|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4757 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What does ID theory say? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Cold Foreign Object writes:
And if he follows the line of the popes that came before him, he'll say evolution's true. Pope Benedict (IIRC) said the universe is an Intelligent project. Which doesn't matter anyway, since it's an argument form authority. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Can you explain why it is that ID theory never results in any specific verifiable predictions or discoveries?
Or if you think it does can you prvide some examples of discoveries made as a direct consequence of ID theory? If not then do you think that this demonstrates a weakness in ID theory? Evolutionists would, I think, argue that prediction and discovery of new evidence is a key feature in demonstrating the veracity of evolutionary theory. I am interested to know how you counter this seemingly argument clinching position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Why do you even bother posting in the Science Forum? Certainly nothing you post resembles science (except, perhaps, for creation "science"). Are you evangelizing among the "Darwinists" as a penance or something? That's often what it seems like. I would really like to know, because your posts make no contributions to science and perhaps a reply would help me understand where you are coming from. I post here because the reason-for-being of this debate board encourages it. And again: your comments retreat into defining yourself and your science correct. I could do the same. Creationists-IDists reject your definition of science. And if I am a religious zealot, understood objectively, this makes you an anti-religious zealot, or an ordinary Atheist. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
CFO writes:
Then why not create another field of discipline rather than trying to change the current accepted definition of science? I think the most qualified people to define what science is and how it should proceed ought to be scientists. I don't see any reason why creos and IDists can't create their own field of discipline. Call it cre-ence or intelligent-designence or whatever. I don't care.
Creationists-IDists reject your definition of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
This "special creation hypothesis" you are talking about was the defacto religious world view by the Christian world from the time of Jesus to the mid-20th century. It was not recognized as a "hypothesis" of science per se, but instead it was a adopted on its value of being part of what they interpreted was "the inspired word of God". That is, it was adopted not as a result of scientific evidence but was instead adopted on the basis of the faith of the believer. False. Special creation, also known as independent or separate creation, is a scientific hypothesis that claims to explain how species are introduced into reality.
Charles Darwin:
"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained”namely, that each species has been independently created”is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" On The Origin Of Species (1859:6). Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Can you explain why it is that ID theory never results in any specific verifiable predictions or discoveries? Or if you think it does can you prvide some examples of discoveries made as a direct consequence of ID theory?
Behe in Black Box (1996) showed biochemical systems irreducibly complex. Dembski in Intelligent Design (1999) argued that mutation cannot be random since specified complexity (and I add: adaptation) are universally accepted phenomena.
Evolutionists would, I think, argue that prediction and discovery of new evidence is a key feature in demonstrating the veracity of evolutionary theory. Show me a sealed envelope containing an evolutionary prediction. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Special creation, also known as independent or separate creation, is a scientific hypothesis that claims to explain how species are introduced into reality. Exactly. An unverified and, arguably, unverifiable hypothesis. At best. As opposed to evolutionary theory which has passed numerous tests of verifiable prediction thus making it a verified and superior hypothesis. I.e a fully formed scientific theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Behe in Black Box (1996) showed biochemical systems irreducibly complex. Dembski in Intelligent Design (1999) argued that mutation cannot be random since specified complexity (and I add: adaptation) are universally accepted phenomena. So what exactly are the specific verified predictions and discovery of new evidence in these examples?
Show me a sealed envelope containing an evolutionary prediction. The predicted, searched for and discovered Tiktaalik transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Behe in Black Box (1996) showed biochemical systems irreducibly complex. Behe's ideas concerning irreducible complexity have been shown to be wrong. Here are some specific reasons, along with supporting articles:
Would you like more examples? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ray,
Then explain why and how. Already did. Please can you now explain your hypocrisy?
quote: If ID is science because it makes a claim, then evolution must be. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Please can you now explain your hypocrisy? If ID is science because it makes a claim, then evolution must be. The context of the apparent contradictory claims refutes contradiction. Here is what I believe: Both Creationism and Evolutionism interpret and explain the same database of scientific evidence. There is not two sets of evidence. There is one, and two major explanations of this evidence. Since the evolutionary explanation or interpretation is false the same is not science. Since the Creationism-ID explanation and interpretation is true it is science. The right to call one's explanation "science" or "scientific" is determined by its veracity. Sometimes I call evolution "science" gratuitously so whatever point I am making is not misunderstood. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Since the evolutionary explanation or interpretation is false the same is not science. Since the Creationism-ID explanation and interpretation is true it is science. Then explain how this can be when there is evidence for evolution but none for creationism/ID There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ray,
Both Creationism and Evolutionism interpret and explain the same database of scientific evidence. There is not two sets of evidence. There is one, and two major explanations of this evidence. But only one makes predictions & is supported by evidence. Ergo, only one matters; evolution.
Since the evolutionary explanation or interpretation is false the same is not science. Er, no. If something is amenable to scientific enquiry it is science. Its subsequent truth or falsity is irrelevant.
Since the Creationism-ID explanation and interpretation is true it is science. As above, but evolution has evidence, ID doesn't. Moreover, ID doesn't even make predictions & is therefore unscientific.
The right to call one's explanation "science" or "scientific" is determined by its veracity. No, it isn't. Veracity has NOTHING to do with it! You really are doing some serious mental gymnastics here, Ray. No wonder you have trouble in this debate. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3073 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Then explain how this can be when there is evidence for evolution but none for creationism/ID Like Joe Pesci, Bluescat, you're a funny guy. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Like Sgt Joe Friday says "The facts".
As many adhearents of evolution have asked you and other creationists or IDers, Give some solid, scientific, falsifyable evidence of such. Thus far none have. Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024