Science versus Intelligent Design: A reader explains

| 134 Comments

From Mike Elzinga whose comments deserve their own posting

It doesn’t require a federal judge to figure out if ID/Creationism is a science or not.

Anyone can go through the list of activities of the ID/Creationists and pseudo-scientists and compare them to the activities of working scientists.

Do typical working scientists engage in the following activities when advancing new ideas?

Do they pitch them to naive audiences while complaining they can’t get a fair hearing in the science community? Do they form institutes that spend millions of dollars to crank out propaganda pushing their idea and criticizing the scientific community? Do they issue talking points to grass-roots organizations and political groups to be argued in churches and local newspapers around the country? Do they publish books on their ideas in the popular press and claim they are peer-reviewed?

Do they encourage grass-roots organizations to elect sympathetic politicians to state and federal legislative bodies? Do they have these politicians slipping stealth riders into bills requiring the advancement of their ideas to children in public schools? Do they have teams of lawyers figuring ways to advance the idea without breaking the law?

Do they elect members to local school boards and state boards of education to press the idea into specific classes in public schools? Do these board members provoke law suits in order to get a court declaration on the constitutionality of the idea and whether or not it is a science?

Do they challenge members of the scientific community to debates and bus in hecklers from surrounding churches to help support the new idea while making it difficult for the member of the science community to get his or her points across? Do they connect their ideas to human immorality claiming that these ideas must be advanced to return mankind to the “right path”?

Do they quote-mine members of the scientific community in order to make it appear that these new ideas are actually supported while the rest of science is falling apart? Do they misrepresent scientific ideas and attribute these misrepresentations to the rest of the scientific community? Do they invent new words with unconventional meanings and then “clarify” them with more fuzzy words?

Do they leave experimentation and verification to others while claiming they themselves aren’t responsible for such activity? Do they make allusions suggesting that they are in a league with history’s greatest scientists? Do they go to unusual lengths to have their name widely recognized? Do they engage in word games that attempt to change the definitions of science in order to include the supernatural?

Do they claim to do experiments that demonstrate their ideas but constantly find reasons to withhold the techniques and data from the wider scientific community?

Do typical ID/Creationists engage in the following activities when advancing their ideas?

Do they submit their theories for peer-review to get clarification and criticism from experts? Do they propose experiments, collect data and do the difficult work needed to support their theory? Do they acknowledge data that do not support their theory? Do they acknowledge data that contradict their theory? Do they clarify their ideas when members of the scientific community point out misconceptions and inconsistencies with well supported theories and data?

Do they interact routinely with members of the scientific community in order to keep their ideas subjected to scrutiny and criticism? Do they demonstrate deep knowledge of the relevant issues to the members of the scientific community? Do they command any respect from the scientific community for their over all understanding of the issues?

When we compare the above lists of activities, where do we typically find the pseudo-scientist?

If you compare what the pseudo-scientist does with what a typical scientist does, the typical scientist has fewer things he or she must do in order to convince the scientific community. Scientific activity is much simpler and more transparent. All the political and grass-roots agitation among naive audiences is not even necessary. When you compare the activities of pseudo-scientists with those of the ID/Creationists, there are striking similarities.

Why are the activities of the typical ID/Creationist and pseudo-scientist so much more involved and so different from the activities of the typical scientist?

You don’t need a federal judge to tell you.

134 Comments

Do they leave experimentation and verification to others while claiming they themselves aren’t responsible for such activity?

Give them a break. ID is not a mechanistic theory.

Just kidding about giving them a break, of course. Excellent comment, deserving of it’s own thread!

Excellent summary. I agree on all points. This isn’t question of wheater or not some ID-type idea is valid, it is question “Is it science?”

And they fail to show the scientific controversy, only ignorant one.

Wow.

Man, you have covered the mechanizations of true believers ( those who have everything on their side, saith the lord) with the naked light of day. It is good to see.

May you be cited and quoted widely.

I’m curious about this thing I often hear about creationists busing in hecklers. This seems like something that could be attacked as a distortion or lie, should a creationist choose to do so. Has this happened in recent history? Has it been documented in a particular debate, and did the hecklers truly lend significant support to the creationist?

You don’t need a federal judge to tell you.

The problem with creationists is not that they don’t need a federal judge to tell them, it’s that they don’t want a federal judge (or a qualified scientist for that fact) to tell them.

