Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 8423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 465
  • Darwins +68/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
I am willing to listen to any arguments you may have for the existence of Thor.

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

Happy 'Thor's Day' by the way!  :) 
"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 median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1536
  • Darwins +156/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins

I am willing to listen to any arguments you may have for the existence of Thor.

This is precisely the point that you are missing once again. Mere arguments alone (or old books) are not sufficient to demonstrate claims of the supernatural or miraculous (and science has no way of evaluating the miraculous, so it should stay out of schools). This is why ID proponents have failed in court rooms (such as Behe). They (you), want to make science and pseudo-science the same thing (when they are not). Trying to blow open science so as to open the door for things like ID, while arbitrarily pushing out things like astrology or alchemy, is hypocrisy and doesn't fly in science. Without a reasonable, useful, and consistent scientific methodology you really have nothing to stand on but a pre-commitment to your theology. Merely comparing mythical man-made deities doesn't prove any of them are reality. Arguments for Thor, Zeus, Zoroaster, Yahweh, Mithra, Horus, Isis, various pagan/Mayan/Aztec gods, or even unicorns and leprechauns are not enough. In science you need actual evidence. Specifically, you need evidence that is not vague or open to some quack interpretation based on confirmation bias (such as, "lightening is evidence of Zeus!") and the hypotheses that are developed from those evidences must be falsifiable. But ID is not falsifiable b/c it starts with shifty assumptions and confirmation bias (aka - it starts with attempting to define it's way into fact) and then moves the goal posts when others point out what's going on.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3734
  • Darwins +237/-6
  • Gender: Male
I think it should be renamed Intelligent Design Intentional Obfuscation Theory. Anyone who ascribes to it should be labeled by the acronym.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11480
  • Darwins +552/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
I am willing to listen to any arguments you may have for the existence of Thor.

Thor's hammer, man, just look around you!  The evidence is everywhere!  The terrible beauty of lightning!  The terror of crashing thunder!  The bodies of giants slain by Thor that now look like mountains!  And who else would have put Adumla the cow into the Gunnungagap?  If it is not obvious, then there is something majorly wrong with you.  You must have hardened your heart or something.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6159
  • Darwins +405/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
I am willing to listen to any arguments you may have for the existence of Thor.
There's an old book about him and his fellow gods. He did lots of things that are miraculous. He spoke with beings from another realm. He did not die but went to Valhalla and said that we could go to Valhalla too if we were good enough. His place in heaven was assured as He was the Son of God the Father, who is Odin.

You will recall how Thor was instrumental in turning a dwarf into stone, whereas your god could only manage turning a woman into a block of salt.

He is known from other sources see ThorWiki
Quote
On four (or possibly five) runestones, an invocation to Thor appears that reads "May Thor hallow (these runes/this monument)!" The invocation appears thrice in Denmark (DR 110, DR 209, and DR 220), and a single time in Västergötland (Vg 150), Sweden. A fifth appearance may possibly occur on a runestone found in Södermanland, Sweden (Sö 140), but the reading is contested. Pictorial representations of Thor's hammer also appear on a total of five runestones found in Denmark and in the Swedish counties of Västergötland and Södermanland.[46]

And, has been pointed out, there is a day of the week named after Him which is more than can be said of your obviously mythical Yahweh and his so-called "son" Emmanuel.

Oh yes, and Odin said that the world would end in ice - and look at the winter so far! What more proof do you need?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 01:46:24 PM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11480
  • Darwins +552/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
not to mention:
jesus died nailed to a cross.
Thor weilds a hammer.

jesus said he would get rid of sin.
thor said he would get rid of the giants.
What do you see more of, sin or giants?

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
I am willing to listen to any arguments you may have for the existence of Thor.

Thor's hammer, man, just look around you!  The evidence is everywhere!  The terrible beauty of lightning!  The terror of crashing thunder!  The bodies of giants slain by Thor that now look like mountains!  And who else would have put Adumla the cow into the Gunnungagap?  If it is not obvious, then there is something majorly wrong with you.  You must have hardened your heart or something.

All I want to know is whether or not Thor can destroy a Bonnacon because those things scare the beejebus out of me.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
I am willing to listen to any arguments you may have for the existence of Thor.

