The plain meaning of the English language is not subject to interpretation.
When you start doing that, you are veering off into intellectual dishonesty.
In your opinion. To claim that words always mean only what they appear to say is simpleminded. If what you claim were true, then there wouldn't be nearly as many debates over the intent of the Founding Fathers, Biblical authors, etc.
Putting forth a supernatural explanation as a possibility is in and of itself an endorsement of religion.
Utter nonsense.
Once again only your opinion, With which I (and the courts) obviously disagree.
Funny how religion is totally inappropriate in science, but it's 'A OK' for the law to muck around in science. I guess that would make you every bit the pathetic hypocrite that the snake handling fundies are.
You are either reading this stuff so fast to process it properly, are dense as osmium, misunderstanding me, or are deliberately twisting my words. The discussion is over science education, over which states have definite jurisdiction. I have never discussed, even once, the propriety of the law mucking around in science itself.
But feel free to twist my words and then call me a hypocrite.
Makes you look damned silly.
Not for the first or last time.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
Putting forth a supernatural explanation as a possibility is in and of itself an endorsement of religion.
No, but putting forth a materialist cause as the only possible explaination is an endorsment of the athiest belief system, and a defacto violation of the establishment clause.
Which is the legal argument that should be, but isn't being made.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.
Diogenes wrote:....putting forth a materialist cause as the only possible explaination is an endorsment of the athiest belief system, and a defacto violation of the establishment clause.
Nope. Not even close.
Stating that omitting a supernatural cause is a "de facto" endorsement of atheism is one of the dick-in-the-dirt-dumbest arguments I have ever heard a sober, non-classified individual make.
Congrats...you're now three of the five stupidest people with whom I've ever spoken.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The discussion is over science education, over which states have definite jurisdiction.
Then what, exactly, is a federal court doing ruling on the subject?
Good question. I'm one of those who believes that the federal government has no legitimate Constitutional role in education and that the federal Dept. of education should be abolished.
Going out on a limb (since law is obviously not me forte), I'm guessing that the rationale involves that "equal protection" clause or somesuch. Just a guess on my part. Maybe the legal eagles around here could help out...
I have never discussed, even once, the propriety of the law mucking around in science itself.
And yet that is precisely what is happening here.
Nope. What is being "mucked with" is the nature of how tax dollars were going to be used to promote a specific form of pseudoscience (to later sneak Christianity in) in a science class, against the will of the local folks. How scientific research is funded, defined, discussed, debated, published, etc. within scientific arenas was not being decided by this decision. If anything, the scientists played a huge role in how the judge decided on science education.
One of the things that I think you lost track of here is that the school board members put the ID stuff in the curriculum over the objections of those that voted them in, which is what directly resulted in the lawsuit (filed by the parents) and their being voted off the board at the next election.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
Diogenes wrote:....putting forth a materialist cause as the only possible explaination is an endorsment of the athiest belief system, and a defacto violation of the establishment clause.
Nope. Not even close.
Stating that omitting a supernatural cause is a "de facto" endorsement of atheism is one of the dick-in-the-dirt-dumbest arguments I have ever heard a sober, non-classified individual make.
Congrats...you're now three of the five stupidest people with whom I've ever spoken.
Not 'omiting a supernatural cause', genius, but stating a materialist cause as a positive 'fact' when said causation is in fact unknown.
Being a 'scientist' you're obviously hyper-intelligent enough to get the differance, so it must just be your inate intellectual dishonesty shining through here and the rest of this thread and others.
But you're still just a minor transparent disembler, nowhere near the top of any list.
Diogenes wrote:Not 'omiting a supernatural cause', genius, but stating a materialist cause as a positive 'fact' when said causation is in fact unknown.
It was never taught as a "fact" when I was in school, and was stressed that it was what most scientists believe, based on what can be and has been observed and tested. There's a reason why it's a theory and not a law.
Van wrote:It's like rimming an unbathed fat chick from Missouri. It's highly distinctive, miserably unforgettable and completely wrong.
RadioFan wrote: There's a reason why it's a theory and not a law.
But I gather that though a state determines it's own school curriculum, it still has to operate within the confines of the national constitution? Which makes this an issue for federal courts?
I'm assuming that within the fine print of the ID arguement there are things which identify it as singularly Christian, which is tantamount to establishing a national religion - as no other religion is givin equal time in a science class?
When you take something as highly improbable as spontaneous biogenesis which isn't supported by objective evidence (and which since Darwin never mentioned it should obviosly not be in a class on evolution-since as has been pointed out by our resident 'scientist' evolution starts and ends with Darwin) and present it as the belief system 'most scientists' have adopted while banning any opinion that smacks of apostasy......
That is governmental endorsment of a belief system. Just because it isn't called 'religion' is a distinction without a differance.
The same with putting forward descent with modification without presenting the arguments against.
They are putting forward beliefs as facts and stifiling all criticism, with government money, in a mandatory educational system, and if you even mention school choice the 'educators' say that's fine- as long as it's only for the well-to-do. Let the poor eat shit.
Dr_Phibes wrote: I'm assuming that within the fine print of the ID arguement there are things which identify it as singularly Christian, which is tantamount to establishing a national religion - as no other religion is givin equal time in a science class?
You assume wrong. The only role Christianity has in ID is that since the majority of proponents are Christian, it is assumed to be a grand conspiracy to introduce Creationism into the classroom. Which is why hypocritical shills just go ahead and refer to ID proponents as creationists.
An honest and civil debate is quite beyond them.
Last edited by Diogenes on Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
RadioFan wrote: I'm assuming that within the fine print of the ID arguement there are things which identify it as singularly Christian, which is tantamount to establishing a national religion - as no other religion is givin equal time in a science class?
You assume wrong. The only role Christianity has in ID is that since the majority of proponents are Christian, it is assumed to be a grand conspiracy to introduce Creationism into the classroom. Which is why hypocritical shills just go ahead and refer to ID proponents as creationists.
mvscal wrote:After all we do teach anthropogenic climate change as established fact, do we not?
No, we don't, at least not in NY.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
RadioFan wrote:It was never taught as a "fact" when I was in school, and was stressed that it was what most scientists believe, based on what can be and has been observed and tested. There's a reason why it's a theory and not a law.
Theory = an explanation for a group of observations, well-supported by numerous experiments and/or observations.
Law = a mere statement of observation in which connections between observations is given.
Laws just state "what we see."; e.g., Mendel's laws explain how traits appear, but do not attempt to explain how traits are carried or expressed. The law of gravity does not attempt to explain the "why's" behind gravity, merely what it does under certain conditions.
Theories explain "why we see what we see." Theories get into the "why" and as such are useful for making predictions.
Laws NEVER, EVER become theories. Any teacher who says otherwise is ignorant.
In science, theories are actually "stronger" and more useful than laws.
In science "belief" is irrelevent. "Belief" is a matter for faith. Scientists don't "believe" in germ theory, immune theory or the theory of natural selection, rather they are CONVINCED BY THE EVIDENCE.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The discussion is over science education, over which states have definite jurisdiction.
Then what, exactly, is a federal court doing ruling on the subject?
Good question. I'm one of those who believes that the federal government has no legitimate Constitutional role in education and that the federal Dept. of education should be abolished.
Going out on a limb (since law is obviously not me forte), I'm guessing that the rationale involves that "equal protection" clause or somesuch. Just a guess on my part. Maybe the legal eagles around here could help out...
There are three types of civil cases over which federal courts have original jurisdiction
United States is a party (either plaintiff or defendant); or
Diversity of citizenship between parties (i.e., parties are citizens of different states) and amount in controversy >/= $75,000 (last time I checked the statute, anyway, may be higher now); or
Question of federal law presented.
Since the issue in the case at bar turned on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution is federal law, my guess, without reading the opinion, is that this case fell under the third category above.
