One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
So it is all based on a court case.

Disappointing. But not unexpected.

I have seen throughout this thread a tendency to apply different standards based upon ideology.
Click to expand...
I clearly provided an explanation involving more than just a court case. Either you are not reading my post carefully, or you’re being difficult to try to get under my skin.
 
buffalo said:
Most people do not believe evolution to be empirical, that is observable, testable and predictable. If it was then there would be no argument. SInce it is not, it is philosophy.
Click to expand...
Actually, according to polls, most of the world does, in fact, believe evolution to be empirical. You know this already. Most people also believe the earth to be round, and yet there is still that vocal minority who insists it is flat. So clearly, being true does not mean there is no argument. It just makes the people arguing against it wrong.
The scientific method does not require empirical tests.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it did. I said it required experimentation, of which ID has none.
 
meltzerboy said:
If the scientific method itself is philosophy and, as you have claimed, IDvolution follows the scientific method, then IDvolution is also philosophy just as, according to you, evolution is. So we have two competing philosophical theories. Would you agree to that provided IDvolution is considered at least at the same philosophical level as evolution?

Do you differentiate at all between philosophy and science?
Click to expand...
IDvolution is philosophy. ID the science, informs it as I have posted before. But ID the science is not exclusive to informing. Looking at the resource page are many many links to papers that are not ID at all.

Exactly - we have two competing philosophies. :clapping: You may have seen me post this on many other related threads. Teach empirical science in the science classroom only and students should take a mandatory philosophy course.

Yes, empirical science is observable, repeatable and predictable.
 
vz71 said:
And just like that, the standard applied just a few pages ago is wiped out in favor of a new one.

Goal post location revision in process and noted.
Click to expand...
In what way is it a different standard? scientific things are falsifiable. Unscientific things are not. To be falsifiable, a concept must have some sort of apparent merit to begin with. Irreducible Complexity never had any.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
No, for if you had any clue of how science works, you would know that honest scientists,
whenever introducing a novel hypothesis into the scientific community, it is tested, tested
again, discussed, reviewed, peer reviewed, and that is how scientists can tell whether an
idea ought to be accepted as valid science or not.
It is not the mere effort of an individual person or organization, as you seem to be implying,
but rather it is a combined effort, everyone is looking into Intelligent Design, and the major-
ity iws coming up (not making up) with the same answers.

There’s no “jumping on the bandwagon” in science.
Click to expand...
Oh yes there is - humans are involved. Grant money is involved. Status is involved.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
No, for if you had any clue of how science works, you would know that honest scientists,
whenever introducing a novel hypothesis into the scientific community, it is tested, tested
again, discussed, reviewed, peer reviewed, and that is how scientists can tell whether an
idea ought to be accepted as valid science or not.
It is not the mere effort of an individual person or organization, as you seem to be implying,
but rather it is a combined effort, everyone is looking into Intelligent Design, and the major-
ity iws coming up (not making up) with the same answers.

There’s no “jumping on the bandwagon” in science.
Click to expand...
Junk DNA:

"The article summarizes John Mattick’s view with these striking words: “The failure to recognize the importance of introns ‘may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.’” Yet that is what Dr. Falk does in Coming to Peace with Science by repeatedly calling introns “gibberish.”

"Falk also cites shared retrotransposons such as SINE elements and other forms of repetitive DNA as evidence for common ancestry. But here, too, evidence of function has been found for SINE elements. In a 2005 paper in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, influential geneticist James Shapiro and pro-ID biologist Richard Sternberg conclude, "There are clear theoretical reasons and many well-documented examples which show that repetitive DNA is essential for genome function."3

