| 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 (5,661 Views) | |
| teryt | May 23 2006, 01:51 PM Post #106 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
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 ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 23 2006, 01:53 PM Post #107 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Seems we all have questions we don't answer - like this one from an earlier message of mine:
|
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 23 2006, 01:53 PM Post #108 |
|
Member
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 23 2006, 02:01 PM Post #109 |
|
Member
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 23 2006, 02:14 PM Post #110 |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 23 2006, 02:15 PM Post #111 |
|
Member
|
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.
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.
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.
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 | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 23 2006, 02:18 PM Post #112 |
|
Member
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 23 2006, 04:41 PM Post #113 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 23 2006, 05:21 PM Post #114 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 23 2006, 05:31 PM Post #115 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
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 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 | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 23 2006, 05:36 PM Post #116 |
|
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? ![]() 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 | |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 23 2006, 09:37 PM Post #117 |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 23 2006, 09:44 PM Post #118 |
![]()
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 ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 23 2006, 09:49 PM Post #119 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
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 ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 23 2006, 10:03 PM Post #120 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |









(wink wink LOL)
1:28 PM Jul 11