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

Happy 'Thor's Day' by the way!  :)

Same to you !!! My family is getting together later to open gifts.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11480
  • Darwins +552/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Happy 'Thor's Day' by the way!  :)

Same to you !!! My family is getting together later to open gifts.

Thor's day --> Thursday.  It is where we get the word "Thursday".  Every day but Saturday comes from Norse/ German mythology.
http://www.pantheon.org/miscellaneous/origin_days.html

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline SevenPatch

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 465
  • Darwins +68/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.

Thor's day --> Thursday.  It is where we get the word "Thursday".  Every day but Saturday comes from Norse/ German mythology.
http://www.pantheon.org/miscellaneous/origin_days.html

I might be missing something but it seems like the Roman traditions/gods got 3 out of 7 days (Saturday, Sunday and Monday) and the Norse gods got the remaining 4 days (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday).

"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 screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11480
  • Darwins +552/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
^ my mistake!

Monday was anglo/saxon, which is to say Germanic, since English is rooted in German.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline SevenPatch

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 465
  • Darwins +68/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
^ my mistake!

Monday was anglo/saxon, which is to say Germanic, since English is rooted in German.

Ah okay, yeah.  So Sunday and Monday were days to celebrate the gods of the Sun and Moon.


"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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5640
  • Darwins +676/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Here is the question, BibleStudent. Do you consider it possible that the intelligent designer was/is/will be found to be Brahma?

No offense to any Hindus who may be present, but I do not consider it possible for the intelligent designer to be Brahma. There is no evidence to support an eternal universe or for one capable of collapsing and then re-expanding. I am still willing to go along with your hypothetical though to see if I can provide the clarification you are looking for. I will, for the sake of this hypothetical, assume that Brahma is the intelligent designer.

What is basis for saying this? There's no evidence for any god so Brahma is as likely the designer as Thor. Is it, perhaps, that you are an atheist as far as all gods but one? Think about your own god as you think about Brahma and you could join us as an atheist.

I am willing to listen to any arguments you may have for the existence of Thor.

Here's my argument, baby!



And the prophecy promised that Thor would appear in the fall of 2013. And he did. Now, where is your god? Is he hot like Thor? I doubt it.  ;D

Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
This is precisely the point that you are missing once again. Mere arguments alone (or old books) are not sufficient to demonstrate claims of the supernatural or miraculous (and science has no way of evaluating the miraculous, so it should stay out of schools).

How do you know that science is incapable of discovering the supernatural or miraculous? Are you, median, the logical fallacy cop himself, making an argumentum ad ignorantiam?.  Is it not possible that the research behind IDT could discover something beyond nature?

Discover a detailed and sufficient evolutionary pathway for a system categorized as ‘irreducibly complex’ and you have falsified any hypothesis that it was intelligently designed. (frankly, I submit that this is MORE falsifiable than evolution via natural selection since we would have to conclude that there is no possible evolutionary pathway for a complex system before ID's competing claims could be falsified. Can you honestly ever envision science reaching the conclusion that there is no possible pathway?)

Theoretically there are at least two possible types of causes: mechanistic and intelligent. The demarcationist has yet to offer a noncircular reason for excluding the latter type.” Stephen C. Meyer  - Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Ignatius Press) November 13, 2005

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Here is the question, BibleStudent. Do you consider it possible that the intelligent designer was/is/will be found to be Brahma?

No offense to any Hindus who may be present, but I do not consider it possible for the intelligent designer to be Brahma. There is no evidence to support an eternal universe or for one capable of collapsing and then re-expanding. I am still willing to go along with your hypothetical though to see if I can provide the clarification you are looking for. I will, for the sake of this hypothetical, assume that Brahma is the intelligent designer.

What is basis for saying this? There's no evidence for any god so Brahma is as likely the designer as Thor. Is it, perhaps, that you are an atheist as far as all gods but one? Think about your own god as you think about Brahma and you could join us as an atheist.

I am willing to listen to any arguments you may have for the existence of Thor.

Here's my argument, baby!

<snipped>

And the prophecy promised that Thor would appear in the fall of 2013. And he did. Now, where is your god? Is he hot like Thor? I doubt it.  ;D

Meh. I think he carries around that big hammer in an attempt to compensate for his small....ahhh...never mind.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5640
  • Darwins +676/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
^^^You'd have to ask Jane-- she does not seem to be complaining. ;)

Hammertime!


