Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 136 of 152 (415240)
08-08-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by ICANT
08-08-2007 10:10 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
I know there are a lot of things that are taught in the science classroom by teachers that are not scientist that is not a fact of science. But is taught as if it was a proven tested scientific fact.
Really. And your evidence is?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 10:10 PM ICANT has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 137 of 152 (415271)
08-09-2007 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by ICANT
08-08-2007 10:10 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
ICANT writes:
I know there are a lot of things that are taught in the science classroom by teachers that are not scientist that is not a fact of science. But is taught as if it was a proven tested scientific fact.
We're drifting off-topic now, but I share Jar's curiosity about what that might be. We evolutionists take issue with Behe for advocating the teaching of ideas that lack acceptance within the scientific community, and that's true regardless of the nature of the idea. I am as against including ID in education as I am against including ESP, alien visitations and homeopathy. As an advocate of excellence in science education I would be far more upset than you to learn of unsupported ideas being taught in science class. There are many, many likeminded people out there, and it seems unlikely that unsupported science could be taught to any significant degree without coming to our attention, and that is so egregious that even evangelical pastors with little science background notice it.
I have to also note that your point is the same type of fallacy that NJ keeps introducing, the "Oh yeah, well you're doing it, too!" fallacy. First, you're obviously implying that the science community is responsible for promoting these false ideas in education. Ask yourself if that makes sense, scientists promoting the teaching of non-science.
And second, you're asking how we could possibly object to an unsupported idea like ID being taught when so many other unsupported ideas are already being taught. But if science education is really so screwed up, the solution is not screwing it up further. The solution is to rout out what isn't science from the curriculum.
The source of the complaint must also be considered. Scientists in general and even many lay people bemoan the sad state of science education in this country, while you're a member of the group that is the single largest force for poor science education, so this makes you an unlikely source of accurate information about the quality of science education.
So please support your statement and let us know what is being taught in science class today that is as lacking in support as ID. I expect that this is just your "singularity and abiogenesis" point again, in which case you really have no point at all, since creationist objections to these ideas have no scientific basis whatsoever, plus we've already touched on this in this thread and didn't pursue it because it is off-topic. If this is what you're talking about and you really think these ideas lack scientific support then open threads to discuss them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 10:10 PM ICANT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 138 of 152 (415312)
08-09-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
08-08-2007 11:17 AM


Re: ID in Rhythm
quote:
You did not deny that a monopoly exists. But lets face the truth, either you are in the brotherhood or you are on the outside. To be in the brotherhood you are not allowed to speak against what the brotherhood believes to be the truth.
That is so not true!
Science is an extremely competitive and contentious profession. Graduate school and dissertation defense is brutal, peer-review is harsh, standing up and giving a presentation at a conference means that anyone present can, and is expected to grill you mercilessly.
Thin-skinned people who get upset when their work is criticized and picked apart shouldn't even attempt the field.
The most famous scientists are those who have challenged the prevailing ideas of the time in their fields; Gould and Eldredge and Einstein, for example. Scientists who overlook flaws in their peers' or their own research out of some desire to "not rock the boat" or something would be considered strange indeed and certainly wouldn't have a successful career.
Now, what will be ignored and rejected by the scientific community is ideas which are put forth as scientific but are not actually scientific.
But this is not even relevant to the DI people, including Behe, since none of them have never submitted any research papers to any peer reviewed journal to be considered for publication.
It is a bit rich to accuse the "brotherhood" of scientists of not allowing Behe and other DI folks a place at the table when they don't even show up for dinner.
quote:
Neither does a lot of the notions and beliefs of a lot of other scientist (which becomes their religion) that are being taught in the science classroom as a fact of science.
Such as?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 11:17 AM ICANT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 139 of 152 (415315)
08-09-2007 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
08-08-2007 6:52 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
quote:
Atheism IMHO is a religion full grown except for admitting it and petitioning the government for religious status.
What are the religious tenets of Atheism?
Is the absence of belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn a religion too?
What about the lack of belief in Santa Claus?
The Boogey Man?
You and I both must actually adhere to, literally, millions of religions since we also lack belief in, literally, millions and millions of supernatural entities.
PS I suggest learning a bit more about what Atheism actually is before making such asinine proclamations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 6:52 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 1:53 PM nator has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 140 of 152 (415323)
08-09-2007 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by nator
08-09-2007 12:42 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
I've watched some programmes that seem to show that there is a branch of atheism that is considered a strong ideology that determinedly rejects the existence of God, by trying to reason that he is not there, and posit that this conclusion can be reached objectively.
Dawkins seems almost religious in his atheism, for one. Trying to use science to support it.
These type of atheists, to me, have a dogmatic agenda and can therefore be regarded as fundamentalists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by nator, posted 08-09-2007 12:42 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 2:38 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 146 by nator, posted 08-09-2007 8:10 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 147 by Rahvin, posted 08-09-2007 9:27 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 141 of 152 (415330)
08-09-2007 2:20 PM


