B
buffalo
Guest
I see no issue with this at all, especially when the science is backing the philosophy. You are surely not claiming that scientists should be religiously neutral or atheists, are you?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
You are being dishonest. We say, ID, the science cannot tell us who the designer is.
It is the rules of science, remember.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
The same sort of behavior practiced by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others.
E
edwest211
Guest
If you’re a Professor at University and mention Intelligent Design outside of the classroom, a set of automatic responses kick in. When Richard Dawkins appears on national TV in the US to denounce Genesis, apparently based on Scientific reasoning - nothing.
B
buffalo
Guest
Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism
The plain truth from the literature, conferences, expert perception, and a bit of anecdote for color, is that current Neo-Darwinism is far from the untouchable theory it is lauded to be. Not only this, but it has serious and increasing skeptics and challengers from within the secular scientific community.
When adding in supporters of intelligent design, which is religion-neutral, the numbers begin to expand rapidly. While there are serious, scientific, and peer-reviewed studies from this group, it does not rock the boat as much as the secular material naturalists. The goal is not to abandon Darwin, but to retire him to make way for more coherent comprehensive theories.
thefederalist.com
The plain truth from the literature, conferences, expert perception, and a bit of anecdote for color, is that current Neo-Darwinism is far from the untouchable theory it is lauded to be. Not only this, but it has serious and increasing skeptics and challengers from within the secular scientific community.
When adding in supporters of intelligent design, which is religion-neutral, the numbers begin to expand rapidly. While there are serious, scientific, and peer-reviewed studies from this group, it does not rock the boat as much as the secular material naturalists. The goal is not to abandon Darwin, but to retire him to make way for more coherent comprehensive theories.
Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism
Dedicated Neo-Darwinists often say ‘no serious scientists disagree’ with Darwinism, or ‘only creationists have problems.’ False.
thefederalist.com
B
buffalo
Guest
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
I notice the Op doesnt quibble with the actual existence of the category - Intelligent Designer.
The Op merely speculates on whether there needs to be an infinite regression of preceding Intelligent Designers in order to arrive at the (infinitely) intelligent One we have now.
But there is certainly no coercive logic anywhere in the Op forcing us to abandon the epistemologically sound, and widely observed, phenomenon of lesser ‘things’ having been designed by a ‘higher’ power. There is nothing self-refuting about this.
Both the designer and the designed actually exist irrespective of whether there is supposedly some sort of prior infinite regression of unseen intelligent designing.
The Op merely speculates on whether there needs to be an infinite regression of preceding Intelligent Designers in order to arrive at the (infinitely) intelligent One we have now.
But there is certainly no coercive logic anywhere in the Op forcing us to abandon the epistemologically sound, and widely observed, phenomenon of lesser ‘things’ having been designed by a ‘higher’ power. There is nothing self-refuting about this.
Both the designer and the designed actually exist irrespective of whether there is supposedly some sort of prior infinite regression of unseen intelligent designing.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Charlatans? Mob? Conflicted? Don’t hold back. Let all your emotions out; tell us how you really feel.
And feelings appears to be the motive force here. Let’s be rational.
We should recognize a difference between knowledge gained by science and beliefs gained by faith. In discussions about science one ought not inject as knowledge those things known through faith.
If ID as a science is faulty then research will show it to be so. Make the same constraints on ID as we make on evolution theory and see what plays out. You do want the truth about how we came to be, don’t you?
E
edwest211
Guest
Well said.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I just did. Relatively gently. My normal setting for discussions about ID or flat earthers or YEC is…somewhat gritty. I have no time for poseurs, charlatans, pseudo intellectuals or those who are willfully ignorant (you may be pleased or not - I don’t know, that I am not including you in that list).Bradskii:
Charlatans? Mob? Conflicted? Don’t hold back. Let all your emotions out; tell us how you really feel.
The manner in which I discuss things in forums is tempered by the rules of those forums. And by the fact that I am not just talking to one person - what I write is read by anyone interested in the thread in question. Plus I was brought up to be polite. And I try. I really try very hard on times.
A lot of what is written on any subject is just thrown out without any attempt at a reasonable discussion. Questions are ignored. Points won are dismissed. Random cut ‘n’ paste is the rule. Repetition of arguments proved to be fallacious are repeated ad nauseum. One cannot treat a lot of these chats as nothing more than an amusing way to pass the time.
I guarantee that the same discussions, held in a bar, face to face, would result in a different result. And I don’t mean that push and shove would result. But that a point made would need to be accepted or rejected. Not ignored.
Imagine me accusing Ed of being a YEC and him ignoring the question. He’d be shouted down by all interested parties until he either agreed or denied. Here…he ignores it.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I question if their science showed there was no designer, they would keep redesigning any experiments until they got the foregone conclusion they were looking for. This is the problem…no matter who’s doing it…with starting with your conclusion.
I’ve yet to read any scientific ID papers that passed the usual rigid criteria of scientific standards…and yes! If it was valid research with reproducible data, it would be accepted. There is no conspiracy to lock out anyone in science. I could get legitimate research published if it was scientifically valid.
E
edwest211
Guest
On the one hand, you point out that you were brought up to be polite, then you use the phrase “shouted down.” So which is it? A polite, reasoned discussion or going with shouted down?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Here it is a polite discussion. Elsewhere…quite frankly you’d be ignored.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
According to you, this would not be true in a public place. You would not be involved but others would shout me down. Fortunately, you consider physical coercion to be a bad thing.
B
Bradskii
Guest
‘Shouted down’ in these 'ere parts means being encouraged to be quiet (not necessarily in those exact terms) until you come up with a decent response to a reasonable answer. Like…I dunno…how old is the planet.
A refusal means you are ignored. But only in those specific circumstances. In real life. Here…I’ll just keep asking you. No shouting down. Just a continual request for a forum member to show the courage of their convictions.
E
edwest211
Guest
This 'ere parts. I’ve dealt with people in England and Australia.
B
Bradskii
Guest
A man of the world. Well done. Now the answer to the question is…?
E
edwest211
Guest
It should be obvious by now. … crickets …
B
Bradskii
Guest
And @Paddy1989, here’s the answer I promised. A complete and utter failure to state what one’s beliefs are. Because of the fear of ridicule. Such is forum life.
Back to you, Ed.
And what should we do in cases such as this? Why, encourage more debate. Encourage more discussion. Allow views to be presented. Attempt, as best we can, to allow the bright sunlight of reason to bathe upon these views. Despite the attempts of those holding them to keep them hidden from view.
Back to you, Ed.
E
edwest211
Guest
Ah, vintage Bradskii. Your (non) explanation of my possible motives reminds me of an incident where my company released a product. One person on another forum wrote a newspaper-worthy article ‘explaining’ our reasons for doing what we did, including mentioning all of our motivations in “factual” detail. It was one of those few cases where I had to respond in detail. This person had attended no planning meetings. We had not released any such information to the public, but here it was: “factual” reporting that was made entirely of whole cloth. I, and others, were under an NDA. Was it possible that some details had leaked out? Yes. But, true to form, some facts were added. Some of the things mentioned never happened, much less actually discussed in real life.
Last edited:
- Status