Now, back to the "science" of ID. So far, scientific investigations have not found any sign or evidence of the supernatural. Not for lack of trying, if you include all the thousands of years of humans trying to figure out the world as a kind of empirical test for ID.

People everywhere started with that premise-- they assumed that magic, gods, and supernatural causes-- ID-- were at the bottom of everything. And people behaved accordingly, trying to communicate with god-beings, trying to tap into and control these magical forces, trying, desperately to improve life supernaturally. And for all those thousands of years, no sign whatsoever of any supernatural anything. People suffered, sickened, starved and died needlessly. Everywhere.

Then people started to focus on natural causes for things instead of magic. Amazingly, as people have moved away from magic, things have gotten better for more people faster than ever in human history. Wonder why that would be? Coincidence, I suppose.

But have faith-- those ID scientists will discover that Thor is behind everything, and we atheists with just have to suck it up.... &)

Seriously, how can you, with complete confidence, declare that not only will science discover an intelligent designer behind all life on earth, and also declare that you know who that designer already is and it is not Brahma? Where is your scientific research that demonstrates this information?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4275
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
How do you know that science is incapable of discovering the supernatural or miraculous? Are you, median, the logical fallacy cop himself, making an argumentum ad ignorantiam?.  Is it not possible that the research behind IDT could discover something beyond nature?
Our definitions of "supernatural" and "miraculous" tend to be revised over time.  Once we figure out how to do something, it tends to become mundane.  If we discovered something 'beyond' nature, what it would tell us is that our definitions of nature were incomplete.  Us calling something supernatural or miraculous is more an indication of our lack of knowledge than it actually being supernatural or miraculous.  The sun was once considered supernatural, as was lightning; recovering from deadly diseases or horrendous injuries were once considered miracles.

The real question is, how do we tell if something is actually supernatural, or just a previously-unrecognized part of nature?

Quote from: BibleStudent
Discover a detailed and sufficient evolutionary pathway for a system categorized as ‘irreducibly complex’ and you have falsified any hypothesis that it was intelligently designed.
The problem is, intelligent design gets things backwards.  It declares a system is irreducibly complex without rigorously testing it to see if it actually is.  It falls on the ones declaring it is to show sufficient evidence to support their argument, by either showing that it is actually intelligently designed, or by showing that it could not have happened by any natural means we know of.

Quote from: BibleStudent
(frankly, I submit that this is MORE falsifiable than evolution via natural selection since we would have to conclude that there is no possible evolutionary pathway for a complex system before ID's competing claims could be falsified. Can you honestly ever envision science reaching the conclusion that there is no possible pathway?)
That makes ID less falsifiable, not more.  Falsifiable refers to the ways in which you can show something is false, so something that is more falsifiable has more ways in which it can be shown false.  So ID is far less falsifiable than science.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Theoretically there are at least two possible types of causes: mechanistic and intelligent. The demarcationist has yet to offer a noncircular reason for excluding the latter type.” Stephen C. Meyer  - Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Ignatius Press) November 13, 2005
Nobody is excluding the possibility of intelligent design.  Indeed, humans have more than proved capable of designing things.  What we are excluding is the arbitrary statement that something was intelligently designed, not because someone actually found evidence of it, but because it seems irreducibly complex or a similar reason.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 11:09:10 PM by jaimehlers »
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Darwins +65/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
You have got to be kidding? You've been using ID throughout this thread as an argument for the god you believe in, unless you've been playing a huge prank? The argument you put forward and what this actual thread is effin' about, is about how ID is used for a supernatural intelligence, so don't even pretend by giving us this bull now that ID doesn't take a position on whether the intelligence is supernatural or not, because that is what you're arguing for.

I don't know what you're getting so riled up about. I have been pretty clear that my personal beliefs are based on a number of factors and that the science of ID is one of those factors. My personal beliefs do not alter the claims of ID science.

The claims of ID pseudoscience do not falsify any proposed natural processes, whether it be evolution, abiogenesis, gravity or thermodynamics, because ID can be pushed back to the point where it can be the of cause those natural processes.

If you are going to claim that ID isn't necessarily proposing a supernatural designer, then you're either being dishonest or you haven't thought it through properly. You see, if you're going to say that abiogenesis can also point to a natural designer, eg aliens, then all you are doing is pushing the question back a step - how did the alien life begin to exist? ID recognises this which is why it tries to prompt a supernatural designer.

Quote
Quote
I honestly can't believe that this is the route you have now taken to try and shimmy away from the fact that based on what you believe, you must now accept that ID isn't science. You cannot say that ID is science, then say god knows the mechanism he used for abiogenesis, and then go on to say that science is hopeless at replicating that mechanism. Something has to give - either you retract that ID is science or accept that science can potentially replicate whatever mechanism was used for abiogenesis.

You have yourself pretty tangled up. Why would I have to deem IDT as non-scientific based on my personal beliefs?

I'm not tangled up. I've explained to you numerous times in various different ways why. Would you like me to try it in mon.o.syll.a.bic. words?

Quote
I am simply claiming that I believe that the "intelligence" IDT posits is the God of the Bible. The scientists doing the work on
IDT can claim whatever they like. For me, the evidence they have produced compliments the Biblical origin of life account.

You keep telling yourself that. The only person you are fooling is yourself.

Quote
And, I can most certainly say that science is hopeless at replicating the mechanism for abiogenesis because only God has the intelligence and power to make such an event even occur.

Then you already have your answer and no matter how much investigation is done using the scientific method, no matter how much evidence is produced, no matter how much testing, verification or falsification is done, you will flatly deny that whatever the natural process is proposed to be, it'll be wrong because only god can know what it is. This completely misses the point that your god would have to use a natural process in order to cause a change in nature. By default, such a process has the potential to be investigated using the scientific method.

Really, why are you wasting your time, my time and everyone elses time on asking questions on evolution and abiogenesis when you already believe you have the "certain" answer? Such a conclusion is absurd and baseless. You, the soon to be rich and famous BibleStudent, has single handedly discovered a method which exhausts all possible natural explanations. I look forward to seeing Top Gear interrupted by the news of you and your discovery....

Quote
Which came first....RNA or DNA...or did they both come into existence at the same time?

Why don't you ask your god, because based on your beliefs, it is perfectly legitimate for him to create life using any hypothetical natural process we can come up with.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Seriously, how can you, with complete confidence, declare that not only will science discover an intelligent designer behind all life on earth, and also declare that you know who that designer already is and it is not Brahma? Where is your scientific research that demonstrates this information?

I do not recall ever stating that science would discover an intelligent designer. Instead, what I have said is that science could discover an intelligent designer.

Are you asking for scientific research that demonstrates that the intelligent designer is not Brahma? If so, I have already indicated that, if I recall correctly, Hinduism posits an eternal universe or a universe capable of collapsing and re-expanding. There is no scientific evidence to suggest this is possible. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests we live in a non-eternal universe.

We live on the only known habitable planet within an enormous universe. On our planet, we experience life which, from a biological standpoint, contains complex structures that bear the signature of an intelligent designer. Not only it is life, it is ‘conscious’ life. It seems to me that there is an element of irrational thought present in people who believe exclusively in a naturalistic explanation for the universal constants, the laws of nature, the incredible fine tuning of the universe, star formation, and complex biological structures. Then, on top of that, we have the various mathematical probabilities against naturalism, cause and effect, the laws of logic, and the existence of morality.

“The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” ? William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design

Offline Mrjason

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
  • Darwins +67/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member

“The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” ? William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design
This isn't an answer to a question, it's just personal incredulity.

As others have painstakingly explained, by following the evidence an alternative explanation can be found. evolution.
It may seem more complex than the creator myth but in reality it is the simpler explanation as it removes an unnecessary process. god.

Online wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2252
  • Darwins +89/-1
  • Gender: Male
Oh dear, have we not moved on from when this discussion started? We keep ending up with the same questions - sounds like deja vue to me!

Look, BS, for all your Demski crowd here's how it is -

1. The ID crowd say things 'appear' to be designed and then quickly run on to say they are. I am not so sure how we make that jump. Just because we cannot explain the evolution of this feature or the other today doesn't mean we won't find and naturalistic explanation following more research. In fact many of the structures identified as IR have already been shown not to be so - though you don't recognise that.

2. If we suppose that, today, we cannot explain a structure that Demski calls IR, how can we determine if it appears to be designed or actually is designed? Frankly, just looking at it is not going to help - we need more evidence. now that could come from finding the method by which the design was done or by locating the source of the design, the designer. In the absence of both of these, we have merely something that appears to be designed. Making that statement alone neither challenges evolution or negates it. All it does is to show that some people think it looks designed.

3. As far as the method is concerned, I think people would want to know whether the whole organism was designed, so that, in effect, all the species were individually designed and placed on earth complete, or if it was just a bit of tinkering as evolution progressed. I'm not sure how one might go about research like this but it is the obvious extension to the designer argument.

4. As far as the designer is concerned, I don't think we really ought to go about a search by started with a holy book and working forward. I think, to make sure it looks like science, one need to work backwards to spot what has been going on. the thing is, that evolution looks to explain so much, with the hope of more as more fossils are unearthed, that to doesn't look like it will be too easy a task. Who knows, though, maybe we can find a DNA sequence that spells out the name of the designer and how it did it.

Biblestudent, These are the knotty problems that remain with ID and for which, so far as I know, no work is being undertaken. I find it very strange that important work is ignored in favour of what is, in effect, publicity and promotion of the idea. Perhaps you would like to comment on that too.
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 median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1536
  • Darwins +156/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
This is precisely the point that you are missing once again. Mere arguments alone (or old books) are not sufficient to demonstrate claims of the supernatural or miraculous (and science has no way of evaluating the miraculous, so it should stay out of schools).

How do you know that science is incapable of discovering the supernatural or miraculous? Are you, median, the logical fallacy cop himself, making an argumentum ad ignorantiam?.  Is it not possible that the research behind IDT could discover something beyond nature?

Discover a detailed and sufficient evolutionary pathway for a system categorized as ‘irreducibly complex’ and you have falsified any hypothesis that it was intelligently designed. (frankly, I submit that this is MORE falsifiable than evolution via natural selection since we would have to conclude that there is no possible evolutionary pathway for a complex system before ID's competing claims could be falsified. Can you honestly ever envision science reaching the conclusion that there is no possible pathway?)

Theoretically there are at least two possible types of causes: mechanistic and intelligent. The demarcationist has yet to offer a noncircular reason for excluding the latter type.” Stephen C. Meyer  - Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Ignatius Press) November 13, 2005

Science only investigates the natural world (i.e. - in general, that which can be demonstrated). As Jaime noted, "the supernatural" is merely a term for ignorance and/or an excuse (just like when ancients thought lightening came from Zeus) and once something has been discovered it is no longer "super" natural. It is just natural. Secondly, your little scenario completely ignores both the distinction between IR and ID and the fact that these people continuously move the goals posts upon being shown in error (such as with the flagellum in the Dover trial). That is confirmation bias, not science.

Your quote from Stephen Meyer is a red herring because no one is specifically excluding a mere possibility. We are asking for evidence, not argument from ignorance fallacies like, "complexity! Complexity! COMPLEXITY! Therefore, design." Design is contrasted from nature and the mere assertion of IR is just another argument from ignorance fallacy. "It just couldn't have happened any other way! Therefore, design." These mere assertions of design in biological systems are putting the cart before the horse. You need mechanisms, pathways, evidence, actual clear cut demonstrations of the designers (like we have for buildings and cars). Since you have no examples of this Yahweh thing designing anything you have no data from which to reference "design" in bio systems. And on the contrary we DO have many examples of biological systems changing, rearranging, and introducing new information into the genome on their own. We have come upon the scene, discovering that cells divide on their own and that they can (and do) generate lots of diversity.

It's funny how Meyer finger points by using the term "demarcationist", implying that he is not one. LOL. So just like Behe, he (like you) want to make science and pseudo-science one and the same. Sorry, not gonna happen. FAIL. You don't get to change the standards of evidence just because of your pre-commitment to your theology. Lots of Christians agree with this standard too btw (such as Ken Miller at Brown University). Further, IR is not ID. It is only part of it. This is why we say it is not falsifiable. When one assumption of IR is asserted (and then refuted), ID proponents ignore the refutation and move onto something else they say shows ID - moving from thing to thing to avoid admitting refutation (i.e. - unfalsifiable just like astrologers), all while having ZERO actual evidence (just more claims). Sorry, that's not science.

Btw, have you read the "Wedge Strategy" from Phillip Johnson and the Discovery Institute? It was leaked early on and there are documents from the DI that were exposed as merely replacing terms like "creationism" with "Intelligent Design". Just Google "cdesign proponentsists".

ID is not science. Period. Plain and simple. It is an attempt by religious zealots to get creationism into schools through the backdoor.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/is-intelligent-design-falsifiable/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
« Last Edit: February 21, 2014, 02:56:02 PM by median »
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Ataraxia

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Darwins +65/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Intelligent Design Theory takes no position whatsoever on whether the "intelligence" is supernatural or not.

“The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” ? William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design

Hoisted by your own petard. Thanks for clearly exposing your dishonesty.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4275
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
We live on the only known habitable planet within an enormous universe.
With all due respect, this is because our knowledge about the universe is so sharply limited.  We only started discovering actual exoplanets about two decades ago, so saying that Earth is the only known habitable planet in the universe doesn't mean a whole lot.  For that matter, we only started being able to pick up information about the atmospheric content of exoplanets about a decade ago.  It's still very early to say we really know anything as far as exoplanets go.  So saying that this is the only known habitable planet isn't really meaningful, considering how little we know.

Quote from: BibleStudent
On our planet, we experience life which, from a biological standpoint, contains complex structures that bear the signature of an intelligent designer.
And how do those complex structures bear the signatures of an intelligent designer?  You surely cannot mean that complexity itself represents intelligent design.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Not only it is life, it is ‘conscious’ life.
We don't even know how common life is in the universe, let alone conscious life.  So there is simply no way to tell if the presence of conscious life here means anything special or not. 

Quote from: BibleStudent
It seems to me that there is an element of irrational thought present in people who believe exclusively in a naturalistic explanation for the universal constants, the laws of nature, the incredible fine tuning of the universe, star formation, and complex biological structures.
Skepticism of supernatural explanations is not the same as exclusive belief in a naturalistic explanation.  The reason people look for natural explanations using science is because we don't have the first idea of how to identify and verify a supernatural one.  Indeed, the mere fact of it being supernatural would prevent it from being understood or analyzed by science.  Basically, unless someone can propose an actual method for finding something, then there's no way to tell if it even exists.  Like the Higgs boson; until someone figured out how to actually find it, it was purely hypothetical.  Scientists had no way to identify what properties it had and thus no way to effectively look for it.

This is where you're stuck at with intelligent design.  You haven't given us any way to effectively identify the properties of something that was designed, let alone what designed it, and so we have little choice but to keep asking you to identify the properties we should be looking for.  And you keep failing to give them to us.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Then, on top of that, we have the various mathematical probabilities against naturalism, cause and effect, the laws of logic, and the existence of morality.
You can't evaluate the probability of something that has already occurred or already exists.  So, since naturalism, cause and effect, logic, and morality already exist, it is impossible to determine what the original odds for or against them were.
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Offline shnozzola

We live on the only known habitable planet within an enormous universe.

Bible Student,
      As Jaimehlers says, " With all due respect, this is because our knowledge about the universe is so sharply limited."

      In November, as you probably remember, science made some discoveries that mean there may be billions of earth like planets just in our galaxy alone. 

                                           http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science-july-dec13-planets_11-05/

And you also probably remember that the Hubble telescope focused on a dime sized section of dark space, and counted 1500 galaxies.

                                          http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1996/01/

If in the future we would find that life - bacteria, protozoa, amoeba-like life - is common throughout the universe, would that affect your belief in the possibility of abiogenesis?
The irony is with freewill.  Atheism realizes we don't have it, while the fundamentals of theism demand it but don't want it.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Can chance account for the origin of life? No.

Can some type of chemical attraction account for the origin of life? No

Is it possible that natural selection played a role in the origin of life? No

Is it possible that there is perhaps a natural law or a natural phenomenon that we just haven’t discovered yet? Not likely. Natural laws are usually discovered AFTER a thought experiment is conceived and not as the unexpected result of experimentation….and, at present, there are no suspected natural laws that may help to explain a naturalistic origin of life.

The options for a naturalistic origin are virtually non-existent at this point and instead of the scientific community coming together to examine the design inference, we find instead that  intelligent design is ostracized because of a dogmatic ‘methodological naturalism’ born out of  some poorly conceived demarcation in an attempt to support a worldview rather than embrace the inquisitive and exploratory nature of science.