"In 2002, Sternberg wrote a review article in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences titled, “On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System” which documents a variety of known functional roles for repetitive DNA, including:
Code: 
telomeric tandem repeats and LINE elements
SINEs as nucleation centers for methylation
SINEs as chromatin boundary/insulator elements
SINEs involved in cell proliferation
SINEs involved in cellular stress responses
SINEs involved in translation (may be connected to stress response)
SINEs involved in binding cohesin to chromosomes and
LINEs involved in DNA repair4
"Indeed, here on ENV Sternberg recently posted some fascinating insights showing unexpected conserved patterns of SINE elements which not only could hint at their function, but entail similarities that are not due to common descent. So like introns, SINE elements should also not be written off as “gibberish.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Peter_Plato said:
Adaptive change is factual.
Click to expand...
Adaptive change is also evolution.
That all adaptive change is due to random mutation governed by natural selection (evolution) is not factual because such a claim cannot take into account all adaptive changes that have ever occurred.
Click to expand...
Why in the world would it need to? Do we need to test every fallen object for the presence of higgs bosons to confirm that they did, in fact, fall due to gravity? Of course not.
The large majority of which have occurred prehistorically and have NEVER been observed, recorded or measured.
Click to expand...
You can still observe, record, test, and measure things that are prehistoric, though not in the way you seem to think. Observation in science does NOT mean direct observation.
The real logic is that equivocating between adaptive change and evolution is committing a gross logical error.
Click to expand...
Equivocating evolution to the definition of evolution is a logical error?
 
vz71 said:
You keep treating the two as the same, but I have yet to see the two shown to be the same.
Click to expand...
The entirety of the textbooks are identical except that where one says “God” the other says “intelligent designer” and where one says “creation”, the other says “intelligent design.” Even the definitions for creation and intelligent design are the same. The titles of two of the books are the same. How are they not shown to be the same?1
Other then a court case, but I believe we can all agree that the courts do not decide truth.
Click to expand...
You know full well that people have provided more evidence than just a court case, so quit acting like that’s all we have.
 
buffalo said:
Oh yes there is - humans are involved. Grant money is involved. Status is involved.
Click to expand...
You don’t jump on the bandwagon to get grant money or status, though. If anything, you upset the applecart. No one is interested in giving grant money or awards to people who want to research what we already know.
 
vz71 said:
I agree it is a religious view, but what difference does it make who came up with it?
Click to expand...
If it is religion, it is not science. End of Story.
vz71 said:
So proponents of ID are very religious.
Oh the horror :eek:. Would it make the belief more palatable to you if every proponent was anti-religion?
Click to expand...
No, but it would sure be nice if ID was not driven by religion.
vz71 said:
It would make it a popular argument. Or rather, an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Click to expand...
Then how to do we determine what is science and what is not science?
It is perfectly valid to bring up what the scientific consensus is on what
Intelligent Design is, whether it is a science or not. If it was a matter of
General Agreement based on nothing else, that would be ad populum.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Alright then, first define what it means in science for something to be falsifiable.
Once you have, explain how irreducible complexity is falsifiable.
Click to expand...
All balls in the box are red. A blue one is found. All balls in the box are not red.

All irreducibly complex things are not reducible. One is found. All irreducibly complex things are not irreducible.
 
Peter_Plato said:
It can be explained as the result of a random genetic mutation that changed the brain chemistry of any humans with sufficient intelligence and aptitude for science such that these individuals are incapable of distinguishing intelligence and design from perceptual experience.
Click to expand...
I guess that’s fair, but doesn’t that put Creationists in the same boat, that they are incapable of distinguishing perceptual experience from intelligence and design???
Your point is invalid.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
I guess that’s fair, but doesn’t that put Creationists in the same boat, that they are incapable of distinguishing perceptual experience from intelligence and design???
Your point is invalid.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t meant to be fair. It was meant as sarcasm.
 
edwest2 said:
It is very clear why some Americans are rightly skeptical of those who make claims regarding the topic.
Click to expand...
But God is not a science. God is beyond the scope of all scientific studies,
and any attempt to argue otherwise, I believe, is insulting to God. How dare
anyone try and pin God down under glass or put him in a test tube or under
a microscope and say that we can use God in Science.
 
buffalo said:
All balls in the box are red. A blue one is found. All balls in the box are not red.

All irreducibly complex things are not reducible. One is found. All irreducibly complex things are not irreducible.
Click to expand...
First of all, that’s not what they mean by falsifiable in science. Nice try, though.

Second of all, since there is no exact definition of irreducible complexity, nor any mechanism by which it might be measured or determined, it remains not falsifiable. You’ve got to test an idea and at least see the results suggest that it works before you call it falsifiable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top