Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

there is an equal amount of evidence that sys life DID pop up several places at several different times only to be squashed.

Im looking forward to extr terrestrial findings and what we can see in similarities on life forms, IF, life is found to exist elsewhere.

Youre looking to support a (presently) fact-free worldview, so whenever a scientist reports to being "mazed and puzzled", you take that as some kind of inane "proof" for Creationist thinking.

Im amazed that the scientist who made that statement (or was reported to have sid that) she doesnt look at all the piles of evidence from the other, OLD, MUDDY, VOLCANIC , CHEMICALLY LACED, deposits throughout the world (especially the sites I previouly mentioned)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Just going by what scientists have made claims about homo sapiens evolution as primates on this planet, I find no need to believe in creationist mumbo jumbo. This planet is only 4.5 billion years old with homo sapiens existing for about 2.5 million years. That's good enough for me!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Just going by what scientists have made claims about homo sapiens evolution as primates on this planet, I find no need to believe in creationist mumbo jumbo. This planet is only 4.5 billion years old with homo sapiens existing for about 2.5 million years. That's good enough for me!

Re: homo sap -
! Talk about fact free claims ..

You like Googleing, do a little before posting.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Sorry, bud, my memory isn't what it used to be. I don't go back on threads to reread stuff; I just don't.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

No sweat guy, brain farts happen to all of us.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Here's another bit of writing from James Tour. I'll let it speak for itself.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

InfraBlue replied:

This guy is miffed because ID isn't allowed to be taught as science in schools and equates that to Nazism. For being a scientist, this position is severely lacking in rationality and is rife with logical fallacies. It seems this guy merely pays lip service to science.

"This guy" who 'merely pays lip service to science' was just awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in protein synthesis.

BTW, ros's link to Tour's statements regarding abiogenesis, etc. is well worth reading if you're interested.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

"This guy" who 'merely pays lip service to science' was just awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in protein synthesis

Most all of the turmoil regarding what should be taught in public schools DOES NOT involve scientific expertise for the adjudication.
Daniels v Waters , in 1975 , struck down the requirements for teaching Creationiism (what ID was going by in that era) on an "equal time" basis in biology. Where in the hell does Creationim or ID even contain a slight bit of science to be included in that curriculum?
Hoqwever, that aside, the arguments in Daniel v Waters were CONSTITUTIONAL LAW involving whether a religious based "Scientific belief" does not defy the "ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE " of the Bill of Rights. The Fed district court saw that "equal time" does defy th establishment clause. The ONLY thing in which science was involved in the case was to present evidence as to the bases of the two competing "Belief systems"(did each follow based on discoveries and evidence rules as well as the scientific method??)

Being a molecular chemist and providing a legal opinion is like getting medical advice from your mechanic. We try to practice only that in which we have competence.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

"This guy" who 'merely pays lip service to science' was just awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in protein synthesis.

BTW, ros's link to Tour's statements regarding abiogenesis, etc. is well worth reading if you're interested.

So, he cherry picks what he applies rationality and logic to. Understood. He should keep his proboscus firmly stuck in protein synthesis research and keep it and ID out of the public school science curriculum.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Cripes! Give a guy a Nobel and he suddenly becomes Jeckle & Hyde to you guys.

Obvious neither you nor farmer actually read what he said..

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"This guy" who 'merely pays lip service to science' was just awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in protein synthesis "

Farmer replies:

Most all of the turmoil regarding what should be taught in public schools DOES NOT involve scientific expertise for the adjudication.
Daniels v Waters , in 1975 , struck down the requirements for teaching Creationiism (what ID was going by in that era) on an "equal time" basis in biology. Where in the hell does Creationim or ID even contain a slight bit of science to be included in that curriculum?
Hoqwever, that aside, the arguments in Daniel v Waters were CONSTITUTIONAL LAW involving whether a religious based "Scientific belief" does not defy the "ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE " of the Bill of Rights. The Fed district court saw that "equal time" does defy th establishment clause. The ONLY thing in which science was involved in the case was to present evidence as to the bases of the two competing "Belief systems"(did each follow based on discoveries and evidence rules as well as the scientific method??)

Being a molecular chemist and providing a legal opinion is like getting medical advice from your mechanic. We try to practice only that in which we have competence.

You are a walking talking non-sequitur, farmerman.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Why? I understood what farmerman posted, even if you didn't.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I understood what farmerman posted, even if you didn't.

I'll have to ask you to prove that.

How is James Tour winning the Nobel Prize related to the Daniel v Waters decision? What supports the position that 'he gives only lip service to science?

And I don't think you read what Mr. Tour said either.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I see that the fella is comprehension challenged.

YOU were claiming the Nobel prize in Med, somehow adds a degree of credibility to what is first and foremost a legal argument. The LAW about teaching "equal time" for cience v Creqtionism was first settled in Tennessee with the dumping of the "Butler Acts" and then the "equal time" requirements . (Thats what Daniels was all about). It has never gone to the USSC because, like Dover, its pretty obvious that the Creationists or IDers (all the same guys separated by about 5 yers( even if you deny it) had a case that was all paint and no engine.

Like Trump, the IDers (mostly Discovery Institute) claimed that the entire Dover case was "Rigged"

Ill try to write more slowly next time, since your mind appears to be totally linear

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Here is the problematic bit in the Daniels v Waters case.

Quote:

The Tennessee law stated, "Any biology textbook used for teaching in the public schools, which expresses an opinion of, or relates a theory about origins or creation of man and his world shall [give] . . . an equal amount of emphasis on . . . the Genesis account in the Bible." (Public Acts of Tennessee, 1973, Chapter 377, cited in LaFollette, 1983, p. 80)[1]

Neither the Discovery Institute (since 2004 when I first heard of them) and certainly not James Tour ever advocated teaching Genesis as science in the classroom or anywhere else for that matter.

Where's the connection?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

While scientists and "Creation Scientists" qere used as "forensic experts" to make either sides cases (we are kinda talking about Tours "expwrtise to say that Creationism (ID) should be taught in biology.
Dr Tour probably has heard of Our BILL of RIGHTS and the rights contained therein, so I beleive Ive stated very clearly, from a basis of past cases of LAW (not science), that the Constitution includes the teaching of Creationism (ID) AS A RELIGIOUS EXERCISE, and not one of a valid science.

Get it now??

I know youre brighter than you are putting on because weve had some diwcussions that have waded thru the abstruse and the abstrqct. Why you ballin up now?? .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

YOU were claiming the Nobel prize in Med, somehow adds a degree of credibility to what is first and foremost a legal argument.

No, I claimed nothing of the sort. I know of no connection between James Tour and that legal case. Do you think he was he a witness there or what?

There is no connection between Tour and the discovery Institute either. (other than their recognizing him for the award and in the past for what he's said about abiogenesis and evolution.

If you have a problem with something he actually said, just spit it out and we can argue the point. So far, you don't have one.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Where's the connection?

Im not gonna play your stupid game . If you dont understand the implications of what you posted above to Rosborne, then pwrhaps you need some more compskills sharpening.

Please dont try to be "cute" with some mealy mouth diversion attempt. I think most people can see right through your little game.

Im sufferein boat lag so Im still quite tired. However Im not that tired that I cannot recognize attempts involving wool pulling

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

(we are kinda talking about Tours "expwrtise to say that Creationism (ID) should be taught in biology.

Well if you're just gonna make stuff up, there is no use talk'n about it.

He didn't say anything remotely like that. Give a quote if you got it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Look, if youre gonna post BLOGS like another of our members, then you should read the content. THE BLOG uses Tour as q "Polished monkey" (but even he is a fan of self assmbly under specific conditions)> That is neither here nor there since the voluminous interminqble BULLSHIT layers of tracts delivered by "preacher Dan" includes several of his sermons that include the "power of the Lord" in Creation
SOOOO

Either Tour IS the "polished monkey" who has no approval or knowldge that hes being linked up with thumpers
ORRRR
He APPROVES that implied message

Which is it?

AS FAR AS GENESIS , Preachr Dan eems to be leaning on several other Books of the Pentateuch. In either case, its CHRISTIAN catma.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

PS, if you have a chance to get the newest issue of "EARTH" magazine (Its a prof journal but its quite accessible and is more attuned to students )
Theres a great article and beginning of a series about the "redefinition of our genus" as derived from the fossil record and some genetics (where available).

Seems some more advanced technologies were developed by this recently discovered interloper Homo naledii and several paleoanthropological definitions of the "tribe" and genus have been described.
This quietly has taken the Ernst Mayr's " simplistic lumpology" out of

The pic. Insteresting article maybe its on the web , by Mary C Morton titled "REDEFINING HOMO"

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know