| 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: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,663 Views) | |
| TexasShadow | May 22 2006, 09:41 AM Post #76 |
![]()
Jane
|
Eric.. re "straw man" ............ I think it's just a matter of poor teaching, not deliberate. It happens in religion, too. And the end result is a bunch of students with mistaken impressions. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 22 2006, 10:39 AM Post #77 |
![]()
Member
|
Logical fallacy? It's only a logical fallacy if not true. ID requires a designer a priori. Creationism requires a designer a priori. If two things are equal to the same thing... QED |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 22 2006, 10:45 AM Post #78 |
![]()
Member
|
Jane, You were not talking about poor teaching, but about what science claims. If you are withdrawing all your comments, fine. If not, my challenges to your statements stand. I can't correct what you might have been taught as a child. That's the fault of your school system and, possibly, parents. I can attempt to improve your understanding of what science is, how it works and the philosophical basis behind these things. Unfortunately, the IDers and creationists keep hauling out the same tired strawmen. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 22 2006, 10:59 AM Post #79 |
![]()
Jane
|
you're right. I put it the wrong way. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 22 2006, 11:01 AM Post #80 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Teryt, if you know anything about ID, then you know who Phillip Johnson, the founder of the movement, is, right? Here is Johnson in his own words:
All the references are available here. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 22 2006, 11:09 AM Post #81 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Jane, and some others, I think what you mean by random is something else. Whether creation is the answer or evolution the explanation, you still end up with the order or even design you see around you, will all its ugly imperfections--that order exists, it is not random, it is not chaos, that much cannot be denied. Evolution explains the order, what it rejects is purpose, that the design has some extra- or supernatual purpose. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 22 2006, 02:41 PM Post #82 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
You used these words: "just" & "guise." What does that tend to communicate? |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 22 2006, 02:52 PM Post #83 |
|
Member
|
An amazing admission! Abiogenesis is NOT a "scientific" theory, and is not science. I followed a thread on the Demski blog about this subject, but got lost because I didn't understand the scientific language well enough. The subject of the thread was that abiogenesis was not falsable. I did not have the time to desipher what they were talking about enough to present it here. I was taught the theory of evolution in public school as a kid. Abiogenesis was the main part of the theory presented. Seems to me, that if abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, then all you have is the theory that one living thing can change into another over time. This of course does not address the origion of life, and as such there is no scientific explination of how life started. Looks like the unsupportable part of the theory was dropped. Because of ID perhaps? They didn't want to be hippicritical.... So maybe ID could be called "scientific research" too?
As I said before, the "designer" part of ID cannot be falsified. But since we are now confusing "scientific research" with "science", maybe the designer aspect of ID could be called "scientific research" instead of science, and the falsifiable portion could be called science. I showed evidence of this on another thread. One thing is for sure, ID is NOT religion. As a religous person, I will not accept this label for ID, and no one has yet to prove to me that it is. Just because there is a designer, and this kinda sort sounds like religion, does not mean that it is. ID has sucessfully removed religion, not only by definition, but in research as well.
I am not a scientist, but I know these answers are given on the web sites I have provided on other threads. My understanding is that irreducible complexity is simply something where there is no simpler form of the thing. The example was the propultion system on a single cell organism, I believe it was a bacteria, and how no other simpler form of this system exsisted. A evolutionary scientist offered what he thought was a simpler system, which was basically an excretion system. To me, they weren't same at all, and I don't know how he could offer such an example seriously, but again, I am not a scientist. I have not yet investigated what the ID scientist have said in response. The problem is that since we have no actual working model of the evolutionary process in action, that almost anything could be offered up to refute irreducible complexity. We just have snapshots of structures of living things that appear to have changed over time. We do not have anything that shows the actual process in motion. We do have a lot of things that are irreducibly complex, though... |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 22 2006, 02:55 PM Post #84 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
What does Johnson communicate? Or Dembski? From same source: "Dembski. 1999. Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology. "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." p. 210" Johnson and Dembski are leaders of the ID movement. Barbara Forrest, same source, giving "Expert Testimony. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial transcript, Day 6 (October 5) "What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own." ... "Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural."" |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 22 2006, 02:58 PM Post #85 |
|
Member
|
Yes here is evidence of a conspiracy! Philip Johnson, who is not a scientist is saying ID is just a ploy to put religion back into the schools! NOT. These quotes look like an attempt to mix stuff together he said at different times to make it look like a conspiracy. The reality is that there are real scientists doing real research on ID. They are not trying to force everyone to accept religion, just a competing idea to abiogenesis. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 22 2006, 03:03 PM Post #86 |
|
Member
|
Demski is only saying that he is a Christian and that he believes that Jesus is the designer. He also says that this does not come into play when he works as an ID scientist. Just another trick used to discredit ID. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 22 2006, 03:21 PM Post #87 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
You aren't accusing me of trickery and deception, now, are you, Alan? Are you not familiar with Phillip Johnson and his role in the ID movement? He is its founder. Are you accusing him of trickery and deception, Alan? I see you recognize Dembski. He is one of the leading ID proponents. He says what, his beliefs do not come into play when he works as an IDer? He says just the opposite: "But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." Why do these revelations bother you so? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 22 2006, 03:37 PM Post #88 |
![]()
Member
|
Ummm... Alan... I said abiogenesis is not a scientific theory; I didn't say it wasn't science.
One of the main reasons to eschew public school "education." You do understand that because some poorly paid, overworked "science" teacher working from a textbook written not to teach, but to be accepted by school boards around the country makes a glaring error in science - that doesn't mean what you have been taught is correct. Education BEGINS when schooling ends.
What theory says anything about "one living thing can change into another over time?" We've already discussed what evolution is, but let me remind you: evolution is defined by science as the change in the allele freqency of a gene over time. I challenge you to find any book on evolution that claimed knowledge of how life started on earth. You're making things up, Alan! Abiogenesis is not now, nor was ever, part of evolutionary theory. If I may quote from Wikipedia:
Abiogenesis was not part of Darwin's original formulation of evolution nor has it ever been part of the theory. BLAM! "Got me another straw man, paw!"
Of course it could - if someone were doing actual research. Scientific research is a very broad field of endeavor that just means attempting to learn things about the universe.
EVERYTHING in science is subject to testing and falsification. Withholding the designer from testing and falsification just proves ID not a scientific theory. I don't care if you don't wish to call it religion or not, just that you not call it a scientific theory. It ain't. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 22 2006, 03:46 PM Post #89 |
![]()
Member
|
It attempts to communicate the fact that ID is just creationism in another guise! Are you arguing it isn't or just getting all squirrely over linguistics? "Just creationism" signifies that creationism is another in an almost endless sequence of ex nihilo acts of divine creation offered up by most religions. "Guise" signifies that the failed attempts of the creationists to get their religious belief into the schools has morphed creationism into something now known as ID. See Chris' quoting of Phillip Johnson to further clarify. Again, are you offering that creationism and ID are not the same thing? |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 22 2006, 07:16 PM Post #90 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
--William A. Dembski, IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A FORM OF NATURAL THEOLOGY? William Albert "Bill" Dembski " (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian, and neo-creationist known for advocating the controversial idea of intelligent design in opposition to the mainstream theory of evolution through natural selection. Currently, Dembski is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and the first director of the school's new Center for Science and Theology. It has been announced that on 1 June 2006 Dembski will become research professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.[1] The Southern Baptist Convention operates both seminaries." |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |











1:28 PM Jul 11