Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design and the intelligence hypothesis
Theus
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 109 (238332)
08-29-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Evopeach
08-11-2005 11:12 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
You people have seen your apex ... its all downhill from here.
- Evopeach
Perhaps true. But our downfall will be everyone's in time. Did the Greeks really win any victory by silencing Socrates with Hemlock Tea? Books don't have to be burned to be destroyed.
If it comes to standing beside a night janitor who takes seriously the fundamental elements of scientific theory and a loud, heavily funded demagogue who shouts others down, then give me my flashlight.
Do svidania,
Theus

Veri Omni Veritas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 11:12 AM Evopeach has not replied

  
eevans
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 109 (281876)
01-26-2006 11:49 PM


Intelligent Design Video
Greetings all,
I would like to compliment the posts offered up thus far regarding origins. Far too many forums concerned with similar topics are much less civil and fair minded. As a lay enthusiaste of the origins debate, I submit the following video created by Illustra Media. It contains some high level (relatively general, yet interesting) material on the Intelligent Design movement. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.
part1
http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.aspx?assetId=2536&f...
part2
http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.aspx?assetId=2538&f...

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by AdminWounded, posted 01-27-2006 8:32 AM eevans has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 109 (281939)
01-27-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by eevans
01-26-2006 11:49 PM


Re: Intelligent Design Video
Dear eevans,
You have already posted this material on other threads and been informed that it is inappropriate.
The only place on this forum for a post like this is the Links and Information forum.
If you continue to merely spam threads with these posts you will find yourself banned.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by eevans, posted 01-26-2006 11:49 PM eevans has not replied

  
HellboundGreaser
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 109 (354244)
10-04-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Omnivorous
07-25-2005 9:10 PM


Re: Desginer of the designer
There is no "ID theory" Most people have no idea how over the top it is for the ID essayists to claim that they have come up with a scientific theory to compete with evolutionary theory. This is because, for the general public, the word theory generally means just any old idea that happens to pop into somebody’s head. An actual scientific theory, however, such as the modern synthetic theory of evolution or the modern atomic theory, etc., is a great overarching explanation for a virtual infinity of phenomena (this gives it actual content)”one with overwhelming evidence in support, profound explanatory power, and which has been accepted by 99+ of the international scientific community. Most people tend to think of the word “theory” as meaning pretty much the same thing as their concept of “hypothesis””namely, a guess or surmise. A “theory” is thought of as a very tentative proposition. This is only natural, because that is the “ordinary English” meaning of the word outside of scientific contexts, and our citizens’ educational experiences have rarely done anything to disabuse them of this notion. As I define “scientific theory,” it is a great, overarching, explanatory scheme which explains a vast number of phenomena; which makes connections between phenomena that would otherwise be perceived as having nothing to do with each other; which makes wild, off-the-wall predictions which nonetheless turn out as forecast; which is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence and has been tested countless times in countless ways without being falsified; shows consilience to a truly remarkable extent; and which is, for all practical purposes, universally accepted by the scientific community. A scientific theory has content, in spades. By this definition (and powerful arguments can be made against any other) there are only about a dozen scientific theories that I can think of right off the bat, and no scientific theories have ever existed which are not currently accepted. Examples would be the modern atomic theory, theory of plate tectonics, Einstein's theories of relativity, the microbe theory of disease, the heliocentric theory, the modern synthetic theory of evolution, the gene/chromosome/DNA/RNA theory of inheritance/protein synthesis.
Just because even some scientists may, on occasion, be careless or unthinking in the use of the word “theory,” is no argument for supposing that the word, in a scientific context, is to be taken to mean an untested, particularly questionable proposition. It would be helpful if someone could come up with an alternative term for scientific theory as I have defined it”a term to be used for that concept alone. Perhaps a word based on Latin or Greek could be manufactured or maybe one already exists in some foreign language and could be adopted into English. There is no such thing as "ID theory."
Edited by HellboundGreaser, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Omnivorous, posted 07-25-2005 9:10 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024