Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 10725 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
What your statement does not explain is why we need ID to do what biology already does?

Because IDT uses the same biology to determine if a Creator is possible....which is something the non-IDT science community wants to have anything to do with.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10536
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +94/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
One critical aspect of a scientific theory is falisifiabilty.  ID is not falsifiable.  It is NOT SCIENCE.

Yes it is.

still lying I see.

I challenge you to give a theoretical example of some evidence that would prove ID false.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
What your statement does not explain is why we need ID to do what biology already does?

Because IDT uses the same biology to determine if a Creator is possible....which is something the non-IDT science community wants to have anything to do with.

Why do you assume this position? Simply because you want it to be reality? It isn't reality.

If science found evidence of a god, or any other supernatural phenomena, it would cease to be supernatural, and simply be natural. But science looks for causes and explanations, so if the cause and the explanation truly was some sort of god, science would accept that too. As would atheists, by the way.

The supernatural has never, let me repeat, NEVER been needed to expalin anything in our universe. Not even once. Just because we don't yet know something doesn't mean that a god did it.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
One critical aspect of a scientific theory is falisifiabilty.  ID is not falsifiable.  It is NOT SCIENCE.

Yes it is.

Tell us how.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
What your statement does not explain is why we need ID to do what biology already does?

Because IDT uses the same biology to determine if a Creator is possible....which is something the non-IDT science community wants to have anything to do with.

True - but it fails!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
So now you see why we teach science in schools and not creationism of its other name of Intelligent Desing - because they have no evidence to present.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it....but there are many others who would disagree with you and until it can be demonstrated with 100% certainty that a Creator does not exist, no one has a right to exclude that possibility from a school's curriculum.

Yes there is.  Because there is no evidence to support one.  If you honestly believe that any hypothesis with any possibility whatsoever should be taught in the schools, then you should also be advocating for the teaching of the hypothesis of alien life seeding earth (among many others).

Are you?

No evidence? There is a ton of evidence that a ton of people have determined makes a reasonable argument for a Creator.

If you can provide evidence compelling enough to make a reasonable argument for alien seeds the please share it.

Abiogenesis is being taught as the likely origin-of-life hypothesis. Where is the evidence for that?

OK, let's see the evidence laid out in one post for a creator. No if or buts, just the evidence.

When you have done that, we can talk about abiogensis
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +319/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
OK, let's see the evidence laid out in one post for a creator. No if or buts, just the evidence.

When you have done that, we can talk about abiogensis

I point this out primarily to ensure that BibleStudent's presupposition (intentional or otherwise) isn't obscured from view...
...but he has pretty consistently typed Creator, not creator.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66

OK, let's see the evidence laid out in one post for a creator. No if or buts, just the evidence.

When you have done that, we can talk about abiogensis

Are you seriously suggesting that you have never analyzed the substantial evidence used to make reasonable arguments for a Creator?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10536
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Are you seriously suggesting that you have never analyzed the substantial evidence used to make reasonable arguments for a Creator?

How about you don't dodge and answer the question? Surely if the evidence is as "substantial" as you claim, it couldn't hurt your argument. You might be able to save a few souls.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
OK, let's see the evidence laid out in one post for a creator. No if or buts, just the evidence.

When you have done that, we can talk about abiogensis

I point this out primarily to ensure that BibleStudent's presupposition (intentional or otherwise) isn't obscured from view...
...but he has pretty consistently typed Creator, not creator.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point that out that. It is intentional.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Are you seriously suggesting that you have never analyzed the substantial evidence used to make reasonable arguments for a Creator?

What are the arguments that you find to be reasonable ones that would lead to the conclusion that there is in fact a Creator that no only exists but is knowable and described accurately in religious texts?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Are you seriously suggesting that you have never analyzed the substantial evidence used to make reasonable arguments for a Creator?

How about you don't dodge and answer the question? Surely if the evidence is as "substantial" as you claim, it couldn't hurt your argument. You might be able to save a few souls.

That was not a dodge. It was intended to determine whether wheels5894 has even a basic understanding of what the evidence consists of.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10536
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
That was not a dodge. It was intended to determine whether wheels5894 has even a basic understanding of what the evidence consists of.

