How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

quote:

---

Creation Science is looked down on even when the science is good,

---

Show me the "good" Creation science.I've certainly never seen any.Creationists almost never do science, actually. They spend much of their time writing non-peer reviewed popular press books full of untruths and distortions of real scientists' work. The rest of their time they spend manouvering in local school politics to try to sneak their religious views into science classes.

quote:

---

just cause the word creation, much like how creationists must feel about going through school being taught a subject that isn't true but arguing about it only gets you removed from class.

---

Er, how can a kid in school "know" that a subject "isn't true" before she has even learned anything about it? If the basis for her non-acceptance of Biology is religiously based, then she hasn't made a determination based upon rational assesment of the evidence.

quote:

---

is YOUR world view and judgment based on what you feel is fact. Not everyone believes in that "fact". Basically it appears that anyone that doesn't believe in that view is dumb while everyone that does is greatly more superior in understanding science... again... not true for everyone.

---

Tell me, Q, should the people believe who in alien abductions, that the Holocaust never happened, that the 9/11 WTC bombing was a Bush regime conspiracy be allowed to determine for our schools what is "fact"? After all, it is just their "worldview" that determines what they "feel" is fact, right?

quote:

---

Er, how can a kid in school "know" that a subject "isn't true" before she has even learned anything about it? If the basis for her non-acceptance of Biology is religiously based, then she hasn't made a determination based upon rational assesment of the evidence.

---

when you say that, this is what I was talking about. To dismiss out of hand based on what is accepted today as the rational. Remember the leading scientists of the days years ago thought the world was flat until shown other wise, there was only so many elements of The Periodic Table of Elements, until found otherwise ( Bromine (Br) atomic number 35 for instance ) and those were all facts in there days. The funny thing about the issue is that both ToE and ID start at the same unknown problem ( HOW did it start ).

quote:

---

Creationists almost never do science, actually. They spend much of their time writing non-peer reviewed popular press books full of untruths and distortions of real scientists' work. The rest of their time they spend manouvering in local school politics to try to sneak their religious views into science classes.

---

again the "real scientists" are brought up, the dumb ID scientists are just trying to stir up trouble ? I think real science is done on both sides and both sides have and issue of accepting that one thing listed above that neither side can prove as fact. For real Science we have to follow the Scientific Method both sides face serious problems in my opinon. notice the
4) Interpret data and draw conclusionsthat is what both sides do in there studys and research.now just for a moment lets say that ID's are wrong, that really changes nothing in the matter of "science" and "education" BUT what if the Evo's are wrong... thats a whole other issue. That would mean that all the "science" based on the theory must be looked at because to start with a falsehood can not lead to a right ending. Do I think this will ever happen ? of course not, this topic will rage forever. As long as man is here, this topic will be here.

quote:

---

Tell me, Q, should the people believe who in alien abductions, that the Holocaust never happened, that the 9/11 WTC bombing was a Bush regime conspiracy be allowed to determine for our schools what is "fact"? After all, it is just their "worldview" that determines what they "feel" is fact, right?

---

we are talking about science not conspiracys, there is diffrance.

I am not a fence-splitter ( or what I now like to now call "A Frank Collins" lol)I will say I started on one side, slide to the other at some point, then sat on the fence for a few years while I did some personal research and made a desicion.I dont subscribe to Evolution. But I'm also not your typical ID'r either. I really dont get to upset about alot of things that are said, there is no need to honestly. I can play on both sides when talking, I dont see my side and say yours is ABSOLUTLY WRONG!! omgz DIAF!! BURN!! lol. Most of my co-workers and friends are ToE staunch belivers ( even a few with some rather... interesting? topics heh ) I do belive in ID, but that dosnt mean I dont read and watch shows and research ToE, you have to do that to make up your own mind, dont you think ?

But this isn't what you are saying in regards to evolution, Q. You're saying that it's possible that the world is flat and that all the scientists today are wrong despite all the evidence that says otherwise. That is a more accurate analogy to what you are saying in regards to evolution.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

What is accepted today as rational is science, not untested hypothesis. And the way ideas get into science is by way of tested hypothesis, not by politics or popular vote. It does not matter what the common lay person thinks about evolution, for instance, because they are not involved with studying the science. Nope. Evolution starts with life existing. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, so there has to be an initial population for it to work.Abiogenesis is the study of possible development of life from chemicals, and it is an interesting field. There are several threads talking about aspects of this science.ID starts with assuming a designer and then looking for ways to find evidence of it (in the kindest terms using what it should be instead of what it all too frequently is -- politics). The proper way to respond to the assertion made is to actually show creationists doing good science ... Yes and the better interpretations and conclusions use all the data instead of just ones that support an agenda. But I'm glad you brought up the issue of "both sides" ...... as I think we need to discuss both sides of the design debate before we go much further. Yes, that would prove that the Silly Design Theory was correct eh? Yes, and the ID movement was started as a conspiracy to subvert education: see the wedge document

quote:

---

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values.[4]

---

Those are political, not scientific motives.Question: are you an IDist OR a christian?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : SDT theory proof