Note that in the second and third categories, federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction. It's the plaintiff's call where to sue.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Diogenes wrote:When you take something as highly improbable as spontaneous biogenesis which isn't supported by objective evidence (and which since Darwin never mentioned it should obviosly not be in a class on evolution-since as has been pointed out by our resident 'scientist' evolution starts and ends with Darwin)
If you bothered to read the court decision, the biology teachers in Dover stated quite plainly that they don't address "origins of life" in their class, since it is not properly part of natural selection/Darwin. I don't bring it up in my classes either for the same reason. If I were, I would put forth the SCIENTIFIC hypotheses that have been advanced and discuss how they could be tested, their weaknesses/strengths, etc.
Abiogenesis as part of the "origins of life" bit does have several scientific hypotheses and current experimenters doing research to test those hypotheses (which I mentioned on our last go-round on this topic...).
and present it as the belief system 'most scientists' have adopted while banning any opinion that smacks of apostasy......
To quote Ronnie Reagan "there you go again." The ONLY opinions that are "banned" are those involving supernatural causes - not because of "bias" against Christianity, but because BY DEFINITION, science only deals with NATURAL causation and issues.
But feel free to keep lying about the nature of science.
And while we're on the subject of lying, I find it interesting that you refer to me as a "disembler" [sic] when you've managed to talk out of both sides of your mouth in this debate.
You try to come off as a defender of Christianity by twisting my words into an attack on Christianity in general:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
The whole "ID is secular" line of utter bullshit would be easier to swallow for triple-digit IQ folks if the bulk of its proponents weren't fundamentalist Christians.
Diogenes wrote:....You slur the intelligence of not only ID proponents but Christians in general.
But then proceed, in a later post, slam mainstream Christains thusly:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Christian fundamentalism is not, by any definition "mainstream" Christianity
Diogenes wrote:No, it is a label used to disparage Christians who actually believe in the Resurection, and the Bible as divinly inspired.
As opposed to modern secular churches who seem to feel the same way about Origin of Species.
You seem to define and defend "true" Christianity when and how it suits your particular ends and like misrepresenting the arguments of myself, the courts, and scientists as attacks on Christianity...which they most certainly are not.
The "dissembler" label fits you perfectly in this debate.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
After rereading my last post, I should amend it slightly.
With respect to the third category of federal courts' jurisdiction (i.e., federal question presented), federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy and immigration issues (the latter also fit, at least arguably, under the first category) subject to some exceptions (e.g., state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over post-discharge issues re: dischargeability of certain debts in bankruptcy, if raised as an affirmative defense in state court). Federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with state courts on all other questions of federal law.
But that's probably more about civil procedure than anyone wanted to know.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Diogenes wrote:When you take something as highly improbable as spontaneous biogenesis which isn't supported by objective evidence (and which since Darwin never mentioned it should obviosly not be in a class on evolution-since as has been pointed out by our resident 'scientist' evolution starts and ends with Darwin)
If you bothered to read the court decision, the biology teachers in Dover stated quite plainly that they don't address "origins of life" in their class, since it is not properly part of natural selection/Darwin.
If you bothered to pay attention to the post I was responding to (which you probably did, but just decided to cut my point out of context to avoid what I was saying).....
Diogenes wrote:
Radio Fan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Not 'omiting a supernatural cause', genius, but stating a materialist cause as a positive 'fact' when said causation is in fact unknown.
It was never taught as a "fact" when I was in school, and was stressed that it was what most scientists believe, based on what can be and has been observed and tested. There's a reason why it's a theory and not a law.
When you take something as highly improbable as spontaneous biogenesis which isn't supported by objective evidence (and which since Darwin never mentioned it should obviosly not be in a class on evolution-since as has been pointed out by our resident 'scientist' evolution starts and ends with Darwin)
...or are you really so clueless that you didn't get that I was discussing the approach to materialist prosletysing in the classroom, not this case in particular?
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:and present it as the belief system 'most scientists' have adopted while banning any opinion that smacks of apostasy......
The ONLY opinions that are "banned" are those involving supernatural causes - not because of "bias" against Christianity, but because BY DEFINITION, science only deals with NATURAL causation and issues.
But feel free to keep lying about the nature of science.
I've yet to discuss the nature of science, just how neo-darwinism is indocrinated in the public classrooms.
And if your first statement was even remotely true, you would allow the scientific weakness of your belief system to be presented.
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:You seem to define and defend "true" Christianity when and how it suits your particular ends and like misrepresenting the arguments of myself, the courts, and scientists as attacks on Christianity...which they most certainly are not.
Bullshit.
I mearly point out how hacks like you automaticly attack ID proponents by first labeling as 'fundamentalist' and not 'mainstream' any Christian who belives in the Bible and then claiming that their opinions are part of some grand conspiracy to force the young earth theory into the curriculum.
But feel free to keep distorting my posts and cutting them into indivudal and partial sentances to make things as unreadable as possible.
Dr_Phibes wrote: I'm assuming that within the fine print of the ID arguement there are things which identify it as singularly Christian, which is tantamount to establishing a national religion - as no other religion is givin equal time in a science class?
A long but decent read in the Tulsa World this summer, after the parks board here OK'd a creationist display at the zoo, then reversed that decision some weeks later ...
The University of Tulsa, btw, is a private university affiliated with the Presbyterian Church.
The evolutionary war
Between creationism and evolution, intelligent design emerges
BILL SHERMAN
World Religion Writer
07/18/2005
Tulsa World (Final Home Edition), Page A13 of News
View in Print (PDF) Format
The controversy at the Tulsa Zoo over the approval and then reversal of a display of the biblical story of creation is one more skirmish in a 150-year-old battle of ideas about the origin of mankind.
On one side are creationists, who feel their beliefs have been trampled or belittled in the marketplace of ideas in the past, and are now hopeful that their position may be finding a new voice.
On the other side are evolutionists, who have long held the academic high ground and now feel threatened by the growing militancy of the creationists who they believe would corrupt pure science with religion.
As in many controversies, both sides tend to demonize the other and to oversimplify complex issues.
Many evolutionists believe in God, some devoutly, and many creationists have a high regard for true science.
And adherents on both sides hold widely divergent beliefs.
Generally, evolutionists believe all living beings evolved from lower forms of life over enormous time periods.
Classical Darwinian evolutionists say this happened through a process called natural selection.
Natural selection maintains that random changes in living beings occur through genetic mutation or other means, and that when a change gives an organism a better chance of survival, that organism lives to reproduce, and the change is carried to future generations, over time creating more complex living beings.
But beyond that, evolutionists disagree on many of the finer points, and the theory of evolution itself has undergone mutations since Charles Darwin published "The Origin of the Species" in 1859.
Darwinian evolutionists may or may not believe God exists, but they think natural processes can explain the development of life on Earth.
Gallup polls consistent over the past two decades suggest that about 9 percent to 12 percent of Americans believe human beings developed over millions of years and that God had no part in the process, a statistic that is startling to Europeans and Japanese, who overwhelmingly believe in classical evolution.
What creationists believe
Creationists fall into two major camps.
Young-Earth creationists maintain that God created all living things within the last 10,000 years in much the same form they are today.
Most people in this camp take their inspiration from the biblical story of creation in the book of Genesis.
According to Gallup polls, about 45 percent of Americans believe that.
Old-Earth creationists believe that human beings developed from lower forms of life over millions of years, but that God guided the process. This position is held by about 37 percent of Americans.
Nathan Meleen, professor of Earth science and geography at Oral Roberts University, said that in his observation most science educators in Christian colleges hold an old-Earth creationist position.
As a science professor, he has problems with young-Earth creationists, he said.
"How can you teach science if you believe in a young Earth? I don't think you can.
"And we love science. Science is just looking over God's shoulder. It's exciting, it's intriguing. It's fun."
Meleen said he supports science "very strongly" and sees no conflict between science and the Bible.
He said he believes that the universe was created in the Big Bang some 11.8 billion years ago, and that God was "intricately and intimately involved" with the gradual creation of man over long periods of time, not necessarily by natural selection.
Intelligent design
A newcomer to the debate is the "intelligent-design" movement. This position maintains that the variety and complexity of life bear the imprint of a creator, and that the scientific evidence for classical evolution is inadequate.
Those in the intelligent-design camp generally neither refer to the biblical creation story nor take a position on the age of the Earth, but they say scientific evidence itself points to a creator.
A typical intelligent-design argument would be that if a man walking in the woods finds a fine watch, the design and craftsmanship of the watch itself give evidence that it was made by something and did not occur naturally.
Phillip Johnson, who has been called the founder of the ID movement, professor emeritus in the University of California-Berkeley law school, said in Tulsa last year that the weaknesses in the theory of evolution are piling up, and that he does not think it will survive this century.
"The biggest problem for Darwinian evolution is that the claimed creative power of the random mutation, natural selection mechanism has never been demonstrated," he said.
"Natural selection has never been shown capable of achieving anything more than trivial variations within a fundamentally stable species."(Creationists generally acknowledge that minor changes occur in nature, and call that process micro evolution.)
Evolutionists argue that intelligent design is just a back-door attempt to subvert evolution and get creationism into the public schools.
Despite resistance in the academic and scientific communities, intelligent-design ideas are having an impact on society.
In a 2001 Zogby Poll, 78 percent of Americans said that when evolution is taught in school, students also should be able to learn about the scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life. Thirteen percent disagreed.
The Rev. Radford Rader, pastor of College Hill Presbyterian Church, said he believes God created the heavens and the Earth but is offended by the proposed Tulsa Zoo display of the Genesis account of creation.
"I believe in intelligent design. Creation is the handiwork of the God of all knowledge, wisdom, power and might," he said, but he believes the Genesis account is a theological affirmation, not a scientific description.
"What I want to learn at the zoo are facts -- how ecosystems work, how fish breathe differently from amphibians. . . . I don't go to the zoo to learn the Christian faith," he said.
Evolutionists rely on science
Why does this issue evoke such heated debate?
Evolutionists say creationists are corrupting science and attempting to foist their religious ideas on school children -- ideas with no basis in science that do not belong in a science classroom.
Evolution is strongly held in the scientific and academic world.
Victor Hutchison, the George Lynn Cross research professor emeritus at the University of Oklahoma, said the intelligent-design movement cannot be science because its basic tenet cannot be tested and, despite its claims to the contrary, it is religious.
"It's a Trojan Horse ruse to get religious creationism into the public schools and other places in our society," he said.
The issue is so important that the head of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences last month wrote a letter to all members that was, in effect, a call to arms to fight the rise of creationism, he said.
"It decreases the value of science in our society. It is anti-education, as well as anti-science, and if it continues, it will decrease the standing of the United States in the scientific world. That is already beginning to happen," he said.
Creationists counter that classical evolution provides an explanation for the origin of man that makes God unnecessary and teaches young people that they are nothing more than highly evolved, sophisticated animals, freeing them from the moral constraints of a God who will hold humans accountable for their behavior.
"We're not blaming evolution for immorality," said Ken Ham, president and founder of Answers in Genesis-US, who spoke recently in Tulsa.
"We're saying the more people are taught that the Bible is not true, the more they can justify wrong behavior.
"What we believe about where we came from, and who we are, affects how we behave," he said.
A misunderstanding involving definitions
Peggy Hill, University of Tulsa biology professor, said she thought 90 percent of the controversy between evolution and creation was the result of misunderstandings.
"When it comes down to it, I think it's all just semantics," she said. "We're not using the same definitions.
"I feel there is not a conflict between science and faith," said Hill, who called herself a "very strong person of faith."
She said scientists who are evolutionists are being incorrectly labeled humanists or atheists. "I'm not sure creationists, on that end of the spectrum, understand the reality of our world," she said.
"We've got all kinds of people of faith that are working evolutionists," she said, "people who practice their faith, teach Sunday school, guide youth groups.
"There is no way you can, through science, prove the existence or non-existence of God, and why would you, as a person of faith, want to?"
She said science shows how things happen but cannot show why they happen.
