J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
But philosophers, when dealing with PHILOSOPHY, do not deal with SCIENCE,
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
They reason their observation too.But philosophers, when dealing with PHILOSOPHY, do not deal with SCIENCE,
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
In all honesty, cannot sufficiently answer to what you just said, but let’s get back to one crucial point.They reason their observation too.
Intelligent Design is by no means a Science.
If you think other wise, then tell me why the National Academy of Sciences says,
- “…the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology.”
- “Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one’s opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested.”
- “The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.”
And what of these:
E
estesbob
Guest
So the NAS gets to decide what is science and what is not??? Who gave them this power?In all honesty, cannot sufficiently answer to what you just said, but let’s get back to one crucial point.
Intelligent Design is by no means a Science.
If you think other wise, then tell me why the National Academy of Sciences says,
Are they lying, don’t know any better, what?
- “…the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology.”
- “Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one’s opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested.”
- “The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.”
And what of these:
F
Farsight001
Guest
He asked the question. I think his question should be answered, not met with another question.So the NAS gets to decide what is science and what is not??? Who gave them this power?
And by the way, its the National Academy of Sciences. they have quite a lot of experience doing science. Its not that they are deciding what is and is not science. It’s that they’ve looked at ID and determined professionally that it does not meet the criteria to be science.
E
estesbob
Guest
But you would agree they have no inherent right to determine what is science and what is not?He asked the question. I think his question should be answered, not met with another question.
And by the way, its the National Academy of Sciences. they have quite a lot of experience doing science. Its not that they are deciding what is and is not science. It’s that they’ve looked at ID and determined professionally that it does not meet the criteria to be science.
meltzerboy
New member
If it is part of their job description, which I do not know, then they do have an inherent right. Unless you mean inherent right bestowed by G-d.But you would agree they have no inherent right to determine what is science and what is not?
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Not just the National Academy of Sciences, but also the American Association of University Professors, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Anthropological Association, American Astronomical Society, National Association of Biology Teachers, Geological Society of America, The American Chemical Society, American Institute of Biological Sciences, The Paleontological Society, Botanical Society of America, New Orleans Geological Society, New York Academy of Sciences, Ohio Academy of Science, Ohio Math and Science Coalition, Oklahoma Academy of Sciences, Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Society for Amateur Scientists, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, Society for Neuroscience, Society for Organic Petrology, Society for the Study of Evolution, Society of Physics Students, Society of Systematic Biologists, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Southern Anthropological Society, Virginia Academy of Science, West Virginia Academy of Science, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, American Geophysical Union, American Society of Biological Chemists, American Psychological Association, American Physical Society, American Society of Parasitologists, Association for Women Geoscientists, Australian Academy of Science, California Academy of Sciences, Ecological Society of America, Genetics Society of America, Geological Society of America, Georgia Academy of Science, History of Science Society, Iowa Academy of Science, Kentucky Paleontological Society, Louisiana Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, North American Benthological Society, and North Carolina Academy of Science.So the NAS gets to decide what is science and what is not??? Who gave them this power?
Why do all these scientific organizations together oppose Intelligent Design as a science?
(By the way, the listing is not limited to
just the above, but that was the largest
list I could find on one page.)
E
estesbob
Guest
I dont know-but i do know no one appointed them as arbiter of what is science and what is not.Not just the National Academy of Sciences, but also the American Association of University Professors, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Anthropological Association, American Astronomical Society, National Association of Biology Teachers, Geological Society of America, The American Chemical Society, American Institute of Biological Sciences, The Paleontological Society, Botanical Society of America, New Orleans Geological Society, New York Academy of Sciences, Ohio Academy of Science, Ohio Math and Science Coalition, Oklahoma Academy of Sciences, Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Society for Amateur Scientists, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, Society for Neuroscience, Society for Organic Petrology, Society for the Study of Evolution, Society of Physics Students, Society of Systematic Biologists, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Southern Anthropological Society, Virginia Academy of Science, West Virginia Academy of Science, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, American Geophysical Union, American Society of Biological Chemists, American Psychological Association, American Physical Society, American Society of Parasitologists, Association for Women Geoscientists, Australian Academy of Science, California Academy of Sciences, Ecological Society of America, Genetics Society of America, Geological Society of America, Georgia Academy of Science, History of Science Society, Iowa Academy of Science, Kentucky Paleontological Society, Louisiana Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, North American Benthological Society, and North Carolina Academy of Science.