Of course creationists have to use subversion to be heard. The Darwinati control the scientific world, doing everything and anything to prevent THE TRUTH from being heard.

gag.

Do they engage in word games that attempt to change the definitions of science in order to include the supernatural?

Actually, they do not. You and other evolutionists, do in fact engage in such word games, to protect your cherished evolutionary faith instead of allowing science to proceed in whatever direction the evidence may ultimately lead.

However, science is defined by the scientific method, not the religion of materialism/naturalism.

It honestly doesn’t take a federal judge to figure that out…!

FL :)

Actually, they do not. You and other evolutionists, do in fact engage in such word games, to protect your cherished evolutionary faith instead of allowing science to proceed in whatever direction the evidence may ultimately lead.

I can document quite a few word games employed by ID to sneak in the supernatural. Let’s start with the meaning of design and how ID conflates it with Design.

FL blathers…

… evolutionists, do in fact engage in such word games… However, science is defined by the scientific method, not the religion of materialism/naturalism.

Science is defined by testable, empirical evidence.

Ya got some of that? Because if ya’ do, lets put it on the table.

If ya don’t, then don’t complain that nobody is taking you seriously.

FL being a liar again:

FL: However, science is defined by the scientific method, not the religion of materialism/naturalism. FL :)

There is no religion called materialism or naturalism, and the scientific method, when consistently used, debunks any claim that is not based on physical and chemical laws. The scientific method IS based on materialism/naturalism, you twit!

cronk, please give us some examples of “Darwinist control” of the scientific world.

Just two or three specific examples would be very interesting.

Also, cronk, just what do you think the “scientific world” is, who is in it, what does it do, and how, exactly, do “Darwinists” control it?

Mike Elzinga:

It doesn’t require a federal judge to figure out if ID/Creationism is a science or not.

First, I agree on what you said in the post in question. You have clarified the difference between science and non-science in many of your previous posts too, and I do not see this one more praiseworthy than the other ones. Anyway, my congratulations.

We have discussed a few related items (to my pleasure). I have presented the idea that using vague (or supernatural) ideas in a hypothesis does not make the hypothesis non-scientific. Here, I would like to refer to atomic theory, germ theory, quantum theory and hypotheses concerning dark matter and dark energy, all of which are alien to common experience. In my opinion, a hypothesis that an intelligence has been involved in some structures of living organisms, may well be a valid scientific hypothesis.

A scientific hypothesis needs to be more than a presentation of an explanation. It needs to present also predictions along the line that “if this hypothesis is correct, then we should be able to observe this and that”.

Here, but only here, ID falls short of target. Even astrology makes (some sort of) predictions, but ID makes none, what so ever.

It doesn’t require a federal judge to figure it out.

There is a widespread trend to confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism (ontological naturalism). It does not help, if scientist say that scientific hypotheses are only allowed to use natural concepts. What is “natural” in the concept of dark energy? At the same time, it should be made clear that any scientific prediction needs to be confirmed or refuted based on physical evidence that everyone can check, at least in principle.

Regards

Eric

cronk:

Of course creationists have to use subversion to be heard. The Darwinati control the scientific world, doing everything and anything to prevent THE TRUTH from being heard.

gag.

Yeah, the creationati control the unscientific world. THE TRUTH? Biblical TRUTH? Bwahaha..

Once again, FL fits quite a lot of wrong into a mere two paragraphs.

FL Wrote:

Actually, they do not.

Except that the evidence is against you here, FL. As PvM points out above, there are several documented cases where proponents of ID have twisted the way they define science in order to make ID fit. At the KvD trial (remember that?), Behe ended up framing a definition of science that was so loose it would even permit astrology to count as science.

Science deals with the realm of reproducible observations, of phenomena that can be measured, and of explanations in terms of natural laws. Pretty much by definition, the supernatural transcends natural laws, cannot be observed reproducibly, and cannot be measured.

Despite Dembski’s word games, whereby he uses the same term in several different ways, and whereby he frames improbability in three different mathematical formulations, no ID proponent (to the best of my knowledge) has ever measured complexity or information content of a biological entity, nor have they ever even tried.

Neither have they defined design in such a way that it can be reliably inferred in any situation.

You and other evolutionists, do in fact engage in such word games,

This is a lie.

