Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dumbing Down Of America, 2
Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,636 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt " Because this definition of science is "metaphysical naturalism" which, in my view, winds up sticking its head in the sand to ignore or even attack whatever doesn't fit the mold."

Science is unconcerned with that. Unnaturalism, supernaturalism is another topic. Dont' you get it yet? You keep saying this, science agrees. So what? What is your point in repeating repeating repeating?



"Like I said, "My dad can beat up your dad!" "

Childish response.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt " I know this is just attacking Neo-Darwinism, and not directly supporting ID"

Exactly. Can you tell us what ID is about and what it contributes? What's the problem?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
" From CSC site - Pertains to our discussion well, & generally supports my position...."

How so? What evidence does that present to support ID. Just more anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-Darwinism.


Challenge, REPEATED, a simple one, still remains, if you all really support this ID stuff, it seems you would do more than attack science and evolution, it seems you'd show us what ID has to contribute.

What does ID contribute to biology?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
Jun 10 2006, 08:26 PM
What is your point in repeating repeating repeating?



"Like I said, "My dad can beat up your dad!" "

Childish response.

If you'd just get it, if you'd get it I wouldn't have to keep repeating! What I give you, you can't (or won't) see.

Childish response!? Nuh-huh, is not! LOL Oh lighten up!

But really Chris, isn't this is all it comes down to - your "experts" vs. my "experts" doesn't it? It all reminds me a lot of the concept in "The Conflict of Visions" book, where the different visions can't even agree on what they disagree on, and in even having a common language.

As a wise man once said, "First remove the log from your own eye." We all think the log is in the other person's eye (in this case it is in yours - JUST KIDDING! sorta LOL). :preach:

Quote:
 
Teryt " I know this is just attacking Neo-Darwinism, and not directly supporting ID"

Exactly. Can you tell us what ID is about and what it contributes? What's the problem?


I do think this Discovery Institute CSC Website is about the best I've seen. I don't think I can do much better that this right now. There are lots of links & references to peer reviewed ID work, and it explains a good stance on science, public education, and many other related topics. It also has scientific refutation referrences to ID refutations, etc. So I will likely refer you there for any questions you might ask.

Have you spent some time looking through this site with an open mind?

Given enough time & research, maybe your "dad" & my "dad" will reach some kind of mutual & beneficial understanding.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt "But really Chris, isn't this is all it comes down to - your "experts" vs. my "experts" doesn't it?"

You haven't presented any experts who tell us what ID is.

You're just rephrasing my opinion v yours. Tell us what ID contributes, supply some evidence for that.


" do think this Discovery Institute CSC Website is about the best I've seen. I don't think I can do much better that this right now."

Point to somethign specifc. Stop throwing spagetti, hoping something will stick.



"There are lots of links & references to peer reviewed ID work..."

Why do you simply repeat? Do you ignore what I posted:
Response
Quote:
 
1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.

      Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.

      The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

  2. The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons.

        1. Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example:

                * Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).

                * Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).

                * Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used.

                * Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.

                * Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.

        2. The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review:

                * Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.

                * Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).

                * Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.

        3. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.

            This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.

  3. Publishing is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. None of the "intelligent design" publications have led to any productive work. Most have had their main ideas rebutted (e.g. Behe 1996, Dembski 1998, Dembski 2002, Gonzalez and Richards 2004).


THere are no scientifically peer-reviewed ID papers. Period.




teryt "Have you spent some time looking through this site with an open mind?"

Have you? Tell us what you question of ID. Science is skeptical, be skeptical, what of ID do you question?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
I don't know what to question, because I don't know enough about it or evolution to be that intelligent on the subjects. I've given you the best references I have, and that's about all I can do at the momment. Sorry none of this satisfies you.

Now to have a nice evening hike in 100 degree heat, and come back to have dinner. Let's see, what sounds good? Hmm, for some reason I seem to be in the mood for . . . spaghetti.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Quote:
 
1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
I will say this makes better sense to me now. No I did not "ignore" it when you posted it, but I'm a little more conversant on this topic now - albeit minimally.

I do wonder about the statement that ID receives generous funding. I wonder what it actually is. My impression is it's hard to get funding unless you line up with the metaphysical naturalist side of things.

Anyway, you post your quotes, I post mine. Ain't this fun? You have not discredited ID one bit. (remember the "Two Vision" thing)

I am getting myself an edubacation in process - thanks for your part! :tiphat:
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt "I don't know what to question, because I don't know enough about it or evolution to be that intelligent on the subjects."

But you want ID in the biology classroom.


" I've given you the best references I have, and that's about all I can do at the momment. Sorry none of this satisfies you."

None of which provide any information on what ID is, beyond the teleological argument: some things seems so incredibly complex they must have been designed by a Designer.



"I do wonder about the statement that ID receives generous funding. I wonder what it actually is. My impression is it's hard to get funding unless you line up with the metaphysical naturalist side of things."

Religious sources. The Discovery Institute is a Christian organization, funded largely through the efforts of Phillip Johnson who started the ID movement.



"Anyway, you post your quotes, I post mine. Ain't this fun?"

Except there's a difference. I post references that directly respond to questions or challenges. For example, you challenged with a list of supposedly peer-reviewed papers, and I responded with a refutation of that. Asked to define ID, you post cut'n'pastes that attack evolution.


"You have not discredited ID one bit. "

Irreducible complexity--refuted. Design inference--refuted. ID's claim to peer-reviewed papers--discredited.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Well, bottom line, there is more work for ID proponents to do, and this is something for the PhD's & scientists among us. I await the next book by Dembski which will likely counter this latest round of critisism. Of course that's how things work, being hammered out until there is something more (or less) tangible.

Refutations will be produced to the refutations. In any case, I don't think ID is going away anytime soon.

This has been an interesting & educational discussion.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I thought this biology approach an interesting contrast to ID's insistence on complexity:

How Life Began: New Research Suggests Simple Approach:
Quote:
 
Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life. Scientists try to imagine this animating event by simplifying the processes that characterize living things.

New research suggests the simplification needs to go further.

All currently known organisms rely on DNA to replicate and proteins to run cellular machinery, but these large molecules—intricate weaves of thousands of atoms—are not likely to have been around for the first organisms to use.

"Life could have started up from the small molecules that nature provided," says Robert Shapiro,a chemist from New York University .

Shapiro and others insist that the first life forms were self-contained chemistry experiments that grew, reproduced and even evolved without needing the complicated molecules that define biology as we now know it....


It goes into a lot of detail.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Wow! Now that's what I call a leap of faith!
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
Wow! Now that's what I call a leap of faith!


Yeah. POW! It just started up on it's own. And those molecules...they popped into existence on their own. And atoms and the elements...they just came out of nowhere!
Science! His name is God. ;)
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
But, yeah! POW! God did it! Is perfectly acceptable.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
But, yeah! POW! God did it! Is perfectly acceptable.


looks like an even match to me. ;)
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Even match? Between whether God did or didn't? That's very agnostic.


Did you notice the tone used in the article? "Scientists try to imagine" and "New research suggests" and "not likely" and "Life could have started up" -- speculative, hesitant, hypothetical.

I was wondering if you all who claim evolution is presented as absolute fact noticed that?

And yours, "His name is God." Abosolute fact.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply