Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

I have done so.

You guess that I am "to afraid" to do what I have in fact been doing?Well, I guess that that's consistent with what we know of your powers of reasoning.

Wait, you're Robert Byers?

Theodoric writes:Are there rules about posting under multiple ID's? I think it is very dishonest whne people change there ID's willy nilly without informing people.

Ive set out an argument which states that creationism cannot fail because it is based in the observation of order, law and purpose in the reality of the natural world.

Creationism is explanatory. It can accommodate all the results of evolution and more. In particular, it can also explain the results of a designer.

Accommodation is very different from explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way and not another. A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities. Accommodating all possibilities also makes a theory exactly useless. Since creationism accommodates all possibilities, it is not explanatory.

Intelligent design theory is science.

1. The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is.A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense.Irreducible complexity also fails as science because it, too, is an argument from incredulity that has nothing to do with design.2. Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski's mathematically intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity can be determined after the fact, making "specification" a subjective concept. Dembski now talks of "apparent specified complexity" versus "actual specified complexity," of which only the latter indicates design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in principle (Elsberry n.d.).3. Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity, which implies that spiders are intelligent. One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition.4. The intelligent design movement is not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, who spearheaded and led the movement, said in so many words that it is about religion and philosophy, not science (Belz 1996).

Dr. A was just having a little fun. I see no reason to believe that Robert and Dawn are the same person. They seem to be wrong in very distinct ways.

Well creationist claims fail allot when you compare them to reality
here you have a list of creationist claims and their rebuttals id copy paste the list but its way to long.

An Index to Creationist Claimsona quick look my favoriteCreationism is explanatory. It can accommodate all the results of evolution and more. In particular, it can also explain the results of a designer.

1. The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design."

A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense.

Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski's mathematically intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity can be determined after the fact, making "specification" a subjective concept. Dembski now talks of "apparent specified complexity" versus "actual specified complexity," of which only the latter indicates design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in principle (Elsberry n.d.).

Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense.

One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition.

If you still wish to understand this explanation (and I see no evidence that you have ever wished to understand anything) then I suggest that you re-read the threads in which your stupid blunders were pointed out to you, rather than spamming this thread with the same old crap.

Ive set out an argument which states that creationism cannot fail because it is based in the observation of order, law and purpose in the reality of the natural world.

How can a member spam a thread that is on topic?

I tell you what, when I see the argument that is so convincing that it cannot be denied, Ill quit or switch sides.

You are an arrogant one, I sware

Dawn Bertot writes:Creationism has nothing to do with the specifics of any religion.

Dawn Bertot writes:Now I can only know this by applying scientific methods and rules to that reality, hence ID or creationism is as much a scientific method as anyother and it serves a definate SECULAR purposeUnless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwise

For the purposes of this discussion, Creationism means creation of life, the universe and everything per religious teachings. If you don't believe that, I recommend reading the opening post before further participating in this thread.

Besides, haven't you abandoned every thread where ID is on topic? Why would anyone want to join you in yet another such thread?

The topic is actually "Creationism is science classrooms" not "The same old dreary nonsense Dawn's spewed out to no purpose on innumerable threads already".

I tell you what, when I see the argument that is so convincing that it cannot be denied, Ill quit or switch sides.

No you won't.
You won't understand it.

Thinking that I know better than you is not arrogance, it's basic self-respect, on a par with thinking that I'm more moral than Hitler and better looking than the Elephant Man.