98
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 12:03 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im just a bit angry at how you missed out on the opportunities to learn anything in your life besides conspiracies. Mr Ickes isnt exactly what Id call reliable 2nd source material. Hes a clown who makes money from fools like you .

Well see ya when they loosen your restraints


angry, girly? angry? lol. Now if that isn't telling I don't know what is.

and of course again, ad hominems, ad hominems , ad ah well yawnnn

this girly is very boring.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 12:04 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
What a miogynistic jerk you are.


again, ONLY an ad hominem, but ok I bite.


Why?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 10:27 am
The two great myths in this debate are:

1. That there is a fundamental conflict between science and belief that there is a God.

2. That there is an unchallenged consensus among scientists about natural selection and mutation being sufficient to explain the evolutionary record.

If you need examples, here is a link to a list of scientists willing to go on record saying #2 is false. It was around 23 pages long last time I looked.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 11:38 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
If you need examples, here is a link to a list of scientists willing to go on record saying #2 is false. It was around 23 pages long last time I looked.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

The web site wrote:
Contact
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism and the dissentfromdarwin.org website are projects of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture and are copyright © Discovery Institute 2008-2009.

Argument Fail.
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 01:04 pm
@rosborne979,
Oh please!

So you are saying all these scientists were mind controlled by the Discovery Institute, didn't know what they were signing or were somehow duped?

I could just as easily argue that scientists who think unguided evolution explains it all were duped by exposure to liberal atheists. That work for you?

Argument fail indeed.
rosborne979
 
  5  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 01:23 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Oh please!

So you are saying all these scientists were mind controlled by the Discovery Institute, didn't know what they were signing or were somehow duped?

I could just as easily argue that scientists who think unguided evolution explains it all were duped by exposure to liberal atheists. That work for you?

Argument fail indeed.

Oh please yourself.

I'm saying that the Discovery Institute is a disreputable source because their whole purpose for existence is to push a religious anti-evolution view no matter how they do it, and I don't have the time to go through their list to vet out all the scientists in that list who ultimately only represent a tiny segment of the overall population of scientists.

The bottom line is that the basic tenets of biological evolution are settled science (for over a hundred years now) and that pretending that there is any significant objection to it in the scientific community is pure hogwash.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 01:34 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
the basic tenets of biological evolution are settled science
Settled Science! That is so rich!

One of the strengths of science is that it's never settled. Unless you've made a religion of evolution that is...
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 01:43 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
One of the strengths of science is that it's never settled. Unless you've made a religion of evolution that is...


Which it is at the moment, which it is!
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  5  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 01:56 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
the basic tenets of biological evolution are settled science
Settled Science! That is so rich!

One of the strengths of science is that it's never settled. Unless you've made a religion of evolution that is...

I love how you twist the basic meaning of things in a desperate attempt to try to get a foothold with your position.

It's settled science until someone offers a better theory, which nobody has ever done. Including you (you haven't even tried). All you do is make specious claims which sound a lot like the Creationist propaganda which has been polluting the internet for decades now. We've debunked all this ridiculous nonsense before (many many times before and long before A2K even existed). It's tedious and boring to keep seeing the same thing over and over again.

Now quit trying to come up with flashy quips and make a real case for your point.
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 01:59 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
It's settled science until someone offers a better theory,


This is nonsense. Darwinian evolution is crumbling as we speak!
It is not about a better theory. Don't you see the nonsense in that?
It is all about E V I D E N C E

which is so missing !

So, give me a break, mate
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 06:24 pm
@rosborne979,
For Leadfoot (for brains): Settled science is rich with evidence. What do you have?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 07:33 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Now quit trying to come up with flashy quips and make a real case for your point.
Flashy quips. You mean like "Oh, you can't believe those scientists because it's on that "Discovery" website. Argument Fail"

Yeah, that's what I call 'making a case'...
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 07:45 pm
@Leadfoot,
No, it is not a case made. What it is is a case of quote mining, and the Discovery Institute has trotted out that raddled old whore of a rhetorical device again and again and again.
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 07:53 pm
@Setanta,
Quote mining? I'm not following. Are you saying they misquoted that list of scientists?

