|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
What's all this trash about astrology being immune to scientific inquiry? Astrology is simple enough to test: get a list of predictions and see how accurate they are. Duh! I'd say it's been done, but I'm not going to go chasing sources. The results don't matter one bit. What matters is that it can be tested.
And this is all just nonsense. Trying to build an association between ID and astrology, but it fails. Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis, which is "supposed" to be a separate issue. Looks like these two "separate" issues are siamese twins. They're joined at the head and the heart, and if one dies the other can't last. Separate issues? What a joke! Only separate when it suits the hypocrites' argument from what I've seen. But all part of the same fairy tale. I really should look this up. It can't be new. There's got to be a term somewhere. Essentially what we have is an attempt to ad hom against astrology as an attack on ID. It's not a straw man, because there actually is astrology. I don't know what to call this junk. Anybody?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
If astrology weren't subject to scientific investigation, the lawyer might have had a point. As it has been investigated scientifically, it must be considered an hypothesis by any honest person.
Now I'm guessing folks are just parroting this deceitful lawyer, instead of thinking for themselves here. Otherwise the only consistent course of action would be to bar any mention of any scientific hypothesis which failed to measure up when tested. And I know for dead certain that ain't what you all want. Of course I don't assume you want to be consistent. And as for ID vs. evolution, the only way you get that is to misconstrue what ID is about. It isn't about the view of any individual. It's about the one thing they all agree on: life clearly exhibits all the traits of things that only arise by intelligent design, and should therefore be classified as one of these things. They do not agree on what form(s) of life were originally created, or when it took place. If they were required to agree on any individual's ideas, they'd never have formed as a group. I spent some time reading their forums, and to say they agree on religion or timetables is totally wrong. Neither do they agree on how much postcreation involvement the creating intelligence had with life. To say ID is defined by the beliefs of any individual member's beliefs is no better than saying evolutionism is defined by the beliefs of one of their counterparts. Oh yes! And since it's an evolutionist picking which IDer's ideas define ID, it's only fair that an IDer choose which evolutionist's ideas will represent the beliefs of all evolutionists. That's how these games work. Care to play? Of course there's a great fear of ID in evolutionist circles. It's be tough to find a TE who wouldn't fit in with them, and losing the support of the TE's would really hurt. So evolutionists are in a bad position. People aren't ions, but polarity is polarity. You can only fight it so long. Final word: It's not hard to find individual IDer's who are willing to accept non-science or even things that have been conclusively proven wrong. Many of them accept Old Earth stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: Thanks for the sample of lame hype. There's no requirement to teach all theories in science classes. Even if such a requirement arose, persons not unlike that lawyer would ensure selective enforcement. Neither was it ever said that astrology is "as valid as ID". All that was said is that astrology is a "theory". Astrology can be and has been examined scientifically, and it most certainly is an hypothesis. It'd serve you right if they chose Chas. Darwin's definition of "theory". He was a pioneer in the field of obfuscation. Speaking of obfuscation, still no term for the technique in question. Doesn't anyone take any pride in the craft they practice? If y'all're going to employ these things, learn their names fer cryin' out loud. I know if logical fallacies were my life's passion I'd take the time. That & a little money might land you a sweet gig workin' the courtrooms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: Can astrology be stated as a valid hypothesis and tested using scientific methods? Yes. Michael Behe didn't lie. So who was it provided the obviously erroneous extrapolation that all falsified scientific theories must be taught in the classroom as 'science'? And what adjectives are appropriately applied to such persons?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
CTD left one out: Who feels compelled to misunderstand these things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: Some might make such claims for the sake of fearmongering or in jest. We all know better. You provide much of the solution yourself.
quote: Experiment - checkObservation - check analysis - check replication - unsure off the top of my head. Certainly wouldn't be difficult. consensus building - surely you jest! Or not. This is the typical double-standard. If consensus building is a requirement of theories, there can be no new theories. It's never been a requirement of a theory in the past that it must become the most popular hypothesis. This would just turn everything over to the pollsters. Darwin, when he introduced his "theory" (his term) had none of the ingredients you mentioned for a theory. But I doubt I'll see the day when any evolutionist admits it should have been rejected until it obtained them. I get a chuckle thinking about the standard you suggest for an hypothesis you dislike. How many other things we need to forbid mention of:White holes Dinosaurs always were birds already Big Bang would have to choose a version - the popular one, or the one the pros use. Euclidean space is incompatible with Einstein's relativity (at least that's the popular consensus). If you forbid it, there's geometry, drafting, and a whole lot of other subjects get gutted. I could go on quite a while. But even throwing out that which has been falsified is too much for your side. Vestigial organs - gone! Horse ancestors - gone! False mutation stories - gone! In fact, you all might not have much left at all if it were done half honestly. And what odd classrooms we'd have then: biology students learning biology without wasting half their time on make-believe stories. I'm sure that's enough to make the informed evolutionist shudder. Now just for fun, anyone wanting to score points with me is welcome to provide a link to any successful test of "Natural Selection". Shoot, I'll settle for more unsuccessful tests. I have a book which lists some failures, but it's kind of old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: It looks like I chose my words in a less than optimal manner. In the context of the mythical strict "evolution" which doesn't include abiogenesis, the essential conclusion of ID does not conflict. Naturally, when it comes to Orthodox Evolutionism and ID, the two are very much opposed and will remain so. There have even been evolutionists who proposed evolution without a single common ancestor, so taking things that direction is fruitless. It is still a fact that there are IDers who believe in macroevolution. Celebrate this while you can before they are exposed to science and become more educated. As long as I'm clarifying, I'll point out that I never excluded anyone from ID. I said that most TE's would fit better in that party than they fit in their present party. That's inclusionary - not exclusionary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: This strongly implies that most, if not all IDers accept some form of evolution. We seem to be in agreement. There is absolute agreement within ID that some intelligent being designed life initially. That they disagree on later events says nothing about the validity of the one thing they all agree upon. But that's where their opposition has chosen to focus arguments. In order to defeat them, attacking their common conclusion would be in order. Since no such attack has a chance to succeed, stalling tactics have been employed. Conflicts aren't often won by stalling. A genuine offensive is typically required. I guess we'll see if this is an exception.
