence for an IDer.  He is not actually saying that an IDer DOES NOT EXIST.  But since the scientist can't disprove the existence of an IDer then he must concede that some empirical evidence may exist that he can't observe (measure).


Wow....I thought you were an idiot, guess not...nice usage of hume thordaddy...all things are natural right ;)

Its a good thing that NO ONE is trying to prove that an IDer does not exist....
What is the point of this explanation of why you cannot prove a negative?

BTW...all we are saying is that ID has not presented evidence for an IDer
ID may very well be true, and if it is true I wish you guys would get to work on proving it....
all of this anxiety is killing me

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,18:00   

Quote
But since the scientist can't disprove the existence of an IDer then he must concede that some empirical evidence may exist that he can't observe (measure).

Maybe he should look next to his square circle.  That's where I usually leave my unobservable empircal evidence.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,18:16   

PuckSR opines,

Quote
Its a good thing that NO ONE is trying to prove that an IDer does not exist....
What is the point of this explanation of why you cannot prove a negative?

BTW...all we are saying is that ID has not presented evidence for an IDer
ID may very well be true, and if it is true I wish you guys would get to work on proving it....
all of this anxiety is killing me


Really?  I don't see much difference in saying ID(T) is not science and an IDer does not exist.

Afterall, the claim that ID(T) is not science is based on the notion that NO empirical evidence (originating in experience and/or observation) exists for an IDer.  This must leave a scientist to conclude that an IDer doesn't exist unless of course he concedes that things may exist in which HE has no empirical evidence.  

But alas, he also outright rejects empirical evidence (originating in experience and/or observation) when he denies that "faith" represents empirical evidence for an IDer.

This is quite a mindboggling situation for a scientist.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,18:42   

Quote
Really?  I don't see much difference in saying ID(T) is not science and an IDer does not exist


Ok...you obviously hold this belief because you have a severe misunderstanding

ID could possibly be science...
The current thing you refer to as ID(T) is not science, that does not mean that ID cannot be science

Let me change some of the words, and see if you can observe the fallacy of your logic.

You have a work of art(world)
You tell us that it was made by a sculptor(IDer), and you tell us that the work of art is a sculpture(ID[t])
We look at the work of art, and ask you how you can prove it is a sculpture.....you cannot tell us
It just looks like a sculpture....
We say...we will not hang it in our museum and say it is a sculpture until you can prove it is a sculpture
Now...did we deny that it was made by a sculptor?
NO
Did we deny that it could be a sculpture?
NO

Now...you get very angry...and ask us what a sculpture is...
and we tell you that a sculpture is a 3 dimensional work of art.
Your art looks more like a 2 dimensional work of art, a painting(philosophy) perhaps?
But if you can prove that it is a 3-dimensional work of art, we will hang it in our museum(scientific community).

Now did we deny that it was made by a sculptor?
NO....remember Michelangelo
Did we deny that it could be a sculpture?
NO...we just want proof that it is one...not just you telling us that its obviously a sculpture

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,20:43   

PuckSR,

You say ID(T) has not presented evidence for an IDer.  What evidence would suffice?  If ID(T) could become science as you stated then you have to be aware of some evidence that would applicable outside of "faith" of course.  As of now, the claim is that NO empirical evidence exists for an IDer or its design.  This is quite an extreme and absolutist position.  There is some distance between no empirical evidence of an IDer (science's stance) to proof of said IDer (believer's stance) and I can't say I'm convinced that the scientific community has any intention of moving on its position.  Afterall, it readily dismisses the empirical evidence (originating in experience or observation) of billions of believers that has spanned human history.  It chalks this up to NO empirical evidence.

As I said, I don't see much difference between saying ID(T) isn't science and an IDer does not exist.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,22:48   

Quote

thordaddy




PuckSR,

...  As of now, the claim is that NO empirical evidence exists for an IDer...   Afterall, it readily dismisses the empirical evidence (originating in experience or observation) of billions of believers that has spanned human history.  It chalks this up to NO empirical evidence.


Subjective experience is not empirical evidence.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,23:00   

Stephen Elliot opines,

Quote
Subjective experience is not empirical evidence.


Oh really?