S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I believe I already asked about at least the middle one, and my post was skipped over.
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.
F
Farsight001
Guest
They are the same. Plentiful evidence has been given in this regard.Done.
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.
Do they all believe creationism and ID are the same?Not just the National Academy of Sciences, but also …
(By the way, the listing is not limited to
just the above, but that was the largest
list I could find on one page.)
B
buffalo
Guest
Aren’t you disturbed by the wording “intelligent design creationists”?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:
Then they should just ignore irreducible complexity instead of trying to FALSIFY it.
Uniformatarians were unwilling to budge as I showed in the Megaflood dialogue and J Harlen Bretz. Now catastrophism is accepted. Since earth forces have been shaped in the past and no one was there, they reason that it took long ages. They are reasoning the same as a forensic analysis of a crime scene. No one saw it, but there is evidence. They are using the same methodology they are critical of. Now somone comes along with a differenct perspective and they cry foul?
You have been witness on this very thread to people that believe ID but do not claim creationism.They ARE the same. this has already been proven.
Also, on this very thread, I have been provided explanations of creationist that do not fit ID.
The only evidence I have seen was a court case.
Please tell me we are not basing scientific fact upon a court case.
B
buffalo
Guest
Theology was once know as the “queen of sciences”. One could argue that modern science has excluded her to advance an agenda.But you would agree they have no inherent right to determine what is science and what is not?
E
edwest2
Guest
That’s ideology, not science. You should have seen the reaction to the following:Repetition is a key part of teaching as well.
Well, they ARE always wrong. Since evolution has been proven true, anyone claiming it is not true is de facto WRONG.
nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Has each one investigated it thoroughly or have jumped on the bandwagon? Is this an argument of popularity?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 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.)
F
Farsight001
Guest
Which is impossible, as they are the same thing. Its like saying “I believe in gravity, but do not believe in things falling”You have been witness on this very thread to people that believe ID but do not claim creationism.
No you have not.Also, on this very thread, I have been provided explanations of creationist that do not fit ID.
Then you were not paying any attention at all.The only evidence I have seen was a court case.
Even were Creationism and/or ID 100% true, the idea that they are the same is not a scientific matter. It’s a matter of basic logic. Their formal definitions are the same. The textbook ones promoted in classrooms by creationists is the EXACT SAME book now promoted in classrooms by ID advocates. The people who popularized the idea were all creationists until one day they decided that they should advocated the functionally no different ID, and have admitted under oath that they are the same thing. The evidence is really quite conclusive.Please tell me we are not basing scientific fact upon a court case.
B
buffalo
Guest
Irreducible complexity is falsifiable.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.
P
Pondero
Guest
I find it hard to believe that an amoeba or some primitive living cell developed over time into mankind. I do believe that man was a specific creation by God,infused with a soul, because belief in the Catholic religion requires it.
Whatever happened, and we don’t really know, my faith teaches me, it did not occur by random chance. It is mathematically,statistically impossible for believers in Darwinism, to account for the changes, so called evolution, by chance alone.There had to be some guiding divine principle behind these changes in species, if they indeed occured at all,that I call God.
As I said, I find evolution hard to believe in.
Whatever happened, and we don’t really know, my faith teaches me, it did not occur by random chance. It is mathematically,statistically impossible for believers in Darwinism, to account for the changes, so called evolution, by chance alone.There had to be some guiding divine principle behind these changes in species, if they indeed occured at all,that I call God.
As I said, I find evolution hard to believe in.
F
Farsight001
Guest
What is ideology? If evolution is factual, then any concept directly opposed to evolution is necessarily false. That’s logic, not ideology.That’s ideology, not science. You should have seen the reaction to the following:
nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html
F
Farsight001
Guest
There is a difference between something being falsifiable and something never having had any merit in the first place. Irreducible complexity never had merit.Irreducible complexity is falsifiable.
B
buffalo
Guest
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.I find it hard to believe that an amoeba or some primitive living cell developed over time into mankind. I do believe that man was a specific creation by God,infused with a soul, because belief in the Catholic religion requires it.
Whatever happened, and we don’t really know, my faith teaches me, it did not occur by random chance. It is mathematically,statistically impossible for believers in Darwinism, to account for the changes, so called evolution, by chance alone.There had to be some guiding divine principle behind these changes in species, if they indeed occured at all,that I call God.
As I said, I find evolution hard to believe in.
The scientific method does not require empirical tests.
So it is all based on a court case.Even were Creationism and/or ID 100% true, the idea that they are the same is not a scientific matter. It’s a matter of basic logic. Their formal definitions are the same. The textbook ones promoted in classrooms by creationists is the EXACT SAME book now promoted in classrooms by ID advocates. The people who popularized the idea were all creationists until one day they decided that they should advocated the functionally no different ID, and have admitted under oath that they are the same thing. The evidence is really quite conclusive.
Disappointing. But not unexpected.
I have seen throughout this thread a tendency to apply different standards based upon ideology.
meltzerboy
New member
Doesn’t your second statement contradict your first? If the scientific method does not require empirical tests, then evolution can be science rather than philosophy even though it is not empirical.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.
The scientific method does not require empirical tests.
And have we reached the point in this thread of now calling evolutionary theory philosophy and IDvolution science? This is all topsy turvy.
And just like that, the standard applied just a few pages ago is wiped out in favor of a new one.There is a difference between something being falsifiable and something never having had any merit in the first place. Irreducible complexity never had merit.
Goal post location revision in process and noted.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Adaptive change is factual.What is ideology? If evolution is factual, then any concept directly opposed to evolution is necessarily false. That’s logic, not ideology.
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. The large majority of which have occurred prehistorically and have NEVER been observed, recorded or measured.
Therefore “evolution” is not factual, it is an attempt to explain adaptive change as the result of one or mostly one mechanism. Since that mechanism (random mutation governed by natural selection) is not observable, except in very isolated, very controlled situations, it is a scientific error to extrapolate from a small data set to a claim that evolution is “factual” and certainly illogical to claim it can be the only mechanism powering adaptive change.
The real logic is that equivocating between adaptive change and evolution is committing a gross logical error.
E
edwest2
Guest
The first case was not a conspiracy. And it may be a legal matter that the school board will have to deal with. I’m certain that both parents and students would examine the material and be able to conclude on their own whether it’s reasonable. It may turn out like Dover or not. No, I’m not clueless but the sacred science class is presented as more inviolate and restricted than any Ultra-Orthodox religious group.Never heard of Creationists infiltrating classrooms? Can’t be that clueless, can you?
bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVeLoLOEyMEI
And why do you think Of Pandas & People revise their textbooks to sound MORE
scientific when at first they sounded more religious? Creation to Intelligent Design.
Creator to Intelligent Agency. What’s up with that?
To your second dilemma, what will scientists do about that?
In 1895, Lord Kelvin, made the “statement ‘heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible’ (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, ‘I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning…I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.’ Kelvin is also known for an address to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the advancement of Science in 1900 in which he stated, ‘There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.’” A similar statement is attributed to the American physicist Albert Michelson."
Peace,
Ed
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
What examples? and why don’t the real scientists find it good enough to consider ID a science.In your opinion. Ive seen some very good examples in this thread that indicate other wise.
Your answer was “I dont know.”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.