quote: I was talking about testing it in the scientific sense: make predictions and see how they compare to results. Natural selection has failed such tests in the past, and I'm curious if any such tests have ever been successful for the concept. Generally it's applied as a device to explain known results. It appears to work in the past tense, but fail when it's used in the future tense. I think most astrologers could manage as much, given the opportunity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: It conflicts with some varieties, and is compatible with others. And it's the opinion of one individual. Has any ID group attempted to have it implemented on any official basis? If so, were they successful? Is this about double standards? Am I allowed to define "evolution" by quoting the evolutionist of my choice?
quote: I disagree. And I wonder how anyone would get that impression. ID is very broad, and has the potential to encompass anyone who doesn't think it's proper to state as if it were fact "no intelligent being had anything to do with the origin of life". It baffles me that so many ID people can see so few flaws in evolutionism. I would expect that when a person starts to see errors they'd be alerted to watch for more faults. I actually kind of like the definition of ID as most evolutionists use it in practice: anyone who believes anything that casts doubt on any aspect of Orthodox Evolutionism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: Same applies to the "non-science" of gravity.And what holds the nucleus of an atom together? If you want to play the game of 3-year-olds, and keep asking "why" long enough, you can break down any science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: I most certainly am not. I consistently referred to astrology as an hypothesis - never a theory. Now Behe's definition is different. If he were to exclude every hypothesis that has failed and every theory that hasn't been stated as a testable hypothesis, he'd have to throw out all versions of macroevolution and big bangs. That'd never fly with anyone except some creationists. He defined the word just as it is currently used. He's not the one who started abusing the word - he's merely acknowledging its abuse. Now how about you coming up with a definition that excludes the failed hypotheses you dislike, but includes the ones you like? And none of this has any real bearing. It's perfectly proper for biology classes to teach Spontaneous Generation hypotheses - the only bad part would be if they teach that it is true. Just how uneducated should people be when they graduate the type of school you advocate? 20 years of the Trixie/RickJB curriculum is far worse than any of the zany junk mentioned thus far for ID. Can't teach failed hypotheses & how they failed. Can't teach anything unless you can answer why it's that way. I guess that leaves recess. No gym class - just recess. But it's not hard to see the nonsense fantasies written elsewhere in this thread for what they are. Children who are taught about both evolutionism and creation science have always scored higher on tests than those who only receive the religious indoctrination of evolutionists. The results of those experiments are in. Nobody has yet provided any reason to doubt that this would be the case with ID. I'm glad I don't belong to a religion which strictly forbids one to learn the lessons of history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: How does gravity do what it does?
quote: How does it work? You made up this standard. The game can go on and on. I'm surprised you can't even see one move ahead in such a simple game. Had I asked "what is the strong nuclear force?", you'd have to give me a circular answer - or just invent some new fantasy. Even in math there are axioms/assumptions which must be made. And there are unanswered questions in all fields.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: I must assume you're either kidding or just being contrary. There's been plenty of work done verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity. If evolutionists were true to their beliefs, I don't understand why they do some of the things they do. Upon buying a toy or piece of furniture which requires assembly, why do they not place it in the back yard and let it assemble itself? Heck, the design phase is already done, and the manufacturing as well - random forces should be able to at least finish the job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: Hmm... For my own personal curiosity, I requested examples of "Natural Selection" being tested. Instead, we get "predictions of ToE". As this is off-topic, I think it might be best to drop it. Neither is it true that I am unable to provide an ID hypothesis. It has not been asked of me, and for three reasons I do not intend to provide one.1.) It's another person's challenge, and as I haven't carefully read every post there's a fair chance it's been met and ignored. 2.) I'm lazy 3.) The post I reply to attempts to make me look bad for not meeting this challenge, when it was never mine to begin with. For future reference, this is not a good way to overcome reason #2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: That's using environmental manipulation as a means to achieve artificial selection. (And I doubt very much that the term "mutation" was accurately applied. Looks to me more like the work of some other source of genetic diversity.) People didn't used to have a problem with this. In the past, evolutionists would venture forth into nature, observe lifeforms, and predict which ones would succeed. Maybe they've given up on such a scientific approach these days? It's far easier to just accept axioms. Then again, such tests may yet be taking place. I shouldn't expect any evolutionist to be in a hurry to report the results if they match those of the past. Can we drop this now? It's O.T. and nobody's demonstrating an impressive understanding of how to test the predictive capacity of "Natural Selection" scientifically.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024