If he does, his question is pointless. If he doesn't, you're just stalling for time. If you simply answered the question, everyone would win.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
No. Science is not open to the kind of ambiguity you’re defending. Words have meanings and when arranged in a sentence they collectively convey a thought, an opinion, a fact, etc. One word out of place can have consequences and they are not open to personal meaning and interpretation. And, frankly, of all the places for someone to be advocating anything less than fully supported claims that have been accurately articulated, you should know that this forum tolerates very little of that….at least for us theists who participate here. I have experienced firsthand how one word or a short string of words can be turned against the person writing them because they were taken at face value.
This is nothing more than an attempt by you to justify the nitpicking and semantics games you've been trying to play through this whole thread, and it isn't going to work.  Frankly, it's exactly the reason you and other theists like you tend to get slammed so hard - because you insist on playing those sorts of games to begin with[1].  For you to claim that science has to have 100% accuracy before making a claim is beyond ridiculous.  The only thing that proves is that you aren't interested in actual science; you're only interested in trying to preserve your beliefs, no matter what.

Quote from: BibleStudent
You take the example I gave and add four, five, or six more instances of inaccurate claims made in the same textbook and what are the potential consequences? What occurs is that a student (or students) will begin to mentally develop an overall impression of the validity of the theory based on how all of the dots seem so well connected. Is that what you support? Feeding junior high, senior high, and college aged students lessons that contain proven claims that are really based on “close-to-being-true” findings? If so, that is rather disturbing.
What I find rather disturbing is your attempt to point at less than ten 'inaccuracies' - which assumes they are actual inaccuracies rather than the playing games with semantics you've demonstrated here - in a science textbook, and insinuating that it's some kind of conspiracy to prop up evolutionary theory.  You want to know what I support?  I support teaching actual science in the science classroom, which includes the understanding that our knowledge is not complete and that there's always room for surprises, as well as the need to reevaluate what we think we know on the basis of new evidence.  What I do not support and never will support is this idea that we should teach theistic beliefs - whether you call it "creationism", "intelligent design", "teaching the controversy", or whatever other term you want - as if they're actual science, when they aren't because of their lack of falsifiability and the lack of any evidence which unambiguously supports them.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Feeding junior high, senior high, and college aged students lessons that contain proven claims that are really based on “close-to-being-true” findings?
I'm calling this out specifically because it demonstrates one area where your understanding is clearly deficient.  Science is not about proof, or proving things.  It's about knowledge and evidence.  Scientists use evidence to gain knowledge - which is why we refer to scientists knowing things.

Quote from: BibleStudent
I had asked my daughter to explain how she interpreted the snake-from-lizards claims in the book. She indicated that she took it to mean that science had proven snakes came from lizards. That’s just wrong. No one KNOWS how snakes came into being. I have read numerous articles and papers over the last several years that described how science had to radically alter its previous findings based on new discoveries and information….not specifically with regards to snakes but in other areas.
You know what the actual problem is?  It's the idea that people have that science has to prove things in order to know things.  Except, as I just pointed out, that's not how science works.  Science is about knowing things by checking observations and evidence against predictions, then revising the predictions to account for what we find out.  That can happen with a brand-new hypothesis (indeed, that's where it mostly happens), or an established theory (such as physics, when Einstein's theory modified classical Newtonian physics).

That's really the greatest strength of science.  However, most people think in terms of proving things (like you would in a courtroom), and then once it's proved, you don't do anything with it.  So before you start choking on your daughter's misunderstanding, you should consider that the problem is in the tendency people have to conflate 'know' and 'prove'.  The textbook in question said that scientists know snakes come from lizards; it did not say that scientists proved that snakes came from lizards.

Quote from: BibleStudent
It is completely appropriate to indicate that science believes it has a strong case for snakes-from-lizards but to take it to the extreme that science KNOWS that snakes evolved from lizards is unverifiable with the information we have and thus it becomes a false claim. Period.
And that's what they mean by saying that scientists know that snakes evolved from lizards.  Because all the knowledge we have on the subject all points towards that.  There isn't any evidence that points to snakes having evolved from some other branch of the phylogenetic tree, therefore it would be false to say that scientists didn't know if snakes had evolved from lizards.  When all the evidence points towards something and nothing points away from it, then it's a reasonable conclusion to say that that something is true, regardless of whether it offends someone's sensibilities to say that scientists know that something.

In short, it is not a false claim, any more than it would be a false claim to say that scientists know that gravity universally attracts masses.  We couldn't know that with the 100% certainty you demand without being able to go everywhere in the universe to make sure.  But we've never once observed gravity do anything besides attract objects, so it'd be more than a bit silly to claim that we didn't know that - even though our knowledge isn't 100% certain.  Why are you so concerned about evolutionary theory and not about other branches of sciences that make similar claims of knowing things even though we not only don't but can't have the 100% certainty you claim we need?  Why is it only a theory which directly contradicts your theistic beliefs that bothers you, and not other theories that don't contradict them?

Quote from: BibleStudent
You can try and defend your position until the sun burns up but, frankly, I find it rather telling that you would condone errors and inaccuracies in a science text the way you are. It certainly doesn’t bode well for the scientific community to have people such as yourself promoting what many might label as deceptive and irresponsible.
I don't condone errors and inaccuracies in a science textbook.  I am challenging you over whether the one example you pointed out is an actual error or inaccuracy, rather than an example of you trying to throw up a roadblock because your theistic beliefs aren't compatible with evolutionary theory even though you apparently don't have the slightest problem with similar statements of scientific knowledge from other disciplines.

Unlike you, I won't waste time with weasel wording - I find your own attitude and actions to be both deceptive and irresponsible.  It's clear that you aren't really interested in whether or not the science behind evolutionary theory is accurate.  Instead, what you're interested in is trying to weaken evolutionary theory in any way you can, and at the same time trying to get theistic beliefs such as intelligent design introduced into science classes.  Not because it would actually advance science, but so you can try to enshrine your beliefs into scientific theory and practice so you no longer have to worry about defending them against the inevitable questions that science raises.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Lastly, if you feel I am taking an isolated incident and blowing it way out of proportion then please do a Google search using combinations of the following words: “evolution” “textbook” “fraud” “science” and “lies.
Oh, I don't doubt that you and other theists like you are perfectly willing to make a mountain out of any wording molehill that you can.  What matters is whether any of those so-called examples are worth the time it takes to read them, instead of simply being a big mess of fraud, deception, and lies on the part of you and theists like you.
 1. Don't even get me started on the utter nonsense that theists like you tried to play with the word 'theory'.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
That was not a dodge. It was intended to determine whether wheels5894 has even a basic understanding of what the evidence consists of.

If he does, his question is pointless. If he doesn't, you're just stalling for time. If you simply answered the question, everyone would win.

Please don't play me for a fool. Let's be adults here, shall we? I have a good idea what most of you already know about the arguments theists make for a Creator. If you and wheels5894 were being honest, you would admit that the request is primarily born out of a desire to be antagonistic. You already know what I would offer, don't you? Be honest.


Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10536
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Please don't play me for a fool.

I'm not doing that.

Let's be adults here, shall we?

I've been called childish many times, so that might be a little tough.

I have a good idea what most of you already know about the arguments theists make for a Creator.

Indeed, but those have all been thoroughly debunked. You claimed to be able to bring "reasonable" arguments. So either put up or shut up.

If you and wheels5894 were being honest, you would admit that the request is primarily born out of a desire to be antagonistic.

So now you can read minds? Cool! What number am I thinking of?

You already know what I would offer, don't you?

I know what kind of arguments I expect you to offer[nb]Flawed ones.[/b], but not what arguments you will offer.

Be honest.

Funny request coming from you, but whatever.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I point this out primarily to ensure that BibleStudent's presupposition (intentional or otherwise) isn't obscured from view...
...but he has pretty consistently typed Creator, not creator.
Yep.  Pretty much what I expected.  This way, he can claim (however disingenuously) that he's not actually referring to creationism, because he isn't using the word 'god' or the name of a deity, even though he's capitalizing the word, which you only see in proper nouns - that is, a name or a direct reference to a specific person, place, or thing.  Also, referring to "a Creator" instead of "the Creator", implying that he doesn't have a specific one in mind, except that if he didn't, why keep capitalizing it?

And yet, he has the gall to accuse other people of not being honest.  Go figure.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
This is nothing more than an attempt by you to justify the nitpicking and semantics games you've been trying to play through this whole thread, and it isn't going to work.  Frankly, it's exactly the reason you and other theists like you tend to get slammed so hard - because you insist on playing those sorts of games to begin with[1].  For you to claim that science has to have 100% accuracy before making a claim is beyond ridiculous.  The only thing that proves is that you aren't interested in actual science; you're only interested in trying to preserve your beliefs, no matter what.
 1. Don't even get me started on the utter nonsense that theists like you tried to play with the word 'theory'.

If science is going to claim that something has been 'proven' or if it presents a claim in such a way that clearly implies it to be a settled matter then you're darn right I expect 100% accuracy. If you are satisfied with "close enough" then so be it. Frankly, I find the fact that you settle for a lack of certainty in this instance to be beyond ridiculous. I do not share your acceptance for ambiguity and maintain that I have good reason for having the expectation that I do.....particularly when it involves teaching my children.

Quote
What I find rather disturbing is your attempt to point at less than ten 'inaccuracies' - which assumes they are actual inaccuracies rather than the playing games with semantics you've demonstrated here - in a science textbook, and insinuating that it's some kind of conspiracy to prop up evolutionary theory.  You want to know what I support?  I support teaching actual science in the science classroom, which includes the understanding that our knowledge is not complete and that there's always room for surprises, as well as the need to reevaluate what we think we know on the basis of new evidence.  What I do not support and never will support is this idea that we should teach theistic beliefs - whether you call it "creationism", "intelligent design", "teaching the controversy", or whatever other term you want - as if they're actual science, when they aren't because of their lack of falsifiability and the lack of any evidence which unambiguously supports them.

And I find you to be gullible and naive for dismissing the possibility that science is capable of producing fraud and deceit. In fact, it has been well documented and warrants every single one of us being skeptical and critical. But, again, if you are content to accept and hold onto the claims being made as though they were gospel, then so be it. I don't.

Quote
I'm calling this out specifically because it demonstrates one area where your understanding is clearly deficient.  Science is not about proof, or proving things.  It's about knowledge and evidence.  Scientists use evidence to gain knowledge - which is why we refer to scientists knowing things.

Then why do you and so many others use it as a means for invalidating God? Also, why do non-theists persist in asking for PROOF of God? If you are not expected to offer proof for your faith, why am I?

Quote
You know what the actual problem is?  It's the idea that people have that science has to prove things in order to know things.  Except, as I just pointed out, that's not how science works.  Science is about knowing things by checking observations and evidence against predictions, then revising the predictions to account for what we find out.  That can happen with a brand-new hypothesis (indeed, that's where it mostly happens), or an established theory (such as physics, when Einstein's theory modified classical Newtonian physics).

That's really the greatest strength of science.  However, most people think in terms of proving things (like you would in a courtroom), and then once it's proved, you don't do anything with it.  So before you start choking on your daughter's misunderstanding, you should consider that the problem is in the tendency people have to conflate 'know' and 'prove'.  The textbook in question said that scientists know snakes come from lizards; it did not say that scientists proved that snakes came from lizards.

This is ridiculous. If I say I "know that God exists" to a person who does not share my beliefs, what do you think they will ask of me to demonstrate how I know? The funny thing is, you are coming very close to rationalizing that the statement "I know that I know" constitutes valid evidence. 

Tell you what, though. I will share the wording from the textbook with a handful of other individuals and ask for their unbiased opinion on what they interpret it to mean.....just to see if there is any substance to your contention. I think I already what the outcome will be, though.

Quote
And that's what they mean by saying that scientists know that snakes evolved from lizards.  Because all the knowledge we have on the subject all points towards that.

Then it should be explained that way rather than making a statement that clearly implies to the vast majority of people that snakes definitely came from lizards. Sheeesh.

Quote
Why are you so concerned about evolutionary theory and not about other branches of sciences that make similar claims of knowing things even though we not only don't but can't have the 100% certainty you claim we need?  Why is it only a theory which directly contradicts your theistic beliefs that bothers you, and not other theories that don't contradict them?

If you desire additional examples from other sciences I am sure I can provide some.

Quote
I find your own attitude and actions to be both deceptive and irresponsible.

And i find the same to be true about you.

Quote
It's clear that you aren't really interested in whether or not the science behind evolutionary theory is accurate.
I don't care if that's what you think. It's simply not true.

Quote
  Instead, what you're interested in is trying to weaken evolutionary theory in any way you can, and at the same time trying to get theistic beliefs such as intelligent design introduced into science classes.  Not because it would actually advance science, but so you can try to enshrine your beliefs into scientific theory and practice so you no longer have to worry about defending them against the inevitable questions that science raises.

