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 (5,661 Views)
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
ngc1514
May 23 2006, 07:34 PM
teryt
May 23 2006, 02:22 PM
I like the idea that evolution should not presented as the infallible, do-all, cure-all, explain all - a position that it seems to enjoy now.  I hope for a more critical approach, whereas other ideas could at least be presented and considered.



I remember looking through Jr. high textbooks 15 years ago, and seeing evolution presented totally without question.  That is, there was NO mention whatsoever that this was a theory.  It went immediately into how life came outa soup, we all decended from apes, and so forth.  It was done in a very mater-or-fact way, with NO room at all left for any disagreement.

My opinion is that many people have grown tired of what they percieve as arrogance - not appearing to be open to any opposing thoughts (this is done under the aura of any seemingly contary thought must be according to strict & established & accepted "scientific systems"). 

In some respects, I suppose this is similar to what more scientific minds thought about deeply held religious beliefs.  Now that pendulum has swung far the other way I suspect.

But evolution ISN'T presented as all those things you mentioned. It is presented as the best explanation that seems to fit all the data. That's what a scientific theory IS!

You will notice that no scientist worth his salt says the theory of evolution is true. (Hint - that's why it's called a theory.)

If you can understand why those two statements are not mutually exclusive, you will have come a long way in understanding science.

Arrogance? Anyone can present any theory they wish. If the theory does a better job of explaining the data that current theory, the scientific community will take a look at it. But you must realize that science is about as conservative as the College of Cardinals and it takes a lot of work and clout to get a hearing if you don't have some credentials.

The unwillingness of the ID'ers to admit to the same thing - the willingness to look at other theories and, perhaps, throw out the idea of ID and the designer. Well, I've never heard one admit to being so willing. Have you? (Is that a question you can answer?)

A Jr. high school textbook is no more a valid source of what science says or how it works than a junior high school text on world history or a children's book of bible stories is a serious discussion of theology. Is your MBA based on high school level economics? I would be surprised if it were.

My point here is that IS what some textbooks put forth. THAT is what many parents get upset about!

And hey, we all have our "beliefs" don't we!?

I don't know so much about ID, or even evolution. I'm merely stating impressions - like you. Granted, some impressions are based upon more evidence than others.

(I fail to see what an MBA has to do with anything in this discussion.)

Did you read the article on the Dodo?
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
Seems we all have questions we don't answer - like this one from an earlier message of mine:

Quote:
 
Me thinks you guys maybe protesteth too much - in that ID might eventually be shown (i.e., in scientific terms) to have some solid merit. And this may tend to erode some widely held evolutionary beliefs - perhaps the ones that don't have such an "irrefutable" scientific basis. Do you think this is at all remotely possible?

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
 
abradf2519
Member
DocInBird
May 23 2006, 11:44 AM
Terryt, my point was more to the motives of the specific groups pushing ID, rather than yours. If those groups were really concerned with the probability of a design, rather than a specific designer, I would be more likely to accept the premise.

If ID is an acceptible premise, then why are the motives of the proponents important to you?

I say the motives (which I think have been distorted) are irrelivant. Does it really matter if the proponents might be pushing religion? If they were, ID is not the way to do it. Creationism is a much better vehicle for that.

In order for the concept of a designer to be acceptable science...er....scientific research, you MUST take religion out of it completely. I agree, religion and science are not compatable.

The point is:
Is ID an acceptible premise or not?
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
May 23 2006, 11:16 AM
Teryt "I don't really give a rat's batootey, but rather just like to look at what ID says on the face of it - the idea that there was a designer!"

That is about all ID says, isn't it? That one single idea.

Have you heard of IDOID? It says as much as ID. WHy not teach it too?

Posted Image

All those other ideas are basically just different flavors of ID and abiogenesis, and both included together. IDOID doesn't change anything. Either we happened by accedent....er....a fortuitious event, or life is the result of a design made by a designer. All the other examples boil down to one or the other.

Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DocInBird
Member
oh,now I am scared... Ummm. I guess I will accept this without knowing what outside influcence were in place. ID? curious. With whom am I speaking?
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
May 22 2006, 03:21 PM
You aren't accusing me of trickery and deception, now, are you, Alan?

No. You are just posting the information. I am asking you to look at the information a little closer, because I think the information is misleading.

Quote:
 
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?

If he truly is using ID as a vehicle to decieve people into believing in God, then yes I am accusing him of trickery and deception. I don't think he is doing this though.

Quote:
 
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."

Please re-read what he is saying. He is saying that he believes the designer is Christ, and because he believes Christ is the designer, this makes ID an easier concept to sell. If the designer was not Christ, ID would be more difficult to sell. He is not saying that ID is religion.

Quote:
 
Why do these revelations bother you so?

Because they are irrelevent and have nothing to do with wether ID is a valid scientific premise or not.


Johnson and Demski are Christians. The talk to Christians about ID. When they are talking to Christians, they assume the designer is Christ. This is not sceince, this is religion.

If they talk to scientists, the designer is unknown, and should be, because we cannot prove scientificly who the desinger is yet.


Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
DocInBird
May 23 2006, 02:14 PM
oh,now I am scared... Ummm. I guess I will accept this without knowing what outside influcence were in place. ID? curious. With whom am I speaking?

Doc....

Is ID a valid premise or not?

If the biggest jerk you ever knew, a person who you had no repect for at all, said that the "Iraq war was a mistake"....are you going to disagree with him just because he is a jerk?
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan, appluading Teryt's response: "Good response! I agree completely."

With what? That evoution does not address the beginning of life, as you have claimed? But what's that, evolution doesn't address the beginnings of life, yet here are ID advocates like Johnson, Dembski and Behe presenting a theory of beginnings to counter evolution. What's the sense of that? Why are they arguing with evolution then? Why are you?

Or are you applauding this "However, I guess this would tend to erode into evoltions hold on certain things like irreducibly complex structures"? Why do you cling to debunked theories? See for instance, Behe's Empty Box, Review: "Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe. Did you know that Behe stole the idea of Irreducible Complexity from "Nobel Prize winner H. J. Muller [3], who invented irreducible complexity in 1939" and that "Muller argued in some detail that evolution would routinely cause such systems."--longer explanation here: How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems?.
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
ngc1514
May 23 2006, 12:49 PM
cmoehle
May 23 2006, 01:16 PM
That is about all ID says, isn't it? That one single idea.

Have you heard of IDOID? It says as much as ID. WHy not teach it too?

Posted Image

Chris,

We both know that the ID'ers ain't gonna touch IDOID with a 10 foot collection basket! Rather than confronting questions that make them uncomfortable, they ignore them. I think we can see the big difference between the intellectual honesty of science and the absurdity of religion posing as science. And they want to teach this in in schools and call it science.

Science looks forward to having cherished theories disproven because that opens up whole new lines of interesting research (and awards a few Nobel Prizes); the "paradigm shift" of Kuhn. Religion and ID as creationism in a new guise don't want to discuss the designer and only put forth this idea of irreducible complexity which is, at the basics, nothing more than a reformulation of the god of the gaps and moving the goal posts. "Ok, you showed that system was not irreducibly complex - but what about THAT one?!"

And they want to teach this in schools and call it science.

I'd hoped these probing minds so interested in understanding the mysteries of life, the universe and everything else would have at least asked what it is!

The real absurdity, ironically, of religion posing as science is the harm it does religion. Arguing infinite gaps and moving goal posts makes religion seem shifty and morally relativistic. How will people ever find comfort in that?

As Popper argued, "whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."

But I like to approach these discussions as something of a challenge. Finding, for example, a collection of quotes by the founders and main proponents of ID as direct--and you note--unaddressed counters to those who argue ID is not creationsim. Or finding the true source of irreducible complexity as a part of evolution stolen by ID, I never knew that till just now.