Despite the fact that IDT makes use of the scientific method, we have the non-theist community (both scientists and non-scientists) creating ad hoc rules and criteria in an attempt to keep the ID kids from getting to play in the ToE’s backyard  because the ToE kids don’t want their worldview coming under attack.

Fortunately, IDT has already established enough evidence to demonstrate that an “intelligence” is a plausible cause for the origin of life. Many see that, others continue to reject it. IDT is really not that difficult to understand once you digest all of the definitions, the purpose, and the nature of the research. Arguing that it is "creationism in disguise" is a straw man. The merits of any theory should always be based on the validity of the evidence it produces.

Setting aside the argument about whether it has any scientific validity, ask yourself this: Do the complex biological stuctures we observe support the design inference made by IDT? Do the structures contain the type of information we always associate with an intelligent source? Is it possible that science may never discover the pathways necessary for the construction of the complex structures?

Answering yes to any or all of these questions does not mean that you have crossed over from non-theism to theism. It simply means you understand what IDT means and why it offers another plausible view of how we got here.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Intelligent Design Theory takes no position whatsoever on whether the "intelligence" is supernatural or not.

“The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” ? William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design

Hoisted by your own petard. Thanks for clearly exposing your dishonesty.

Are you posting your comments from Uranus? Dembski is not necessarily committing himslef to 'supernatural' causes. He is simply stating that "undirected" natural causes cannot explain some of the complex features we observe. Did you consider the possibility that since ID does not posit a designer, he is acknowledging the possibility of a natural intelligence as well as a supernatural one? Your tunnel vision has backed you into a corner on more than one occasion in this thread.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4275
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Can chance account for the origin of life? No.
Why not?  You just state the answer is no, without giving any reasons.  Are we simply supposed to take your word for it?

Quote from: BibleStudent
Can some type of chemical attraction account for the origin of life? No
Again, why not?  Why just the blatant answer "no" with no reasoning to back it up?

Quote from: BibleStudent
Is it possible that natural selection played a role in the origin of life? No
You need to support statements like this.  It takes more than just you saying that something is not possible or that it could not have accounted for something else.

In this specific case, you are correct, but it is because natural selection pretty much requires an existing biosphere.  Before the origin of life, Earth could have had no biosphere and thus no natural selection was realistically possible.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Is it possible that there is perhaps a natural law or a natural phenomenon that we just haven’t discovered yet? Not likely. Natural laws are usually discovered AFTER a thought experiment is conceived and not as the unexpected result of experimentation….and, at present, there are no suspected natural laws that may help to explain a naturalistic origin of life.
This disregards the fact that we already know that biological organisms are governed by chemical reactions.  Indeed, life would not be possible without those chemical reactions.  Therefore, we already know of a natural phenomenon that can account for the origin of life, chemical reactions, and this whole point is moot.  Or perhaps you meant "chemical reactions" above, instead of chemical attractions?  Regardless, your declaration that it is not possible says nothing because you do not support it at all.

Quote from: BibleStudent
The options for a naturalistic origin are virtually non-existent at this point and instead of the scientific community coming together to examine the design inference, we find instead that  intelligent design is ostracized because of a dogmatic ‘methodological naturalism’ born out of  some poorly conceived demarcation in an attempt to support a worldview rather than embrace the inquisitive and exploratory nature of science.
The only thing "virtually non-existent" right now is your reasoning to justify excluding chance and chemical reactions from being involved with the origins of life, and thus claiming that "intelligent design" is the only possible explanation left.  However, intelligent design as an explanation for the origins of life is lethally flawed.  If the intelligent designer was a biological organism, then it must have come about by some means, except that you have arbitrarily disallowed the only means we know of to explain it and are violating Occam's razor on top of that (since you are unnecessarily increasing the complexity of the explanation for no good reason).  So the only option left is a non-biological organism of some kind.  Yet we've never found evidence of any non-biological organisms to begin with.  Without that evidence, there's no good reason to infer a non-biological designer of any kind.  Furthermore, we have found no solid evidence of design in any biological organism.