Topic Reminder
ICANT's digressive declarations that atheism is a religion are probably off-topic, unless they can somehow be used as rebuttal against the characterizations of Behe as misrepresenting among the lay public ID's degree of acceptance within the scientific community.
--Percy

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 142 of 152 (415337)
08-09-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 1:53 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
Dawkins seems almost religious in his atheism, for one. Trying to use science to support it.
Contradiction in terms, then. Using evidence to support belief is not, typically, a feature of religion. If Dawkins uses evidence to support his contentions, then clearly he's not engaged in an act of religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 1:53 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 3:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 143 of 152 (415340)
08-09-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by crashfrog
08-09-2007 2:38 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
He mis-uses his scientific knowledge, to pretend it somehow supports atheism when it doesn't.
I refer to him being religious, because his dogma is that God doesn't exist.
JUST NOTICED PERCY'S WARNING. RESPOND AT YOUR PERIL YOUNG CRASH.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 2:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by mark24, posted 08-09-2007 3:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 144 of 152 (415341)
08-09-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 3:04 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
mike the wiz,
I refer to him being religious, because his dogma is that God doesn't exist.
He is on record as saying he would change his mind if quality evidence became available, ergo he isn't a fundamentalist, as you say, that positively asserts that no god(s) exist.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 3:04 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 145 of 152 (415352)
08-09-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by ICANT
08-08-2007 10:10 PM


off-topic request
Just a quick request, ICANT.
The plural for scientist is formed by adding an s, like so:

scientists

People in some regions of the US do compromise the last sts when speaking. But it's no great trouble to spell the plural correctly when writing. It helps make your meaning clear.
When you discuss science classrooms and use the word 'scientist' (singular) I instantly take this to mean the teacher of the class. But that's rarely what you mean. You more often mean a viewpoint maintained by scientists generally, but it takes a moment for me to figure this out.
We see all kinds of writing here, to be sure, and I know I can be a one-man typo manufacturing plant. But would you mind very much?
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair!

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 10:10 PM ICANT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 146 of 152 (415379)
08-09-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 1:53 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
quote:
I've watched some programmes that seem to show that there is a branch of atheism that is considered a strong ideology that determinedly rejects the existence of God, by trying to reason that he is not there, and posit that this conclusion can be reached objectively.
So, if someone determinedly rejects the existence of Santa Claus, by trying to reason that he is not there, and posits that this conclusion can be reached objectively, should they be regarded as a fundamentalist? A religious fundamentalist, in particular?
The word religious is importnt, since that's what ICANT is claiming Atheism is.
What are the religious tenets of Atheism, mike?
Is disbelief in Santa Claus a religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 1:53 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 9:46 PM nator has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 147 of 152 (415390)
08-09-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 1:53 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
I've watched some programmes that seem to show that there is a branch of atheism that is considered a strong ideology that determinedly rejects the existence of God, by trying to reason that he is not there, and posit that this conclusion can be reached objectively.
Dawkins seems almost religious in his atheism, for one. Trying to use science to support it.
These type of atheists, to me, have a dogmatic agenda and can therefore be regarded as fundamentalists.
Calling Atheism a religion is exactly like calling darkness a wavelength of light. Atheism is the absence of belief, exactly as darkness is the absence of light.
When Dawkins "uses science to support Atheism," all he's really doing is saying "some religions have made specific claims. These claims are provably false (the Flood, 6-day Creation, etc)." It's like using science to prove that Santa cannot possibly visit every child's home in a single night.
It's not a religion, Mike. It's calling someone on their bullshit. That he approaches the pursuit of truth with a zeal that reminds you of people with religious beliefs is irrelevant - the degree of energy one puts into ones argument has nothing to do with defining a religion. If that were so, both sides of every serious argument would have to be defined as religions. Similarly, this would make the "casual Christian" who doesn't really talk about his beliefs but still holds them somehow not religious.
This entire train of thought is a massive "tu quoque" fallacy. And trying to straddle the middle by saying that only this "branch" of Atheism is religious is horseshit as well - Atheism has no set dogma, has no set of commandments od rules, no traditions, no beliefs, no ceremonies - it's JUST the absence of belief in any deity. The degree of certainty an Atheist holds is irrelevant. Even Dawkins doesn't believe that no deity can POSSIBLY exist. He simply says that, in the absence of any solid evidence, its really, really not likely, and has said on multiple occasions that if solid evidence WERE produced he would change his view to match.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 1:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 148 of 152 (415392)
08-09-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by nator
08-09-2007 8:10 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
Nobody bothers to reject santa because it is common knowledge that he is fantasy.
Again and again - please first prove God is fantasy.
It's easy to disprove santa - he doesn't bring me any presents, which is his sole reason for existence. He's never brought any good people presents.
God brings answers to my prayers, and I have had spiritual experiences.
What are the religious tenets of Atheism, mike?
I didn't claim atheism is a religion.
The arguments about the P.U, for example, are KNOWN fantasy, posited in place of God, who is not proved to be a fantasy, and is an entirely different concept.
How many times do I have to say "composition" before you will understand it's importance, if you want to conclude that two entities are equivalent?
You do know that two pennies are pretty much the same.
If we have a penny and a fifty pence, they are not the same or equivalent physically or in value, just because they share coinhood.
Show me the crowd that takes disproving santa seriously - as I only remember debating atheists.
You lump any claim as all equally worthless because they share magic/supernature. Like one could treat a penny and a fifty pence equally because they share coinhood.
But what's the point - you never listen to little worthless deluded believing-mike anyway do you, as you dislike him when he's a believer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by nator, posted 08-09-2007 8:10 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2007 1:00 AM mike the wiz has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 149 of 152 (415416)
08-10-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 9:46 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
Nobody bothers to reject santa because it is common knowledge that he is fantasy.
Not among children.
Again and again - please first prove God is fantasy.
Prove Santa is.
Look, Mike, you can't have it both ways. It's common knowledge that God is fantasy, too, among many people. If you're going to accept people's common beliefs as proof - and like it or not, atheism is an increasingly common belief - then you really don't have a leg to stand on, here.
God is likened to Santa because they're the exact same thing - beliefs people cling to out of feelings, not out of reason or evidence.
God brings answers to my prayers, and I have had spiritual experiences.
Santa brought me a Transformer (Jetfire, incidentally, the awesome one) and I've seen him at the mall. Exact same thing as God. If there's no such thing as Santa, then why is he on the Coca-Cola cans every year?
Show me the crowd that takes disproving santa seriously - as I only remember debating atheists.
I'll disprove whatever you like. But there are people who make it a point to disprove belief in Santa Claus; typically we call those people "killjoys."
The truth of the matter is that children eventually see through Santa because adults don't believe in it. They don't tend to see through the God delusion because adults are wrapped up in it too, which just goes to show that there's some nonsense a lot of us don't outgrow.
Your problem, mainly, is that you don't know why you believe that Santa Claus is fantasy; when you understand your disbelief in Santa now compared to your belief in Santa as a child, you'll understand how your belief in God is similarly fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 9:46 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 150 of 152 (415422)
08-10-2007 1:29 AM


Terminal topic disintegration - Closing topic in about 1 hour
Contact with the theme (Behe and/or ID) has be thin at best. Time to lay this one to rest.
Will leave open for about 1 hour for any closing comments, or to see if someone will do a good job of dragging this thing back on topic.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-10-2007 2:37 AM Adminnemooseus 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