Science deals (and always has dealt) with the formulation of explanations for observed phenomena based on natural laws; based on evidence; and based on logical inferences from the evidence.

to protect your cherished evolutionary faith

Not faith. This has been pointed out to you before. Faith is, by definition, belief despite the absence of evidence, or belief despite contrary evidence. Science doesn’t do this. Anything that does this is, again by definition,. not science.

instead of allowing science to proceed in whatever direction the evidence may ultimately lead.

Yes. The evidence led Darwin, 148 years ago, to publish his theory based on common descent and natural selection. Since then the theory has been challenged many times; it has been modified when new evidence has come to light; and consequently Darwin’s core concepts (common descent and natural selection) are stronger today than they have ever been. Based only on the evidence and logical inferences therefrom.

However, science is defined by the scientific method,

So, what do you mean by the term “scientific method”, hmm?

not the religion of materialism/naturalism.

This is another lie.

Many pro-ID commenters have brought this old chestnut up, and they have all been wrong. For exactly the same reasons. Materialism and naturalism are philosophical positions (not a religion) that are completely irrelevant to the way in which science progresses. On a pragmatic level, science usually employs the assumption of methodological naturalism, which everyone uses all of the time anyway without questioning it. Basically, this amounts to assuming that the input to one’s senses (or experimental measurements or observations) has a real meaning in a reality that is external to oneself, and that observed laws are universally applicable.

In short, FL, you are wrong.

You have made these comments before and it has been pointed out to you that they are wrong. You have not addressed any of the genuine, substantive criticisms of your position, yet you make the same comments over and over.

Why do you find reality such a hard thing to face?

So, what do you mean by the term “scientific method”, hmm?

I was hoping you’d ask about that. This is the scientific method:

“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

Agreed?

FL

I was being facetious, thus the (gag). Considering the mindset of our creationist friends, I was way too close to reality. I should have been more careful, apologies to all.

cronk:

I was being facetious, thus the (gag). Considering the mindset of our creationist friends, I was way too close to reality. I should have been more careful, apologies to all.

The apology is mine, comrade.

FL:

So, what do you mean by the term “scientific method”, hmm?

I was hoping you’d ask about that. This is the scientific method:

“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

Agreed?

FL

Can you explain to us the theory or mechanism formulated by IDers/Creationists? Or the hypothesis on the identit(ies) of the Designer? Or anything that lead to a more adequate explanation of natural phenomena? Or is it just (the same old cliche): “Goddidit”?

“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

This definition excludes significant components of science. Science restricts itself to the study of natural phenomena and employs natural explanations. Science subjects it’s findings to peer review. The word “theory” should be qualified (“scientific theory”) since it differs from the general usage of “theory”. Hypothesis creation is at least as important as hypothesis testing. Logical argument is a de-emphasized in science, because logic, in the absence of rigorous analysis, can mislead as easily as it can inform.

FL offers the definition of science that was put into the Kansas Science standards by the ID creationists, and later taken out when good standards were reinstated. The kicker is that they substituted, more or less, the phrase “more adequate explanations” for “natural explanations”, which is what the current standards say. In numerous ways, the ID creationists made it clear that the word “adequate” would leave room for supernatural explanations in science. This is why this was such an important issue to resist, and eventually resolve.

The stated goal of many is to paint the scientific community as the Darwinati who control the scientific world as evil and the creationati who control the unscientific world as inherently good. Us versus them, good versus bad, damned the consequences.

I did find one anomalous photograph in the word search using “morlocks”, it was this. Make of it what you will. I wonder what the bunny guy would think of it?

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

FL:

So, what do you mean by the term “scientific method”, hmm?

I was hoping you’d ask about that. This is the scientific method:

“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

Agreed?

FL

Not a chance, FL.

The only place you’ll find this particular definition of the scientific method is in your beloved-but-flawed-and-rejected 2005 Kansas science standards. For example, see this page ( http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Sh[…]_changes.pdf ) at the Intelligent Design Network of Kansas, Inc., website.

… and please, to refresh my memory … where is the peer-reviewed research done by scientists who are relying on “adequate explanations” instead of “natural explanations?”

Eric Finn Wrote:

I have presented the idea that using vague (or supernatural) ideas in a hypothesis does not make the hypothesis non-scientific.