Therefore, intelligent design cannot adequately explain the origins of life on Earth as it stands.  As you have clearly demonstrated here, it is based on pure inference, that a designer must have existed because the natural means for how life could have originated were arbitrarily excluded from consideration.  And that does not fly.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Despite the fact that IDT makes use of the scientific method, we have the non-theist community (both scientists and non-scientists) creating ad hoc rules and criteria in an attempt to keep the ID kids from getting to play in the ToE’s backyard  because the ToE kids don’t want their worldview coming under attack.
The scientific method requires experimentation in order to back up a hypothesis.  Where are all the experiments that were done to establish that intelligent design has validity?  If you cannot point to any, claiming that it makes use of the scientific method is simply wrong.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Fortunately, IDT has already established enough evidence to demonstrate that an “intelligence” is a plausible cause for the origin of life. Many see that, others continue to reject it. IDT is really not that difficult to understand once you digest all of the definitions, the purpose, and the nature of the research. Arguing that it is "creationism in disguise" is a straw man. The merits of any theory should always be based on the validity of the evidence it produces.
What evidence?  Don't just tell us that it's established enough evidence - you have to give examples of it.  Simply making a claim and not backing it up does not fly.  Furthermore, it takes more than simply showing that something is plausible.  It takes evidence showing that it actually happened.

And, incidentally, intelligent design actually is creationism dressed up in a lab coat.  Despite your attempt to dismiss it as a straw man (which you did not support, like everything else in this post), the fact of the matter is that you have provided no actual evidence to support the existence of any designer, and due to your beliefs, have effectively ruled out the possibility of providing evidence because the designer you believe in is supernatural and thus not part of nature.  And virtually all of the major supporters of intelligent design are Christians who consistently state that their god is the designer.  It is reasonable to conclude that intelligent design is simply a secularized variation on creationism, a way to try to make it seem scientific enough to bypass skepticism.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Setting aside the argument about whether it has any scientific validity, ask yourself this: Do the complex biological stuctures we observe support the design inference made by IDT? Do the structures contain the type of information we always associate with an intelligent source? Is it possible that science may never discover the pathways necessary for the construction of the complex structures?

Answering yes to any or all of these questions does not mean that you have crossed over from non-theism to theism. It simply means you understand what IDT means and why it offers another plausible view of how we got here.
What you totally fail to understand is that the answer to all three of your questions is "it's possible".  There is no reason to conclude that the inference of design represents actual design; it's possible but the likelihood cannot even be evaluated without substantiating evidence.  There is no reason to conclude that because someone draws an association between biological information and intelligence, that an intelligence was actually responsible for creating that biological information; again, the likelihood cannot be evaluated without substantiating evidence.  And finally, while it certainly is possible that we may never discover how biological structures came about, there is no reason to conclude that we will not because we've only barely started looking.  Indeed, if we never discover any evidence to help explain how biological structures came about, then all it actually means is that we didn't find the evidence.  Trying to draw a firm conclusion without evidence is effectively impossible.

But all this begs the question of why you're trying to lay the groundwork for treating intelligent design as a scientific theory despite not having any supporting evidence, even though scientific theories require evidence (and lots of it).  If you're going to try to treat intelligent design as a scientific theory, then it must be held to the same standard as every other scientific theory, and that means supporting it with solid evidence.
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Darwins +65/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Intelligent Design Theory takes no position whatsoever on whether the "intelligence" is supernatural or not.

“The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” ? William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design

Hoisted by your own petard. Thanks for clearly exposing your dishonesty.

Are you posting your comments from Uranus?

No. Did this god ruin yours when he put teeth in it?

Quote
Dembski is not necessarily committing himslef to 'supernatural' causes. He is simply stating that "undirected" natural causes cannot explain some of the complex features we observe. Did you consider the possibility that since ID does not posit a designer, he is acknowledging the possibility of a natural intelligence as well as a supernatural one? Your tunnel vision has backed you into a corner on more than one occasion in this thread.

These natural forces/causes include natural intelligence and therefore he is stating that any natural intelligence also requires guidance/direction. This guidance cannot be natural - it has to be outside it to not be circular. Dembski knows this and I don't believe you don't know this.

If you seriously think ID has no bearing on a natural or supernatural intelligent designer, then the argument doesn't move you any closer to, or any further from, god. If I can just as easily use it as an argument for a natural intelligent designer, then to use it as an argument for god is to use it as an excuse to confirm your bias.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire