Design With No Designer

Of course, once materialist science is overthrown, IDIOT's will begin replacing whole fields of study with their new jargon.For example, the scientific field devoted to the study of ancient animal life will then become known as Paley-ontology.Students taking courses in that subject will no learn how NOT to tell the difference between a fossil and a wristwatch while in the field.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Students taking courses in that subject will no[w] learn how NOT to tell the difference between a fossil and a wristwatch while in the field.

---

Forgive me for being chilled as well as amused by this. Why does your cruel parody of standard IDC-speak sound no more preoposterous than the 'real' thing?The downward spiral that begins with poor science education makes fertile ground for IDC to take root. That in turn leads to school boards being forced to change curricula to suit the IDC agenda, and guess what? Science education gets even worse.People's horror at the prospect of homo sap being a cosmic footnote is understandable considering we've always been told that we're the product of a unique creative act from an intelligent intervener. However, I'd argue that this gives us even more responsibility to forge the kind of world and society that would be a more fitting legacy of our species. Do we really want to be remembered as the species who turned the world into a radioactive sewer and then bequeathed it to rats and cockroaches?I'd be more charitable toward the IDC folks if their crusade to find the fingerprints of the creator in nature were motivated by an urgent need to treat nature with the respect that its creator would say it deserves. Unfortunately, I've never heard any creationists emphasize such a point.------------------
Quien busca, halla

actually, I think ID is potentially more destructive to the education system then plane creationism. I would have to postulate that the average carpet chewing sleeps with his bible fundie never had any great interest in persuing a career in science. Thus, regardless of what is taught in school, communities that produce fanatics would not be swayed by logic and would not really be affected by the quality of teaching since their communities would tell them to reject everything that is taught anyway. I mean, how many students who grew up as bible thumpers really suddenly say wow science is great when taking a bio 101 course? How many will ever take a bio course?ID is worse. It clothes itself in pseudo-scientific jargon and tries to present itself as science while simultaneously trying to disguise the religious agenda of its proponents. Thus, a non-religious student with little background may take it seriously if they are taught this nonesense before learning what science really is.

quote:

---

ID is worse. It clothes itself in pseudo-scientific jargon and tries to present itself as science while simultaneously trying to disguise the religious agenda of its proponents.

---

So you'd rather have an honest obscurantist than a fundie in a lab coat? I see your point.Old Sig Freud would be impressed to see the bald-faced demonstration of his notion of projection offered by the IDC folks. To objections that they are religiously motivated, they reply that Darwinism is a religion. To objections that their theory doesn't constitute science, they reply that Darwinism is not science. To objections that there is no evidence for IDC, they reply that there is no evidence for evolution by natural selection.In a way, IDC has more to lose by stripping away the religious jargon of standard-issue creationism. Are non-religious people likely to be swayed merely by Dembski's mathematical proofs? There is every reason, therefore, to assume that proponents of IDC are deliberately avoiding the issue of religion: it's obvious that that's the prerequisite for accepting the theory in the first place.------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

So you'd rather have an honest obscurantist than a fundie in a lab coat? I see your point.

---

Actually, I would like to see science taught properly from kindergarten on...but realistically, this will not occur as education does not seem to be a particularly high priority in most countries...and when the English teacher is responsible for the physics lectures you can imagine the kind of crap a lot of students are exposed to.This is the window of opportunity that the IDists crawl through. If students don't realize that you need a testable hypothesis that can be falsified in order to do science then ID will seem plausible...even with bonehead arguments like "self evidence" of ID. They can also portray science in whatever manner that suits their cause as opposed to how it is practiced. Such cases then leads to some of these nitwits claiming that their pet "theories" are ignored by the big atheists science establishment conspiracy that surpresses their work through peer review...and the ill informed can be swayed with such blatant idiocy.for my part, my only further interest in watching the IDists is to see just one of them even make a half hearted attempt at proposing a testable hypothesis of ID much less supporting it with evidence. ...Behe has not and none of the others have either...I certainly won't hold my breath

As our house IDC theorist has stated, Evidently the absence of any testable hypotheses concerning the possibility of discerning intelligence behind design is part of Intelligent Design Creationism's strategy. This effectively keeps the harsh light of the lab away from the tender bloom that is their theory. That's enough reason to teach it in schools as an alternative scientific theory. "Peer review"? What is this, the Soviet Union?------------------
Quien busca, halla

Hi Mr. H,Funny that you mention the Soviet Union...I guess the IDists could be compared to Lysenko in terms of completely bogus scientific proposals..I won't say hypothesis as there is no scientific hypothesis of ID