Certainly there are entire domains of human experience in which “vague ideas” are transmitted and explored without the use of scientific analysis. Art, music, dance, to name the more common ones, convey emotions that are not what we would normally call “naturalistic”. However, they convey meaning and feelings very effectively.

It is currently very difficult for science to explain how a beautiful piece of art or music elicits such strong emotions in people. Yet nearly all of us have experienced the effects. Ideas are conveyed almost directly, passing by all of our analytical and rational processes, into our understanding.

That’s not to say that some training in the arts doesn’t help, but I can recall being deeply moved by a symphony when I was about 3 years old, still too young to have had any such training. Others are drawn to music careers by these experiences.

So I don’t feel it necessary to apologize for understandings I have achieved by “non-scientific” means. Maybe someday science will enhance that appreciation, but for now, it is “unscientific”.

Mike Elzinga: So I don’t feel it necessary to apologize for understandings I have achieved by “non-scientific” means. Maybe someday science will enhance that appreciation, but for now, it is “unscientific”.

I may have put my words in a wrong order. I am not a native speaker in English language.

I do appreciate your reply and your reflections on the beauties that are difficult to quantify.

My message, however, was an attempt to clarify the meaning of “naturalism” in science, as I understand it.

For your information, I do not hold any religious position and I do not attempt to sneak supernaturalism in the conversation.

In my opinion, science is easier to recognize based on the results (tests), than based on the concepts used in the hypotheses.

Regards

Eric

Now, let’s compare my given definition of science:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

Let’s compare it with Biology-Online.org’s definition of science:

“The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it. This is done by making observations and collecting data about natural events and conditions, then organising and explaining them with hypotheses, theories, models, laws, and principles.”

Notice that both definitions of science ARE strictly focussed on the scientific method. Both definitions AGREE that “natural phenomena” (“natural events and conditions”, “the material universe”) is the proper domain for investigation via the scientific method. Both definitions equally DO NOT make any claims that science is restricted to natural explanations only.

The Biology-Online.org definition does not say anything about “Science subjects its findings to peer review”, as evolutionist Les Lane insists upon. Nor does the Biology-Online.org definition of science make any attempt to qualify the word “theory”, as evolutionist Les Land insists upon.

BUT.… the full-length, published version of the science definition that I provided, DOES at least indirectly (yet clearly) affirm the importance of peer-review of scientific explanations about the world. AND it also directly qualifies the word “theory”, just like evolutionist Les Lane wanted. Let’s look.

Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.…

Scientific explanation must meet criteria that govern the repeatability of observations and experiments. The effect of these criteria is to insure that scientific explanations about the world are open to criticism and that they will be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrant.

******

So, here’s the deal. The definition of science that I offered (actually, it’s the 2005 Kansas definition of science) is actually far more rigorous and specific than Biology-Online.org’s definition of science, which you ALL presumably accept as an acceptable definition of science. It’s clear that the Kansas 2005 definition of science is 100 percent fully compatible with the scientific method and mainstream science.

Moreover, in BOTH cases, each definition makes it perfectly clear that the scientific method, NOT the religion of materialism/naturalism, defines science.

The only way to get around this fact, is for you evolutionists to play word games and arbitrarily injert “naturalistic gatekeeper” wording into the definition of science WITHOUT rational and historical justification for doing so.

That’s how you guys do. But I think as more members of the voting public catch on to the Royal Scam, things are not gonna be working so well for you evolutionists in the future. Word games will NOT save you! (Tee-hee!)

FL :)

Eric Finn Wrote:

I may have put my words in a wrong order. I am not a native speaker in English language.

Eric,

I wasn’t criticizing your point; rather I felt you raised a good issue indirectly. I had hoped I had elaborated on it approvingly. (And my Finnish is not very good either. :-) )

Mike Elzinga,

Your comparisons are superb, cogent, and easily understood by the public and reporters. Each question is a little harsh light that needs to be shone on the IDcreationist movement. Outstanding work!

***************

FL - where is the peer-reviewed research done by scientists who are relying on “more adequate explanations” instead of “natural explanations?”

Before we teach kids your skewed definition of how science works, shouldn’t we have some examples to show them? In fact, shouldn’t we be able to show that most scientists look for “more adequate explanations” rather than “natural explanations?”

Or do you want kids to learn that science is done your way, when it isn’t done that way at all? Why would you want me to lie to my students?