Since you have no way of "knowing" what my true intentions are, what my background is, and what the extent of my knowledge is, I will just chalk this nonsense up as a rather adolescent attempt to discredit me.
 


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
I point this out primarily to ensure that BibleStudent's presupposition (intentional or otherwise) isn't obscured from view...
...but he has pretty consistently typed Creator, not creator.
Yep.  Pretty much what I expected.  This way, he can claim (however disingenuously) that he's not actually referring to creationism, because he isn't using the word 'god' or the name of a deity, even though he's capitalizing the word, which you only see in proper nouns - that is, a name or a direct reference to a specific person, place, or thing.  Also, referring to "a Creator" instead of "the Creator", implying that he doesn't have a specific one in mind, except that if he didn't, why keep capitalizing it?

And yet, he has the gall to accuse other people of not being honest.  Go figure.

You re beginning to show your desperation.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
If you and wheels5894 were being honest, you would admit that the request is primarily born out of a desire to be antagonistic.

So now you can read minds? Cool! What number am I thinking of?

666.

Be honest.

Funny request coming from you, but whatever.

This must the point in the thread when I start getting accused of being dishonest. This is a well known tactic and is very predictable.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
You re beginning to show your desperation.
When you acknowledged that you were intentionally capitalizing the word creator, that's what it signaled to me.  And when your only 'comeback' is that I'm beginning to get desperate with no attempt to rebut, no attempt to explain what you were really thinking, just "you're beginning to show your desperation", it doesn't leave a good impression.

If science is going to claim that something has been 'proven' or if it presents a claim in such a way that clearly implies it to be a settled matter then you're darn right I expect 100% accuracy. If you are satisfied with "close enough" then so be it. Frankly, I find the fact that you settle for a lack of certainty in this instance to be beyond ridiculous. I do not share your acceptance for ambiguity and maintain that I have good reason for having the expectation that I do.....particularly when it involves teaching my children.
The only thing expecting 100% accuracy does is suggest that you don't really understand science very well.  Worse, it suggests that you don't care about that same level of accuracy in other things that you do agree with.  Not to mention your own religious beliefs, since it's outright impossible to demonstrate that level of accuracy in something that relies so heavily on subjective, personal experience.  Seriously, have you ever held intelligent design to the same standard that you're holding evolution to, or even come remotely close?

Quote from: BibleStudent
And I find you to be gullible and naive for dismissing the possibility that science is capable of producing fraud and deceit. In fact, it has been well documented and warrants every single one of us being skeptical and critical. But, again, if you are content to accept and hold onto the claims being made as though they were gospel, then so be it. I don't.
I'm calling a strawman here, because I never said anything about this one way or the other.  And as far as accepting current science as gospel goes, I stated the opposite in the very post you quoted:  "which includes the understanding that our knowledge is not complete and that there's always room for surprises, as well as the need to reevaluate what we think we know on the basis of new evidence".  I would strongly suggest that you refrain from any further such attempts to attribute arguments to me that I didn't make.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Then why do you and so many others use it as a means for invalidating God? Also, why do non-theists persist in asking for PROOF of God? If you are not expected to offer proof for your faith, why am I?
I don't care in the slightest about your god, or about any god.  I really don't.  I care - very, very strongly - about people trying to make up fake science in the name of their religious beliefs, just so they can maintain those same beliefs.  If your beliefs were true, science would be useless, because your god could change the rules at any time and invalidate what we'd discovered.  Yet, what we see time and again is that we can make accurate, falsifiable predictions about the universe, and even when we discover new things, they fit with what we've already learned, expanding our knowledge and our understanding of things.

Also, understand this.  I do not have faith as you understand the term.  This is one thing I really wish theists would figure out - that just because you have religious faith, doesn't mean other people do.  I put my trust in things that are demonstrated, and the scientific method has demonstrated itself to be the most accurate way we have of discovering and demonstrating things.  Not only has religious faith failed to demonstrate anything like that, the fact that there are so many different religious faiths out there clearly demonstrates its fundamental unreliability as a meterstick for discovering anything.  How do you tell whether your particular religious faith happens to be the right one?  You don't - you just have to have faith that you picked right.