'Evolutionists' like to rely on scientists unless scientists don't agree with them. Then it's "quote mining".
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 08:13 pm
Yes, quote mining is not the correct term. Rather, there is a distortion of the meaning of the statement (an accredited biologist can dissent from so-called Darwinism while still taking biological evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth). Furthermore, there is a conscious effort on the part of the Discovery Institute to inflate the apparent credentials of those listed. I highly recommend this article at Wikipedia: A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Here are some relevant passages from the article:

Quote:
The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized,[12][13] with many signatories coming from wholly unrelated fields of academia, such as aviation and engineering, computer science and meteorology.[39]

In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999.[40] Only about 1/4 of the approximately 700 Darwin Dissenters in 2007 are biologists, according to Kenneth Chang of the New York Times.[13] Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States, so in 2007, there were about 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community.[22] Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[41]

The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution.[11][13]


(Ordinarily, i remove footnote numbers from such a text, but i have left them in here because the article has carefully cited the sources.)

Quote:
Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice.[12]

For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas at Dallas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position.[12]


This last passage was from the section under the rubric: Affiliations and credentials. I highly recommend a close reading of this section.

In the final analysis, it is a dishonest appeal to authority, from people whose authority is suspect in many cases. And, of course, even if all 700+ were credentialed in biological sciences (they are not), it would still represent a significant minority of the tens of thousands of scientists who do work in the relevant field. Lastly, rejecting "Darwinism" doesn't mean that "intelligent design" (Ah-hahahahahahahahaha . . . that name cracks me up) is correct. This is part and parcel of holy roller rhetoric which runs that if someone can't explain something to their satisfaction, they get to substitute their imaginary friend.

As Roswell said, horseshit like this has been debunked again and again online for literally decades. Don't think you're being clever by bringing it up yet again.
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 08:42 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
(an accredited biologist can dissent from so-called Darwinism while still taking biological evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth).
True, depending on exactly what is meant by the 'diversity of life on earth'. I doubt any of the signers would disagree nor would I. But the fact remains that they strongly believe that natural selection and mutation are not sufficient to explain the full extent of evolution and that is the bedrock on which Darwin's evolution rests.

The rest of the arguments in the Wikipedia article are just quibbling. As to the charge that many of the signers are not in the field of biology, that is not a weakness but a strength. It takes many disciplines to understand the weaknesses in evolution as the sole driver of emergence of life on earth. For example, it may seem counterintuitive, but the science of math is directly applicable to this subject.

The 'majority' argument holds no water. 100 years ago physicists were pretty unanamous that the universe had always been here. Poof, that argument is now 100% gone.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 09:02 pm
@Leadfoot,
I have rarely seen such feeble sophistry--that claim about strengths and weaknesses is one of most hilarious lines of BS i've ever seen a holy roller offer in an attempt to legitimize his imaginary friend thesis.

Quote:
The 'majority' argument holds no water. 100 years ago physicists were pretty unanamous that the universe had always been here. Poof, that argument is now 100% gone.


Keep that in mind the next time you attempt to peddle some line of BS like this Discovery institute statement.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 12:28 am
lots of bla bla bla again and.....

lots of missing evidence...........again and again and again and...
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 09:29 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
@Leadfoot,
I have rarely seen such feeble sophistry--that claim about strengths and weaknesses is one of most hilarious lines of BS i've ever seen a holy roller offer in an attempt to legitimize his imaginary friend thesis.
I assume you are talking about there being other than biology experts on that list? Are you seriously suggesting that interaction across disciplines is not a vital factor in science? I.e, the chemist has nothing to add to the science of biology? Cross discipline cooperation is absolutely indispensable to science, now more than ever before.

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"The 'majority' argument holds no water. 100 years ago physicists were pretty unanamous that the universe had always been here. Poof, that argument is now 100% gone."

Set replied:
Keep that in mind the next time you attempt to peddle some line of BS like this Discovery institute statement.
I must not be following you here. I was pointing out that ad populum is not a valid argument. But Are you suggesting that the Discovery Institute represents the majority opinion?? Or just that you are equally certain that their idea will be as dead as physicists' old idea of an eternal universe? If the theory of ID is ever conclusively proven wrong, I'll keep you admonishment in mind.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 12:25 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
As Roswell said, horseshit like this has been debunked again and again online for literally decades. Don't think you're being clever by bringing it up yet again.

Thanks for doing the legwork on this. After decades of addressing the Discovery Institute's bullshit arguments and red herrings, I just don't have the patience or time for it any more.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 10/06/2022 at 10:36:46