Time to go enjoy the 3.25” of crystalline precip before it melts … later!

FL Wrote:

Now, let’s compare my given definition of science:

FL appears to be demonstrating the word game tactic right in front of everyone here in real time.

I believe that makes the point quite clearly.

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

Unfortunately for ID none of these words mean what they want them to mean;

Observation does not mean; goddidit.

Hypothesis testing does not mean; we think goddidit.

Measurement does not mean; goddidit so many times.

Experimentation does not mean; obviously goddidit so we don’t need to do any work.

Logical argument does not mean; obviously goddidit.

Theory building does not mean; goddidit so we don’t need to replicate your pathetic level of detail.…..

If you look at how these words are applied scientifically then ID will never be elligible - even a judge could see that.

Do real scientists claim that mainstream scientists are engaged in a united, worldwide conspiracy to conceal evidence against mainstream theories, and then immediately refute themselves by quoting mainstream scientists publicly discussing current problems and issues with mainstream theories?

Jack Krebs Wrote:

You can refute the factual claims (earth is 6000 years old, etc.), and that has been done.

Not just scientifically, but also using Genesis itself as evidence. IIRC Hugh Ross did the latter.

I skimmed the thread and did some keyword searches, but still found no reference that FL specifically endorsed the YE interpretation. Nothing I read was incompatible with what Hugh Ross would claim. The only thing that was clearer was that FL, like Ross, and unlike Behe, thinks that scripture qualifies as evidence. Other than that, most of the language on the thread was annoyingly on creationist terms.

FL, I’m giving you another chance. Either Ross is wrong or right. Same for Behe. Same for Gish. Or maybe Ray Martinez, with his old-earth-young-biosphere. At most one can be right. Which one is?

Update,

From a quick read of the Dick Fischer article, it looks like he takes the Hugh Ross position (OEC) and approach (Bible as evidence), and FL politely disagrees. If that’s a defense of YEC, it’s the lamest one I’ve ever heard.

I’m not sure what “literalism” could mean about stories that were developed and passed down orally for centuries before the invention of writing. Can you have a concept of “literal” i.e., word-for-word, without a written text to check against?

In any case, the classical scholar Robert Graves has a completely different explanation of the story of Adam and Eve. According to Graves, the legend refers to a goddess-worshipping cult that was widespread in the Mediterranean basin for centuries, and survived in watered-down form at Delphi, Greece right through classical times. The cult was run by priestesses, who claimed to receive oracular messages from serpents. (The oracle at Delphi was always a woman, called the pythoness.)

The priestesses chose a man as their king, but offered him as a human sacrifice after a set period of time (originally six months, later 49 years. This is what you get when you let power get entrenched.) The fruit was the sacrificed king’s token of entry into paradise. The story has been given a twist in the bible to come out as anti-pythoness-cult propoganda and warning.

(Incidentally, there’s a good chance the orb of the British monarch is a lingering trace of this cult, and the interpretation of the orb as symbolizing the globe of the world was tacked on much later.)

The oldest stories in the bible were not only passed down orally for centuries, they had to be hand-copied for many centuries after that. In the process, transitions were smoothed out, and notes that were originally annotations became incorprated into the original text. Note, for instance, the clumsy way in which alternative names for the same character– Abram and Abraham– gets rationalized. It definitely looks like some ancient scholar was trying to placate two groups with slightly different variations of the same story.

It’s very likely that the creation of Adam and Eve from nothing was simply a way of introducing the oldest extant story involving humans– the pythoness cult was, in fact, very ancient– and smooth it into the unrelated creation myth. What a slender thread upon which to hang one’s entire world view!

When I wrote, “For FL to think that “refuting” his stance on Biblical literalism is even a reasonable thing to request shows how caught he is in an unrealistic world of words,” I was referring to his request that I do such rebutting: as I also said, “I wouldn’t even dream of wading into such sectarian waters.”

To rebut someone means to supply evidence and arguments against a position, but in the case of the sectarian disagreement about whether the Bible, and especially Genesis, should be taken literally, we merely have different chosen interpretations. One can, as Fischer did, explain his case, but as we have seen, such an explanation means absolutely nothing to someone like FL who has chosen to commit himself to the other side. If FL his not going to be swayed by actually physical evidence about the world itself, it is unlikely he is going to be swayed, much less consider himself “rebutted”, by sectarian arguments about the interpretation of words.