It's painfully ironic how often I hear the hideous story of Lysenko used as a cautionary tale against the establishment of a bogus scientific doctrine via state enforcement. I'm sure you've already guessed that the parallel is always made between Lysenkoism and Darwinism. Intelligent-design creationists are good at making it sound like theirs is the sound scientific ideology that is being persecuted by the totalitarian atheistic status quo.Poor old Vavilov would no doubt turn over in his unmarked grave to know that his plight at the hands of Lysenko is being used to push an agenda every bit as unrealistic and scientifically groundless as Lysenko's anti-geneticism.------------------
Quien busca, halla

Unless I was there when God created the world with a video camera, I doubt whether we can provide any evidence that will convince anyone who doesn't want to believe. there are only arguments from analogy, but they can be accepted or dismissed in want of better evidence.
there is no more evidence for the metaphysical religion of evolution, but its adherents claim it is empirical science so feel as they dwell in a more intellectual arena. they also claim to have enough evidence, that faith is not even required. I could provide many quotes from evolutionary scientists that would demonstrate that this is far from a universal consensus in the scientific community but i will just give you one for now.It was David Hull, a well-known philosopher of science, who wrote as early as 1965 that ". . . science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable entities play an important part in it. Science is not just the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of observations within the framework of a theory."

quote:

---

I could provide many quotes from evolutionary scientists that would demonstrate that this is far from a universal consensus in the scientific community but i will just give you one for now.

---

I thought you said you would provide a quote from an evolutionary scientist..instead you provide one from

quote:

---

It was David Hull, a well-known philosopher of science, who wrote as early as 1965 ..

---

...very sloppy.

quote:

---

there is no more evidence for the metaphysical religion of evolution, but its adherents claim it is empirical science so feel as they dwell in a more intellectual arena. they also claim to have enough evidence, that faith is not even required.

---

Now that you got your little rant against science out of the way, take a deep breathe and actually support your assertion

Gemster writes:

quote:

---

Unless I was there when God created the world with a video camera

---

Ah, but here's the thing: Evolutionary biology does have that "video camera":It's called the fossil record.You're absolutely right that I wasn't there 4 billion years ago to watch life diversify.However, life was there and it was kind enough to leave the bodies behind where they have survived to this day and we can study them to see what happened to them when they were alive.So if what you need is a videotape, why not actually look at the one we have?Or do you deny the fossil record?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

David Hull is a biologist as well as a philosopher, so he does qualify as someone within the scientific community. redirect on 404 | Rice UniversityAnd I agree with him. Scientists I've read do seem to feel that science is more empirical than it is, but Hull is talking as a philosopher and the definition of empirical isn't quite what it is to a scientist. Science adopts a very soft empiricism. We all adopt this empiricism out of necessity, but there are huge logical holes in it. Anyway, if he chooses to pursue it, gemster will regret this approach. For sheer head-ache generating power, there is nothing like radical empiricism. Quantum mechanics has nothing on it. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

David Hull is a biologist as well as a philosopher, so he does qualify as someone within the scientific community. redirect on 404 | Rice UniversityAnd I agree with him. Scientists I've read do seem to feel that science is more empirical than it is, but Hull is talking as a philosopher and the definition of empirical isn't quite what it is to a scientist. Science adopts a very soft empiricism. We all adopt this empiricism out of necessity, but there are huge logical holes in it. Anyway, if he chooses to pursue it, gemster will regret this approach. For sheer head-ache generating power, there is nothing like radical empiricism. Quantum mechanics has nothing on it. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Lets get the comments from an evolutionist to clarify the analogy between the fossil record and a video camera, I like quoting these fella's cos you should be putting up a united front but at unguarded moments these things slip out.
Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

Who cares if we have a unified front or not?For that matter, shouldn't creationists put a little effort into unifying their "front" if that's so important? If so, then why are there so many competing creationist organizations? Why can't Kent Hovind get along with Answers in Genesis? Why are there so many Christian churches that each insist that their "literal" but different interpretation of the Bible is accurate and all others are wrong?If Creationism is so true, as I imagine that you feel it is, why can't creationists agree with each other? Why is it such a splintered movement?And for that matter, why aren't you reading the things you post? The quote you posted says that the fossil record is entirely consistent with evolution - and that there's more evidence for evolution than just the fossil record. I don't see how you think that helps your case, or what you think he's saying in an "unguarded" moment. Sounds like he's saying there's way more evidence for evolution than just the fossil record. Why do you think that helps your position?