Why do all these scientific organizations oppose Intelligent Design as a science?
F
Farsight001
Guest
Sure. And I would also point out that they didn’t determine what is and is not science. Pointing out that something does not meet the criteria of science is not the same as declaring by fiat that it is not science.But you would agree they have no inherent right to determine what is science and what is not?
E
estesbob
Guest
So trying to dismiss anything said by IDers as “not science” really isn’t a valid argument, correct?Sure. And I would also point out that they didn’t determine what is and is not science. Pointing out that something does not meet the criteria of science is not the same as declaring by fiat that it is not science.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
The KEY WORDS there are “I dont know.”I dont know-but i do know no one appointed them as arbiter of what is science and what is not.
Try then reading the reasons using the link I provided earlier.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Only if they are a valid science. But since they are not a valid science, it is a valid argument. Actually, I wouldn’t call it an argument. more of an observation.So trying to dismiss anything said by IDers as “not science” really isn’t a valid argument, correct?
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
If IDists want to use the Scientific Method and bring something real to the table, theSo trying to dismiss anything said by IDers as “not science” really isn’t a valid argument, correct?
Scientific Community would be more than happy to gather and verify the Creationist
claims. The problem is, though, IDists cheat the criteria of Science.
E
estesbob
Guest
In your opinion. Ive seen some very good examples in this thread that indicate other wise.If IDists want to use the Scientific Method and bring something real to the table, the
Scientific Community would be more than happy to gather and verify the Creationist
claims. The problem is, though, IDists cheat the criteria of Science.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Then what experiments to test ID have they done? Its a necessary component of being a science and I’ve had to ask this question several times now without even an attempt at an answer.In your opinion. Ive seen some very good examples in this thread that indicate other wise.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Yes, like the Upper Probability Bound from Dembski, where not a single person on the forum could explain why there are only 10^45 transitions a second, a number supposedly accepted by physicists (who are scientists, mind you) even though no one could provide a source saying that physicists even accept it can be used that way and furthermore, the examples provided suggest that they don’t.In your opinion. Ive seen some very good examples in this thread that indicate other wise.
Are all the other examples provided by IDers equally poor?
It would seem the NAS are treating creationists and ID believers as the same.In all honesty, cannot sufficiently answer to what you just said, but let’s get back to one crucial point.
Intelligent Design is by no means a Science.
If you think other wise, then tell me why the National Academy of Sciences says,
Are they lying, don’t know any better, what?
- “…the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology.”
- “Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one’s opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested.”
- “The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.”
And what of these:
It has been my experience that this is not the case.
This would suggest that the NAS is mistaken.
Of course, I only have the specific quote provided and not the whole. So there may be a context I am not seeing.
F
Farsight001
Guest
They ARE the same. this has already been proven.It would seem the NAS are treating creationists and ID believers as the same.
It has been my experience that this is not the case.
This would suggest that the NAS is mistaken.
Of course, I only have the specific quote provided and not the whole. So there may be a context I am not seeing.
Done.He asked the question. I think his question should be answered, not met with another question.
And by the way, its the National Academy of Sciences. they have quite a lot of experience doing science. Its not that they are deciding what is and is not science. It’s that they’ve looked at ID and determined professionally that it does not meet the criteria to be science.
Given the experience they have with science and the scientific method, it is a disappointment that they would treat two separate beliefs as the same.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.