In the long run it won't be accepted in schools because it is impratical. A degree in ID just won't get you a job but in a seminary and won't help save the lives it seems to value.
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
May 23 2006, 02:53 PM
Seems we all have questions we don't answer - like this one from an earlier message of mine:

Quote:
 
Me thinks you guys maybe protesteth too much - in that ID might eventually be shown (i.e., in scientific terms) to have some solid merit. And this may tend to erode some widely held evolutionary beliefs - perhaps the ones that don't have such an "irrefutable" scientific basis. Do you think this is at all remotely possible?

Protest? I posed a question to start this topic: "So evolution has some pretty exciting applications (like food), and I'm guessing most people would prefer antibiotics developed by someone who knows the evolutionary relationship of humans and bacteria. What does this mean for the young people who go to school in Kansas?"


"in that ID might eventually be shown (i.e., in scientific terms) to have some solid merit. And this may tend to erode some widely held evolutionary beliefs - perhaps the ones that don't have such an "irrefutable" scientific basis. Do you think this is at all remotely possible?"

Could you possibly be a bit more specific? How could ID's supernatural claim be shown through scientific naturalism or materialism? How do you go about doing that?

Which evolutionary beliefs laws, theories and hypotheses might be eroded, given that evolution does not concern beginnings and ID concerns only that?

How is science irrefutable? It's essence, as Eric has tried to explain, is refutation, falsifiability. Or have you solved Hume's induction problem?

In order to address your loaded question I need to know what you mean.
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
Alan "Johnson and Demski are Christians. The talk to Christians about ID. When they are talking to Christians, they assume the designer is Christ. This is not sceince, this is religion."

Thank you. Add in Behe. These three are the main proponents of ID.


And thak you for this gem: "When they are talking to Christians, they assume the designer is Christ....If they talk to scientists, the designer is unknown...."

Do you recognize Janus?

Posted Image

ID is, as you have pointed out, a two-faced lie.
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
 
DocInBird
Member
Sagan was on the Johnny Carson show once. I will remember this episode. Carson asked him if he believed in God. Sagan stroked his chin and thought for a moment. His response was, "If, by God, you are asking if I believe that there are principles that control our universe, then yes I do "

But do these principles support ID? The jury will be out for a long time on this one.

--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
I am purposely not being specific, because I'm no expert on the subject of ID or evolution - my response has has always been to address a different level, namely:

Give ID some time. (Evolutionary theory has had significant time expended on it.) Start teaching evolution in schools as one answer, but not the only one, and be open to some other ideas (which the opposite is the height of human arrogance), such as ID.

Chris, inflamatory & premature statements such as "ID is . . . a two faced lie," really does nothing to further open conversation, does it?
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
DocInBird
May 24 2006, 03:37 AM
Sagan was on the Johnny Carson show once.  I will remember this episode.  Carson asked him if he believed in God.  Sagan stroked his chin and thought for a moment.  His response was, "If, by God, you are asking if I believe that there are principles that control our universe, then yes I do "

But do these principles support ID?  The jury will be out for a long time on this one.

Reminds me of one of my old physics professors. When he would start some calculation or formulae, he would always say, "And if the universe is an orderly place (under his breath he would add 'and it is'), then if this is true, then the following must also be true." There seems to be something to that. The inverse would be chaos & insanity in sort of reverse: that is, if you did the same thing but always got different results - now that would drive you insane! LOL

So I wonder how the universe got so orderly . . . ;) (wink wink LOL)
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 "Chris, inflamatory & premature statements such as "ID is . . . a two faced lie," really does nothing to further open conversation, does it?"

Why do you choose to quote me out of context, the context that gives the standard ID lie?

Let's restore the context: "When they are talking to Christians, they assume the designer is Christ....If they talk to scientists, the designer is unknown...."

When ID proponents like Johnson, Dembski and Behe speak to Chistians they say one thing and to scientists another. That is indeed two-faced--and inflammatory on their part.

What's premature about that? That's what they do.


"I am purposely not being specific, because I'm no expert on the subject of ID or evolution - my response has has always been to address a different level, namely:

Give ID some time."

But you were demanding an answer, twice. Can't you be more specific in your question?


Would you give IDOID some time, too?
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