Quote from: BibleStudent
This is ridiculous. If I say I "know that God exists" to a person who does not share my beliefs, what do you think they will ask of me to demonstrate how I know? The funny thing is, you are coming very close to rationalizing that the statement "I know that I know" constitutes valid evidence.
It's not ridiculous at all.  A scientist can point to the evidence which forms the basis of their knowledge.  What can you point to?  Your own, personal, subjective experiences.  The only thing you can do is tell other people about those experiences, which doesn't do a whit of good unless they decide to believe you.  But with evidence, you don't have to depend on what a scientist personally and subjectively experienced.  He can show you that evidence, repeat the experiments he did in front of you, show you how to do them yourself so you get the same result he did, and demonstrate the validity of the conclusions that he came to.  That's how the whole concept of peer review works.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Tell you what, though. I will share the wording from the textbook with a handful of other individuals and ask for their unbiased opinion on what they interpret it to mean.....just to see if there is any substance to your contention. I think I already what the outcome will be, though.
"A handful of other individuals"...probably meaning people you know in person.  You do know I could ask "a handful of other individuals" on my end for their unbiased opinion of what they interpret it to mean, and probably get the exact opposite outcome that you expect, right?  It's too easy for a person to shade the questions they ask (often unintentionally) and get the answers they expect, especially when they're asking people they know in person about it.  That's why science isn't a popularity contest or an opinion poll.  It's also why science doesn't depend on semantic arguments such as what someone means by the word 'know' or the word 'theory'.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Then it should be explained that way rather than making a statement that clearly implies to the vast majority of people that snakes definitely came from lizards. Sheeesh.
Have you seen legal contracts?  That's the cost of the kind of precision you're demanding - something that's turgid, difficult to read, and leaves you going "huh?" after you've managed to wade through all the precise wordings in order to make sure that there's no confusion as to what they meant.  What you're complaining about is the result of trying to make sure the information is present while making sure that it's comprehensible.  Sometimes you end up with less-optimal word choices, but the way to deal with it is to contact the textbook manufacturer about your concerns, not to kick up this kind of outrageous fuss because you think it's to cover weaknesses in evolutionary theory, or whatever.

Quote from: BibleStudent
If you desire additional examples from other sciences I am sure I can provide some.
If you have examples - ones that you actually care about, not that you're bringing up for the sake of argument - then I would like to see them.

Quote from: BibleStudent
And i find the same to be true about you.
Since we both feel the same way, how about instead of snarling at each other over what amounts to a line in the sand, we try to discuss it like two rational adults?

Quote from: BibleStudent
I don't care if that's what you think. It's simply not true.
Then what do you think?  All I can tell is what's coming across to me through your words, and that's the definite impression I've been getting.  I don't know if you're aware of this, but it's common for people to misunderstand each other in text-only conversation.  It loses all the subtext - body language, tone of voice, and everything else - so what you intend to say can very often be lost with it.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Since you have no way of "knowing" what my true intentions are, what my background is, and what the extent of my knowledge is, I will just chalk this nonsense up as a rather adolescent attempt to discredit me.
All I can go on is what you say here.  I value honesty, so I say what I honestly think is true.  If it isn't true, then consider that you may not be expressing yourself as well as you think you are.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • Darwins +92/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Nothing that you have stated here demonstrates that the IDT is misrepresenting the scientific method. Perhaps you could be a little more specific.

Nothing?  Really?

So you think the way in which Casey Luskin represents the scientific method is accurate?  Why would you think this?  It is clear that he is misrepresenting the scientific method.  I’ll break it all down for you since you don’t have time to, I don’t know, think.

For reference, here is his article at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the075281.html and a pdf that he wrote http://www.discovery.org/f/986

It is odd that Luskin attempts to claim ID is not a negative argument against evolution yet insists on using terms like “Darwinian biologists” and “Darwinists”.  There is no such thing as a “Darwinian biologist” or “Darwinist”.  He seems to be implying that those who accept the ToE as the best explanation of the natural world are somehow cultists that follow Darwin idea’s as if they were dogma.  This is the same old trick attempted by creationists to equate Darwinism with Creationism as if they were equal theories in science.  The trick is to add a derivational suffix to Darwin or Evolution to try to cast unwarranted doubt on the ToE.  Doubt may be warranted, but you have to actually justify the doubt, not play word games.

Same old tricks, different name, oh but supporters of ID will claim that ID has nothing to do with creationism.  I digress, let’s get back to the topic of the scientific method.

The four essential elements of the scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleaving or orderings of the following:

Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments (tests of the characterizations, hypotheses and Predictions)

OBSERVATION: (which I guess are the characterizations plus general observations made by Luskin or someone else who may or may not be identified by Luskin)

Luskin attempts to define “Intelligent Agents”, however the terms used to do this are not used in any scientific way.  He fails to define the terms used to define “Intelligent Agents”, for example when he states that “Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems:” the concept of information are not standard in information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory ).  He never actually properly defines “intelligence”, thus never providing any indication of how much “intelligence” can be expected to either prove the hypothesis or disprove it.  Luskin also never defines “specified complexity” or “End Goal”.  What exactly is the “End Goal” of biology?  This is just absurd.  On the very first step of the scientific method, ID has failed, and we haven’t even gotten to his misrepresentation of the scientific method.

In the evolutionnews.org article, Luskin does quote a definition for “complex and specified information” which was provided by William Dembski.  “Complex and specified information” is defined as a rare or highly unlikely event which conforms to an independently derived pattern.  This is basically “Irreducible complexity” which is worthless as evidence and is in fact a negative argument against the ToE (oops, so much for the claim that ID is not a negative argument against the ToE).

HYPOTHESIS (PREDICTION): (wait what?)

Luskin for some reason equates his hypothesis with his predictions.  Oddly enough they are just restatements of his Observations (characterizations) mixed with terms and concepts already discovered by science.  Equating hypotheses with predictions is a misrepresentation of the scientific method.  Predictions are only meaningful if they are able to say things which could not have been said otherwise.  Predictions should be able to be made based on the hypothesis.  If Luskin were representing the scientific method correctly then he would have properly defined his initial observations, formed his hypothesis about an “Intelligent agent” and then made predictions about what we can expect to find if the hypothesis is correct and what we shouldn’t expect to find.

None of the “Hypothesis (Prediction)” proposed by Luskin provide a direct link to the “Intelligent agent” nor isolate the “Ingelligent agent” as the sole or primary cause.  The ToE on the other hand can provide explanations for all of the predictions made by Luskin.

EVIDENCE: (At this point, should I even bother continuing? I guess I will for fun)

I’m not even sure if Luskin understands his own words, which makes sense since he doesn’t define them, but whatever, CSI and irreducible complexity are garbage.  The prime example provided by Luskin is also garbage as biologists have found that bacterial flagellum evolved from the type III secretory and transport system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w - http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html ).

The prime example for Paleontology is also garbage since prior to the Cambrian explosion the world was essentially void of life, and once Hox gene’s evolved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene ) they allowed for an unprecedented amount of diversity in species to develop rapidly and occupy an entire ecosystem.  Additionally, it is well known that the fossilization process rarely occurs for specific forms of life as the precise conditions must be present in order for remains to fossilize (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Fossilization_%28palaeontology%29 ).

As I continue to look at the examples of evidence, I’m not really sure what Luskin is trying to prove here.  Since he never properly defined “Intelligent agent” or what level of intelligence this agent should be expected to have or how to gauge this intelligence I’m left thinking the “intelligent agent” is a complete dumbass.  With systematics the hypothesis is that functional parts will be commonly re-used in different organisms (the experiment isn’t worth my time), however if we look at the mole rat (http://www.iovs.org/content/31/7/1398.full.pdf ) we find a vertebrate mammal where the eye (functional part) is re-used but with a different purpose when compared to other vertebrate mammals.  This “intelligent agent” seems completely random in choosing when and where to re-use genes and other functional parts.  Wow this entire part about systematics is just completely useless.

The section on genetics might be even more useless than systematic.  Okay, so since scientists happened to find function for “numerous” types of “junk DNA”, we somehow get a conclusion confirming the hypothesis.  This is total BS.  How about actually predicting how much non junk DNA there will be.  The prediction offered by Luskin is useless since it can’t ever be wrong.  If we don’t discover a function for what is perceived to be “junk DNA”, well we just haven’t discovered a function yet. 
Also, without the contrast to evolution, all this section says is that there are genes we do not know the function for yet.  Luskin was really going out on a limb on that one wasn’t he. 