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Creationism was also thought to be fact until it was shown otherwise. ToE is not about how it started. That would be abiogenesis or further back Big Bang. The real question then is do you have any publications to show you are correct? Yet one side can land a man on the moon, cure diseases, and predict discoveries years in advance. For having serious problems the scientific method just seems to work. It would be quite bizarre considering its predicability. No, you where talking about science and creationism, in regards to creationism there is little difference. Did you hear the one about the global conspiracy by scientists to hide the truth about ToE?Edited by Vacate, : Spelling

Well then why not give us some examples of real science done on the ID side? Ideally this would be science actually supportive of the ID position. I know there are a few papers published by ID proponents but neither Doug Axe nor Michael Behe, perhaps the two most prominently published researchers, seem to have anything published which actually supports ID.TTFN,WK

I found it interesting that you brought up the Periodic Table, because it is a classic example of how science does work and why the Scientific Method (TOE) is far more likely to be right than ID or Biblical Creationism.The important thing about Mendeleev's Table was that it had gaps and reordered many of the placements of elements in earlier attempts at creating a table. He took another series of steps based on the reasoning behind his arrangement and predicted two things; that when the elements he reordered were examined with greater precision the then accepted atomic weights for those elements would be found to be wrong; and that elements would be found to fill in his blanks and even what the properties of each of those elements would be.I cannot overstate the importance of those actions. He presented a model that explained what was already known, and was also useful for making predictions about what would be learned in the future. In addition, as more was learned we found that the new elements discovered were exactly as he predicted and that the atomic weights of those he rearranged were as he predicted.His model explained what was seen as well as what would be discovered. It went even further and provided the basis for us to create NEW elements, ones not found on earth, with a high degree of confidence of what their properties would be even before we created them.The Periodic Table is a great example of why the TOE is valuable and ID and Biblical Creationism are worthless.The value of the TOE has been in helping us understand what is seen, but in also providing the basis for future discoveries. What we have learned from the TOE has let us make predictions, and so far those predictions have been born out by each new discovery.ID and Biblical Creationism have no predictive potential. There is nothing there to form our basis. A good example is in ID. When based on the evidence seen in living things it is pointed out that the I in ID should stand for Inept or Incompetent or Inelegant or Inscrutable or Ignorant we are told that we cannot know the Intent of the Designer. Well sorry, if we cannot know the Intent of the Designer then we cannot predict what the Designer will do. If that is the case then the ID concept is worthless.The same argument is applicable to Biblical Creationism. The two (actually they are really just one) schools of thought are simply worthless.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Question: are you an IDist OR a christian?
  —RAZD

---

I am a Christian. Yes I believe in ID by God. but why do you ask that question specifically ?I am not a Deist if that was what you were wondering from the ID aspect.But, you wont find me quoting The Bible much in posts, you wont find me making references to Biblical aspects of this topic either. Thats never made to much sense to me ( personally ).I honestly try to stay away from that area when in the arena of E vs ID. but as I stated in another post, I guess that makes me not your typical Christian IDer. Normally when I am asked about my faith, I simply say I'm a Creationist.

Removed* off topic *Edited by Q, : fix linkEdited by Q, : off topic

For example: What would these people know about biology? And since when are dentists "scientists"? These lists are invariably specious because they include people for whom biology is well outside their field of expertise - as well as individuals who, in fact, do not contend the scientific consensus of evolution, but have in fact been put on the list dishonestly. I see the Six Million Dollar Man found a new line of work.

You didn't answer WK's question, Q. He asked: You listed a bunch of names, but have given no particulars about any scientific research that supports either recent origins or ID.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

The list of so called scientists who disagree with the ToE are NOT on topic here.If Q wants to defend an obviously overstuffed list then it should be taken elsewhere. Small suspensions to anyone carrying on with this.Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author

No they didn't, you made that up. Eratosthenes of Cyrene measured the circumference of the Earth back in the 3rd century BCNow, you quote me one scientist who claimed that the world was flat. Again, this is something you made up. The periodic table predicted the existence of elements that hadn't been found: to accept the periodic table was to accept that there were more elements than were known at the time. No. That's not a problem. If what you're doing is hypothesis testing, then the interpretation of the data is simply that it confirms or disconfirms the hypothesis. If I think pigs can't fly, and one flies in through my window, then the interpretation is: "I was wrong". Ah yes, this again. You notice that in order to put their gibble on a par with evolution, they have to deny the possiblity of answering questions about the past at all, without "eyewitnesses" (yeah, like they're the gold standard of evidence, right).Just as someone who wants to put "2 + 2 = 5" on a par with "2 + 2 = 4" has to deny that anything is true ... And nature is consistent with ... guess which model? That statement was evidently written by a brazen liar with no sense of shame.

Well, the "not over 65%" seems to be wrong.According to Wikipedia: So the question from the OP still stands:If the evidence is so ambiguous, or so open for reinterpretation, why do the vast majority of scientists (especially in the biological sciences, where they work first-hand with the so-called "ambiguous" evidence) support the theory of evolution?

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger