One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

Does the court dictate scientific truth?

Of course not and I didn’t say it did.

I would think if there are those that do not believe ID to be a religious argument, than their definition is obviously quite different from the one described in the court.

There are also those who believe that “inflammable” means “not flammable”. They are wrong. Just as those who claim ID is not a religious argument are wrong (or lying).

Perhaps it would benefit all if we could simply work with that definition.

Work with the definition you guys want it to be instead of the established definition? No thanks. I prefer accuracy and truth over changing things to suit an argument.

And did I forget to mention that Behe was one of those people on the stand forced to admit that ID was basically religious? I was trying to shy away from calling him a dirty liar for suggesting ID wasn’t religious, but you forced my hand.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But again, ID is not Behe’s baby. Other people invented it, and THEY have admitted that it is a religious argument on the stand, under penalty of perjury, in the court of law. Behe can say its not a religious argument all he wants. He is not the one who gets to decide whether it is or not.

You do understand that Behe was a principle witness for the Dover side in the trial, do you not? He presented evidence at the trial along with Kenneth Miller for the Kitzmiller side.
Interestingly, both Behe and Miller are Catholics.

 

[vz71]

What does murder have to do with it? Populations evolve, not entire species. And evolution is adaptation to improve survival of the individual, not the entire race. There is no logical reason that evolution would cause murder to cease.

So it is not likely that the intelligence and empathy necessary to stop murders could be evolved?

Why then are we not all murderers?

 

[Farsight001]

True. Which makes evolution of life forms a much greater challenge than simply coding computer software.

No, actually. That makes it EASIER because that means it can happens naturally.

So if we would view random changes to computer code as being highly unlikely to improve software, then it would appear to be even less likely that random changes to genetic code would improve it because genetic code bears double the burden - properly functioning bodies and the reproduction of those bodies.

again, its not just random changes. Natural selection works together with random mutation. I have had to point this out to you guys at least half a dozen times now.

Thanks for making my case even stronger :tiphat:

Only in your head.

Yes. Yes. I know, it’s natural selection ACTING ON random mutation. But the random mutation has to give rise to the functional code in the first place before it can be subject to random selection. So some form of code must be generated before it can be filtered by natural selection.

So?

Which is why abiogenesis is a crucial missing piece of the puzzle. Without knowing how the code arose or the initial form it took, it is taking stabs in the dark to infer that natural selection acting on random mutations can have the efficacy the mechanism is claimed to have.

Not really. Lets use the puzzle analogy. Do I have to know which factory made the puzzle to know what the picture displays? Of course not. Yet that is precisely what you are insisting here.

And it’s not stabs in the dark. It has been tested, reproduced, and observed thousands upon thousands of times.

 

[vz71]

That begins however with the idea that there is a Designer. Also, no matter what hy-
pothetical reality with which we challenge Intelligent Design, it just is not falsifiable.
By that very fact alone, Intelligent Design is not a science.

To be falsifiable, wouldn’t it have to be measurable?

 

[Farsight001]

You do understand that Behe was a principle witness for the Dover side in the trial, do you not? He presented evidence at the trial along with Kenneth Miller for the Kitzmiller side.
Interestingly, both Behe and Miller are Catholics.

Uh…Behe was on the Dover side, not the Kitzmiller side. I’ve read the trial transcript. He was definitely a “witness” for Dover.

 

[Farsight001]

So it is not likely that the intelligence and empathy necessary to stop murders could be evolved?

Why then are we not all murderers?

It could evolve, but if there is no need to do so to increase survivability (again, of the individual or population, NOT the entire species), then why would it? Murder is a moral problem with a moral solution.

 

[Farsight001]

OK, all things being equal, the snap answer would be that the vests do not contribute to survival.

I don’t believe for one second that that is your honest answer. Half a bullet proof vest vs no bulletproof vest for people getting shot at, and they’re as equally likely to die? Not even remotely believable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But again, ID is not Behe’s baby. Other people invented it, and THEY have admitted that it is a religious argument on the stand, under penalty of perjury, in the court of law.

Actually, intelligent design was a philosophical argument finely detailed by William Paley in 1802 so it’s been around for almost 200 years, although even Aquinas uses a final cause version of the argument and forms of it have been around since the Greeks. So, no it’s NOT a religious argument, it IS and HAS BEEN a philosophical argument.

The Dover judge was just plain wrong and didn’t have his facts straight.

The question is, Does it have the kind of evidential support that Paley and others have claimed for it? And THAT is where the science comes in.

The “other people” that invented it were NOT alive are the time of the trial, so “they” could NOT have admitted anything about it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Uh…Behe was on the Dover side, not the Kitzmiller side. I’ve read the trial transcript. He was definitely a “witness” for Dover.

Read my post. That is EXACTLY what I said.

He testified ALONG with Miller, who testified FOR the Kitzmiller side.

 

[Farsight001]

Actually, intelligent design was a philosophical argument finely detailed by William Paley in 1802 so it’s been around for almost 200 years, although even Aquinas uses a final cause version of the argument and forms of it have been around since the Greeks. So, no it’s NOT a religious argument, it IS and HAS BEEN a philosophical argument.

Yes, I’ve heard this before. But if you look at what William Paley was talking about, it isn’t even remotely similar to anything they’re calling ID today. His idea came, was called ID, and died out… Now a new idea with the same name exists.

The Dover judge was just plain wrong and didn’t have his facts straight.

Read the trial transcript and tell me he wasn’t given the facts with a straight face.

The question is, Does it have the kind of evidential support that Paley and others have claimed for it? And THAT is where the science comes in.

Sure. So they should go do experiments instead of complaining that they don’t get equal representation. The reason they don’t is because they don’t test their pet idea.

 

[Farsight001]

Read my post. That is EXACTLY what I said.

He testified ALONG with Miller, who testified FOR the Kitzmiller side.

Sorry. I saw the phrase “with Kenneth Miller for the Kitzmiller side” and misread it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That begins however with the idea that there is a Designer. Also, no matter what hy-
pothetical reality with which we challenge Intelligent Design, it just is not falsifiable.
By that very fact alone, Intelligent Design is not a science. It sure speaks scientific-
ally, but at its very heart, ID is religion.

If changes to genetic code were found to be predominantly the result of sequences buried in the code itself which we have not yet been deciphered, and if mutations were found to have only a small role, then that thesis is testable and verifiable by further deciphering of the code.

If genetic code contains the kind of power within it to trigger wholesale speciation, not the result of mutations over time, but rather the result of coding already present that would go a long way to determining whether intelligent design is built into the entire process.

Thus, very falsifiable and very scientific and not religious in the least.

 

[livingwordunity]

What does murder have to do with it? Populations evolve, not entire species. And evolution is adaptation to improve survival of the individual, not the entire race. There is no logical reason that evolution would cause murder to cease.

The human population is made up of individuals. So, if society as a whole doesn’t evolve how can you say that individuals did? How are humans any different morally now than in the time of Genesis?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, I’ve heard this before. But if you look at what William Paley was talking about, it isn’t even remotely similar to anything they’re calling ID today. His idea came, was called ID, and died out… Now a new idea with the same name exists.

Nice bit of spontaneous “mythologizing.”

Yes, of course, Paley’s idea that nature appears and therefore is designed, is vastly different from the modern ID claim that nature appears designed and therefore we should look into whether it actually is. I see now that they are not even “remotely similar.”

Thanks for pointing that out.

Read the trial transcript and tell me he wasn’t given the facts with a straight face.

Sure. So they should go do experiments instead of complaining that they don’t get equal representation. The reason they don’t is because they don’t test their pet idea.

Actually, the complaint is that they don’t receive a “fair” hearing because many who are in positions to determine what gets peer reviewed will not even consider the science behind ID for exactly the same reasons you don’t: “It’s not science.” They are testing their “pet idea,” but the testing is not allowed to be considered for peer review.

It can’t be tested because it’s not science and it’s not science because there is no testing.

Heads I win, tails you lose.
Nice arrangement.

 

[vz71]

I don’t believe for one second that that is your honest answer. Half a bullet proof vest vs no bulletproof vest for people getting shot at, and they’re as equally likely to die? Not even remotely believable.

You asked for the snap judgement.
You got it.

Now you believe I am not being honest because my answer does not follow what you believe.

 

[edwest2]

Others are successfully thinking outside of the box.

amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Werner-Gitt/dp/0890514615/ref=pd_sim_b_8

Peace,
Ed

 

[HansTrappist]

But again, ID is not Behe’s baby. Other people invented it, and THEY have admitted that it is a religious argument on the stand, under penalty of perjury, in the court of law. Behe can say its not a religious argument all he wants. He is not the one who gets to decide whether it is or not.
That’s not following empirical evidence, though. The very idea that you have witnessed design is the CONCLUSION, not the premise. You first need evidence that what you see is designed before you can conclude that it is. And since no one has done a single actual experiment to test for design, that’s obviously not happened.

That’s because ancient ruins do not reproduce or self replicate imperfectly.

But there is no irreducible complexity. Every attempt to suggest that something is irreducibly complex has been met by real scientists with proof that it is not.
We’re not the ones muddying the waters here… ID, Creationism, evolution, etc. already have established meanings. You came here trying to insist that they mean something else.

Your irrational yet predictable hostility towards Behe and ID is becoming more clear. Behe’s name has a way of bringing the Darwinists out of the closet. Your purpose here, Farsight, is being revealed with every ignorant and derisive comment you make towards Behe and those who propose ID.

Scientists get to answer questions of design, not jurists. Behe exposed that sham Dover trial starting at the 00:45:13 mark here youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=ZgsEtVe_Bis (he also effectively refutes every argument you have made against him).

Behe’s conclusion of Intelligent Design is based on the empirical evidence and standard Logic.

Design is observed not “tested”. Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts to fulfill some function.

The biological systems and structures Behe has identified as irreducibly complex have never been shown to be reducible. Quit lying.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

To be falsifiable, wouldn’t it have to be measurable?

Let me explain it this way:

If Evolution were true, we should observe a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between
creatures that are progressively more and more similar to each other. This phenomenon is
explained by the Theory of Evolution by suggesting that species branch out from common
descent, and this is indeed what the evidence tells us.

Intelligent Design would say that the Designer used the same materials to design all life so
of course we would expect to find a nested hierarchy of similarities between creatures. Fair.

Now let’s change the state of being in the natural world. If we were to find the fossilized remains of a horse in strata
dating back to the Cambrian Explosion, the Theory of Evolution would be in Big Trouble, for NO amount of tweaking
in the light of new data could possibly explain this strange anomaly. So here, evolution is entirely dependent on the
state of the natural state of the world in reality.

Intelligent Design, however, still stands in light of the “Cambrian Horse.” Why? That’s how the Designer designed it.
What about altering the nested hierarchy observation, say that NO creature was similar in any way, shape, of form.
That’s how the Designer designed it. What if All Creatures were genetically similar EXCEPT for us Homo–sapiens?
That’s how the Designer designed it. What if camels were made of clay? That’s how the Designer designed it.

No matter what, Intelligent Design is not grounded in reality, does not depend on reality, only on the assumption of
the existence of an unknown Designer who designed it. Change reality, Intelligent Design still works, because That
is how the Designer designed it. Intelligent Design is not a science, that’s how the Designer designed it!

 

[buffalo]

Evolved doesn’t mean “Perfect.”
Evolution doesn’t mean “Getting Better.”
Evolution means “Changing and Surviving.”

How can a brain produced by changing and surviving and not getting better be rational and dependable to even make truth claims?