One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yeah-hau, but Intelligent Design is NOT falsifiable, ergo not a science.

It is a science insofar as it makes falsifiable claims. Forgive me if I don’t rely on the honesty of those seeking to expel IDers from science.

 

[Farsight001]

No. You are abusing terms for rhetorical purposes. Are you proposing that the tern “creationism” subsumes all theories in which God had a hand in creation? Or are you claiming that ID is secretly a young earth theory?

Using the proper and formally recognized definitions of words is not abuse or rhetoric. It is precision.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

This remains the common use of the term “creationism”.

I gave the definition of ID from it’s leading proponent.

The difference is quite obvious to those with eyes to see.

Not according to Creationist literature like Of Pandas & People.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Not according to Creationist literature like Of Pandas & People.

And we should rely on them because…?

The DIscovery Institute is the leading proponent of ID and most of the leading IDers are affilliated with it. Seems like a good source to me.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It is a science insofar as it makes falsifiable claims.

Which ID doesn’t.

Forgive me if I don’t rely on the honesty of those seeking to expel IDers from science.

The goal is not to expel Intelligent Design, but to keep science SCIENCE.
If IDists want to bring something real to the table, the Scientific Community will be happy to look at it.

 

[Farsight001]

I’m satisfied to occupy a neutral position. Let the IDers make and defend their case and weight their claims by proper scientific methods. Don’t let atheists and fellow travelers stack the deck against them such as by requiring a materialistic explanation.

Science requires a materialistic explanation, not atheists.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Which ID doesn’t. The goal is not to expel Intelligent Design, but to keep science SCIENCE. If IDists want to bring something real to the table, the Scientific Community will be happy to look at it.

Science is not kept science by prejudgement. The burden is on IDers to bring something to the table. Let them to that burden.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Science requires a materialistic explanation, not atheists.

No. Materalism is not scientific.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well Evolution does not only depend on natural selection but
also random mutation, environmental circumstances, etc.

Now let’s see something from the true history of Creation-Science, I mean “Intelligent Design”:“**Creation **means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency
of an **intelligent creator **with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 1st Edition 1987

“**Intelligent design **means that various forms of life began abruptly through an
intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins
and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 2nd Edition 1987

“**Sudden emergence **holds that various forms of life began ?] with their distinctive
features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings,
animals with fur and mammary glands.”
– Design of Life 2007

You do understand that if this little “factoid” of yours stands as legitimate, then the fact that Hitler used Darwinism - "from the true history” of evolution - as a pretext to exterminate inferior races stands as a refutation of evolution for exactly the same reason.

I suggest you forever trash this little copy-paste item if you want to actually participate in a reasoned discussion.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

The reason why this topic is banned in many forums on CAF is because when discussed it degenerates into personal attacks. DON’T LET THAT HAPPEN HERE.

Please charitably discuss the issues, not other members nor how they post.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If IDists want to bring something real to the table, the Scientific Community will be happy to look at it.

You are only “the keeper of the gate,” then?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

And we should rely on them because…?

Because Intelligent Design is trying to run away from its
religious past, hoping that people will just forget about it,
but real scientists will not let that happen.

The DIscovery Institute is the leading proponent of ID and most of the leading IDers are affilliated with it. Seems like a good source to me.

No it doesn’t.
Discovery Institute and all other Creationist Organizations have been criticized by the
majority of the scientific community, the reason being that Intelligent Design is not a
science. What would be a good source is something verifying that the scientific com-
munity actually does give Intelligent Design the Seal of Approval.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

No. Materalism is not scientific.

That’s not what he meant. He means that science is limited only to the material universe.
Science cannot see God, cannot give Supernatural explanations, etc.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Science is not kept science by prejudgement. The burden is on IDers to bring something to the table. Let them to that burden.

I don’t see how that conflicts with what I said.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That’s not what he meant. He means that science is limited only to the material universe.
Science cannot see God, cannot give Supernatural explanations, etc.

Science gives nonmaterialistic explanations all the time. There is much more to the universe than matter. Insisting on a natural explanaiton is a step in the right direction but even that begs the question of what is natural.

Nor is explanation the main element of science, prediction is. Science often makes predictions without explanation and sometimes (regretably) offers explanations without prediction.

The obsession with materialism is simply a historical vestige.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t see how that conflicts with what I said.

If conflicts only with the position that ID cannot be science. If that was not your meaning then we are not in disagreement on this.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Because Intelligent Design is trying to run away from its
religious past, hoping that people will just forget about it, but real scientists will not let that happen.

“Real” scientists don’t own science, fortunately. And sometimes Thomas Kuhn observed, progress in science must await the death of “real” scientists.

No it doesn’t. Discovery Institute and all other Creationist Organizations have been criticized by the majority of the scientific community, the reason being that Intelligent Design is not a science. What would be a good source is something verifying that the scientific com-
munity actually does give Intelligent Design the Seal of Approval.

Regardless of who is criticizing who, going to the main proponent of a theory seems to me the most reasonable source of definition for a new field.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Science gives nonmaterialistic explanations all the time. There is much more to the universe than matter. Insisting on a natural explanaiton is a step in the right direction but even that begs the question of what is natural.

Nor is explanation the main element of science, prediction is. Science often makes predictions without explanation and sometimes (regretably) offers explanations without prediction.

The obsession with materialism is simply a historical vestige.

Be that as it may, it is limited to Creation, how about that(?), and can-
not account for anything supernatural, otherwise it is not science.

 

[Farsight001]

Let’s look at how the Discovery Institute defines it:

discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

That is most definitely not incompatible with evolution. It’s not even incompatible with natural selection. It is only incompatible with the cliam that natural selection is, alone, a suffiicient explanation.

But that’s not a definition, though. As the quote says, Intelligent Design “holds”. Its describing one aspect of ID. I gave a formal definition of ID from a textbook. And this textbook was published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, and organization run by the Discovery Institute, and authored by Dembski and Wells, who are senior members of the Discovery Institute.

So ultimately, your provided meaning was a partial definition from the DI and my provided meaning was the official full definition from the DI. Which one are you going to trust.

And hopefully this helps illustrate how all over the place and inconsistent they are.

 

[HansTrappist]

No, I’m using it by its proper scientific definition. You keep saying evolution is random, but it is a lie when you say that.

This thread is over 100 pages long and there still seems to be disagreement over the definition of “Evolution.”

You call me a liar for stating that Random mutation is THE core component of Darwinian evolution (the other two components being Common Descent and Natural Selection). I find this accusation a tad bit extreme, given that Richard Dawkins would also agree with me.

I have clarified and pointed out to you a dozen times now that evolution is NOT random and you continue to insist that it is. That is in no way true.

Darwinian evolution is by definition Random.

If you had ever read any of Richard Dawkins books on the subject you would know this. Richard Dawkins is considered one of the leading advocates of Darwinian Evolution and although I do not pay much attention to Richard Dawkins most of the time (he once called for the arrest of Pope Benedict and he has advocated for infanticide) I do think he has accurately described the core tenets of Darwinian Evolution

There is only one form of evolution and ID specifically denies that evolution occurs. Again, this is another lie that I have had to correct a dozen times now.

Why do you continue to call me a liar. How uncharitable

Michael Behe is an ID proponent and he has never denied that evolution occurs. He has written that there are many things that Random mutation can do. But he has identified a limit to what Random mutation can do, based on the studies of HIV, Malaria and E.coli - which provide look at evolution in real time.