CONCLUSION:  (uh oh, I wonder if I’ll be surprised)

As I already stated, the conclusions are useless since the conclusion cannot be observed or tested.  As is so often stated, what exactly is the difference between this “intelligent agent” and nothing?  Luskin’s misrepresentation of the scientific method proved nothing.  Perhaps if he would like to use the scientific method correctly, he might be able to prove something, but I have a feeling, that like so many others, he would only prove ID is pseudoscience.  It’s fake, dressed up creationism pushing religion into public schools.

ID is truly dangerous as well.  Just think what someone could do if all they had to do was dress bullshit up in scientific terms just to get gullible, uninformed and unsuspecting people to buy bullshit.


I agree that an isolated incident of inaccuracy in a high school text book does not necessitate the need to upset an entire curriculum. I used it as example to counter the OP and point out that naturalists will bark up a storm about inaccuracies in curriculums when it is perceived to somehow threaten their beliefs.....but remain ignorant and silent when the naturalistic teachings contain inaccuracies.

Yet you support pseudoscience bullshit like ID which has no evidence, makes no predictions and serves no purpose other than to subvert the U.S. constitution.  Before you talk about hypocritical, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

It's not only hypocritical but it is highly suggestive of a militant mentality that seeks to use science as a means to invalidate God. That is NOT what science is about.

It really seems like you are describing yourself, only you’re using science as a means to validate God. 
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +94/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
One critical aspect of a scientific theory is falisifiabilty.  ID is not falsifiable.  It is NOT SCIENCE.

Yes it is.

still lying I see.

I challenge you to give a theoretical example of some evidence that would prove ID false.

No, THIS above was the point you are being called dishonest, because you are--until you can provide a theoretical falsification of the ID hypothesis.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10536
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
666.

Wrong. It was 7.

This must the point in the thread when I start getting accused of being dishonest. This is a well known tactic and is very predictable.

Well, if you had answered the rest of my post, I wouldn't be justified in calling you dishonest, would I? Since you didn't, I am.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
That was not a dodge. It was intended to determine whether wheels5894 has even a basic understanding of what the evidence consists of.

If he does, his question is pointless. If he doesn't, you're just stalling for time. If you simply answered the question, everyone would win.


Please don't play me for a fool. Let's be adults here, shall we? I have a good idea what most of you already know about the arguments theists make for a Creator. If you and wheels5894 were being honest, you would admit that the request is primarily born out of a desire to be antagonistic. You already know what I would offer, don't you? Be honest.

OK, I am back - the time difference with the USA means we are in bed over here while the forum is active.

Biblestudent, I have not seen any convincing evidence of a creator. Please present it as I asked, in one post. Since the evidence is substantial I'm sure there will be no problem. Please, no more diversionary tactics, just do it.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
That was not a dodge. It was intended to determine whether wheels5894 has even a basic understanding of what the evidence consists of.

...which is a dodge.  And so is this^ post.  And the 4 posts after it.

 Kindly answer the original questions.  They are:
1. in what way is ID science?  As I recall, when Mike Behe was on the stand in Dover, he defined it in such a way that would include astrology.  Not astronomy.  Astrology.  You know, like Tarot card readings. I say this so that you do not accidentally quote him and thus, make an ass of yourself.

2. what evidence is there of ID?  "Stuff looks designed" does not qualify.


Thanks.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
That was not a dodge. It was intended to determine whether wheels5894 has even a basic understanding of what the evidence consists of.

...which is a dodge.  And so is this^ post.  And the 4 posts after it.

 Kindly answer the original questions.  They are:
1. in what way is ID science?  As I recall, when Mike Behe was on the stand in Dover, he defined it in such a way that would include astrology.  Not astronomy.  Astrology.  You know, like Tarot card readings. I say this so that you do not accidentally quote him and thus, make an ass of yourself.

2. what evidence is there of ID?  "Stuff looks designed" does not qualify.


Thanks.


I think you may have this a little mixed up. I haven't dodged the ID questions. What I am being accused of dodging is the request to provide the evidence I feel makes for a reasonable argument about God's existence. But I am really trying to narrow that done somewhat because if the individuals making the request really wants me to provide ALL of the evidence, then I decline. That is unreasonable and would fill up several pages of this thread. There aren't just a few bullet points....it is extensive and substantial.