"It's an opinion to say evolution happened without God's involvement. It's not verifiable," she said.
"There are many questions that can't be answered scientifically," she said. "Biologists don't work in that realm."
Tulsa's Park and Recreation Board, pushed by Mayor Bill LaFortune, voted last month to approve a biblical creationist display at the zoo.
The decision drew nationwide attention. Tulsa was described as a laughingstock on national radio.
Amid the controversy, the park board reversed the decision last week.
The Rev. Marlin Lavanhar, pastor of All Souls Unitarian Church, is chairman of Friends of Religion and Science, a group formed to oppose the Genesis display at the zoo.
"I've been amazed at the energy and deep concern it has generated," he said.
Lavanhar said the issue has "sown religious discord and tension in our community. Christians are even in conflict with other Christians over it," he said.
Van wrote:It's like rimming an unbathed fat chick from Missouri. It's highly distinctive, miserably unforgettable and completely wrong.
Did they remove the native and hindu displays when they reversed themselves on the creationist one, BTW?
No. That was one of the arguments that the proponents of the creationist display had. I tend to agree with them on that one -- either take out all of the symbols that could be considered religious or allow all of them to be displayed, imo.
The paper did a poll in November on this issue (500 likely Tulsa voters) -- nearly 59 percent strongly favored or somewhat favored a creationist display at the zoo. 33 percent said they somewhat or strongly disapproved of such an exhibit. It wouldn't surprise me if this particular issue is revisited here.
Van wrote:It's like rimming an unbathed fat chick from Missouri. It's highly distinctive, miserably unforgettable and completely wrong.
RadioFan wrote: students also should be able to learn about the scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.
The problem being...there isn't any.
To a closeminded ignorant douche like you.
If there wasn't, The neo-darwinist fundies would engage in honest debate on the subject instead of distortions, ad hominems, and abuses of the establishment clause.
ID is self-negating hypothesis. It cannot have any validity for the simple reason that its basic premise rules out any possible existence of your so-called "Designer".
Only to the feeble minded.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.
Class, let's compare the accusations of Diogenes and his statements.
mvscal wrote:
RadioFan wrote: students also should be able to learn about the scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.
The problem being...there isn't any.
Diogenes wrote:To a closeminded ignorant douche like you.
Diogenes wrote:If there wasn't, The neo-darwinist fundies would engage in honest debate on the subject instead of distortions, ad hominems, and abuses of the establishment clause.
He accuses others of ad hominems when he himself has, throughout these many debates, resorted to insults. Like the "closeminded ignorant douche" line above.
Secondly, he accuses others of "distortions" when he has done PRECISELY that throughout these debates, deliberately misrepresenting scientific methodology, scientific evidence, and the statements of others (e.g., trying to twist my words into an attack on Christians in general).
He calls for "honest debate," and when he gets it resorts to wanting to change the ground rules of the debate. Science, by definition, only accepts NATURAL causes for observations. This is not, despite Diogenes' claims, because of a bias against Christians or "non-Darwinians", or the result of a conspiracy, but how science has been done before, during, and after Darwin. To expect science to change the "ground rules" just so that unfalsifiable pseudoevidence can enter the debate in this area is ridiculous.
As far as other ID proponents, Behe and Dembski have been caught LYING repeatedly. Behe's alleged "evidence" for irreducible complexity was shredded prior to and shortly after his "Darwin's Black Box" came out. he has outright falsehoods in it. He claimed that his proposal was purely scientific, but then admitted in court that, well.....it really isn't. Dembski, on the other hand, has been caught red-handed taking quotes from other researchers (e.g. Peter Ward) deliberately out of context to support his views.
ID proponents have been caught lying about the meaning of "theory" in science, about how science is done, the nature of the evidence supporting evolution, and deliberately misquoting other scientists. And these people have the utter gall to accuse others of dishonesty.
Let's ask some questions about the "intelligent designer:"
- how many designers were/are there? How can you prove it?
- were there competing designers for predators and prey?
- is the original designer still designing?
- did the designer make mistakes? If not, how do you explain the extremely high level of spontaneously aborted fetuses in women? Why have so many women died in childbirth? Why did so many species die out? The designer doesn't seem to be efficient.
- are we as a species a better designer than the original? If not, then why have we been able to improve upon the original design by laser correction of eyesight, pacemakers, insulin shots, gene therapy, artificial hips, etc?
- who designed the designer? If he/she/it didn't need to be designed, why not?
How the heck can ID people, with a straight face, even suggest that the above questions would be open to scientific research, peer review, conclusive evidence, etc.?
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
"The vertebrate eye, wonderful as it is, is far from perfect — as most readers wearing glasses will agree. More seriously, I find it paradoxical that a minimum of 15 percent, and perhaps as many as 50 percent, of fertilized eggs in humans, many of which have major chromosomal abnormalities, undergo spontaneous abortion. A reproductive system whose failure rate would be regarded by any respectable engineer as catastrophic hardly seems the work of intelligent design, unless the Intelligent Designer has a very high tolerance for abortion."
I find the bolded area kind of funny in light of how the creationist and anti-abortion crowd probably overlap a bit...
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
poptart wrote:Not that what I've cited is 'science'.
I'm not saying that is, mind you.
It's Scripture.
It is what it is.
And see, this is why I can work with you.
Science and religion each work well within their realms.
Have a kickass New Year's, 'tart
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Class, let's compare the accusations of Diogenes and his statements.
mvscal wrote:
RadioFan wrote: students also should be able to learn about the scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.
The problem being...there isn't any.
Diogenes wrote:To a closeminded ignorant douche like you.
Diogenes wrote:If there wasn't, The neo-darwinist fundies would engage in honest debate on the subject instead of distortions, ad hominems, and abuses of the establishment clause.
He accuses others of ad hominems when he himself has, throughout these many debates, resorted to insults. Like the "closeminded ignorant douche" line above.
Just a statement of fact.
Would you rather I quote scripture?
The passage about pearls before swine comes to mind.
Or maybe you prefer 'origin of species'.
Secondly, he accuses others of "distortions" when he has done PRECISELY that throughout these debates, deliberately misrepresenting scientific methodology, scientific evidence, and the statements of others (e.g., trying to twist my words into an attack on Christians in general).
Bullshit X3.
He calls for "honest debate," and when he gets it resorts to wanting to change the ground rules of the debate. Science, by definition, only accepts NATURAL causes for observations. This is not, despite Diogenes' claims, because of a bias against Christians or "non-Darwinians", or the result of a conspiracy, but how science has been done before, during, and after Darwin. To expect science to change the "ground rules" just so that unfalsifiable pseudoevidence can enter the debate in this area is ridiculous.
Yet the unfalsifiable psuedoscience is exactly what is being taught as 'science'.
And when did I ever call for anything other than natural, observable evidence to be considered.
As far as other ID proponents, Behe and Dembski have been caught LYING repeatedly. Behe's alleged "evidence" for irreducible complexity was shredded prior to and shortly after his "Darwin's Black Box" came out. he has outright falsehoods in it.
You mean it was smeared, and his debunking of said smears not allowed to be published.
He claimed that his proposal was purely scientific, but then admitted in court that, well.....
Got a quote or a link? Or just more distortions?
it really isn't. Dembski, on the other hand, has been caught red-handed taking quotes from other researchers (e.g. Peter Ward) deliberately out of context to support his views.
Not familial with Dembski, butr considering you misrepresentaions of Behe....
Got any Johnson smears? His book I've read.
How the heck can ID people, with a straight face, even suggest that the above questions would be open to scientific research, peer review, conclusive evidence, etc.?
It isn't.
Unlike like descent with modification which is based on a simplistic understanding of the nature of life, and which even Darwin would probably reconsider with current knowledge of the fossil record.
Last edited by Diogenes on Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He contended that bacterial flagella, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system must have been "intelligently designed" because those structures, according to him were "irreducibly complex" and could not have had precursors as required in natural selection.
He was, in each case, wrong. This has been pointed out in numerous websites (catalogued nicely here). What's worse is that in the case of the blood-clotting cascade, the data against Behe's contention goes back to freaking 1969. Behe's claims have been refuted in numerous peer-reviewed papers. On the other hand, he has admitted (even at the Dover court case, page 88 ) that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting HIM.
Your slipping in the conspiracy theory that the "his debunking of said smears [were]not allowed to be published" is a nice touch. That way, you can blame the lack of support for his scientifically-unsupported dreck on him being silenced.....instead of the complete lack of any evidence on his part. He's the Peter Duesberg of evolution.
The man is a hack, plain and simple.
BTW, where's the reply to the "who designed the designer?" Remember, since you scoff at spontaneous abiogenesis and argue that ID is not religious, you've got a serious problem there, bud....
Toodles.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE DOVER DECISION: NOTE: page numbers given are from the pdf of the court decision, which is 139 pages long
...oh, no....ID and creationism are COMPLETELY different...:
p.26
In 'Of Pandas and People": "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" the answer they give: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy."
p.27
Philip Johnson: "Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose."
Dembski: ID is a "ground clearing operation" to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration and "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion."
p32
Describes how nicely "Of Pandas and People" got turned from a creationist tract to an ID book by systematically replacing the original draft's 150 mentions of creationism and creationist with the phrase "ID" and how this was done shortly after the Supreme Court's anticreationist "Edwards" decision.
But.....is ID "science?"
p.28
Behe: plausibility of the argument for ID depends on the extent to which one believes in the existence of God
p.29
"Professor Behe has written that by ID he means 'not designed by the laws of nature,' and that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity."
p.30
"Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered."
p.30
"Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing."
p31
"It is notable that not one defense [i.e., pro-ID] expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition."
Behe...the hack
p68
"Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."
pages 73-79
...Behe gets shredded in court, upending the tired crap Diogenes recycled from "talkorigins"
pages 79-81
...inference of design based on appearance gets shredded, also upending the tired crap from "talkorigins"
BTW, Diogenes, Behe's admission in court that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting him POSTDATES the webpage you posted by FIVE YEARS.
Actually, each and every link you posted (from the same whack site) has stuff that is five years old and that got upended in court.
The man got flayed THIS YEAR and shown for the partisan hack he is. Apparently his defenses are now the eloquent: "uhhhhhh....errrrr....."
I'd say "Nice try" but it wasn't.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
Diogenes wrote:AS far as the 'who designed the designer' Red Herring....
Calling serious defects in your argument "red herrings" isn't fooling anyone.
Diogenes wrote:No way to know via Scientific observation.
And hence, ID is not science. case frigging closed.
And has nothing to do with ID anyway.
Oh.....the designer has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.
Brilliant.
If ID is to make even a stab at attempting scientific credibility, the nature of this "designer" needs to be elucidated.
Answer the damned question: Who designed the "intelligent designer?"
It can't be, according to your own arguments, that he created himself, since that would be the exact spontaneous abiogenesis you have been railing against.
The designer can't have had yet another designer, because then the next question would logically be "And where did this designer come from?", bringing us to either the spontaneous abiogenesis or infinite loop of designers.
Your premise can't even stand up as a logical premise, let alone as a scientific one.
Poptart doesn't have an issue with this, since he's honest with himself and all here in that he believes that the designer is God. I have no problem with that, especially since he's stated that his position is not science.
You (and a lot of ID proponents) on the other hand, have been contending that ID is not a religious issue but a scientific one. Dembski, Johnson, and Behe have been outted as dissemblers on this issue.
What about you?
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
Same site as the other links so I guess you won't bother reading them.
Not like the actual testimony would matter to you.
So far I've missed all the shreading Behe supposed went through, except possibly in the mind of the judge in question and your verrrrry open mind.
As far as your 'argument' that ID is invalid if you can't scientificly prove who the designer is, or what came before, you might as well say the Big Bang theory is invalid if you can't prove what existed before.
But keep on diverting and spinning, Bipolarslinger and the board neo-nazi have got your back.