That is why I, personally, consider it a futile waste of time to ever argue about whether Biblical literalism is “correct” from a Christian point of view: for me, the important point is that millions of Christians think it is not. (Note: both for me personally, and for the millions of Christians who reject literalism, the scientific evidence that Genesis is not true is sufficient, making the sectarian arguments about interpretation irrelevant and superfluous.)

It’s good to see somebody who understands that you need to offer something substantially more rational than a knee-jerk “FORGET your dumb bible, Science is concerned with reality” if you’re going to challenge “biblical literalism”.

There is a category error FL is making here, which he has no hope of ever noticing. He wants biblical interpretation, based on the bible, with data supporting an argument taken from the bible, to determine the intended meaning of the bible. His entire focus (and his request, which he continues to deem “rational”) is entirely circular, bible-enclosed. He just CANNOT SEE that his bible is simply not relevant. A great many scientists are not Christians (or indeed, not any religion), but are not in any way handicapped by their ignorance of, or failure to be constrained by, someone else’s superstitions.

You can’t “challenge” someone’s religious faith by adopting the protocols and shibboleths of that faith, and arguing about needles on pinheads. As FL has shown (and Jack, Mike, and others have shown), FL has crawled into a theological hole and pulled the hole in after him. FL now demands that, to “challenge” his insanity, it’s necessary to crawl into that selfsame hole and work within its boundaries. But the very act of entering that hole itself concedes that the hole is worth entering, and that it is relevant to the scientific enterprise. Sorry, but it is not.

So FL regards anyone NOT in that hole as being “irrational”. This is not a sane position. As soon as anyone attempts to relate anything in any religious magic book to reality, they have switched from the real world of science to a world of literary criticism and analysis if they are sane, and otherwise have decided their delusions trump reality if they are not. FL is not.

I sincerely appreciate somebody taking time to at least try to rationally explain and defend a “non-literalist” Genesis position for once. Like a breath of fresh air around here!

Sheesh! This is a forum about biology, not theology. FL’s magic book *does not matter* to anything being discussed or explained here. It is NOT RELEVANT. Might as well go to one of the sites where True Believers are banging one another over the head with different Absolute Truths (their version), and start talking about evidence! Genesis is as useless to biology as evidence is to FL.

Flint Wrote:

FL’s magic book *does not matter* to anything being discussed or explained here. It is NOT RELEVANT.

Heck, even the DI agrees with that. Behe even went so far as to call it “silly”.

To be clear, I’m not defending the DI either. Just pointing out another category where anti-evolution activists do not want to confront their internal irreconcilable differences.

FL said:

Friendly John Marley says,

Please tell me you’re not really this stupid. What do you think is being observed here? What criteria do you think hypotheses are tested against?

That criteria you speak of, John, applies to ALL of the definitions of science that have been offered here. All of them. Including Kansas 2005.

Now, refute that one, please. Double-dog-dare ya, even. Take your time, sir, I can afford to wait.

FL :)

I agree. Evidence applies to all definitions of science. All of them. ID doesn’t even come close to any of them. Jackass.

FL, I’m giving you another chance. Either Ross is wrong or right. Same for Behe. Same for Gish. Or maybe Ray Martinez, with his old-earth-young-biosphere. At most one can be right. Which one is?

The honest answer is that depending on the issue, more than one person can be right. Or wrong. Which is why it is important to be able to rationally explain, justify, and defend why your particular interpretation of things(whether scientific or Scriptural) should be considered better-supported and hence substantially more likely than the next interpretation.

The same people agree on some things and disagree on other things. You don’t see a lot of (indeed, any at all?) disagreement between Gish, Ross, and Behe when it comes to discussing what’s wrong with the prebiotic evolution hypothesis.

Nor will they disagree with Behe, AFAIK, with regards to the existence and significance of irreducible complexity.

And as for Ross, there’s actually some items with him that many YEC’s would surely appreciate and many evolutionists would hate. For example, did you know that Ross believes.….

1.The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. 2.The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship. 3.The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created. 4.Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life. 5.Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution. 6.Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth. 7.Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system. 8.Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its content. It describes God’s “very good” creation in the space of six days. 9.Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago. 10.All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve.

Utterly delicious, at least to me! But there are many other places where everybody will disagree with each other on SOMETHING or other. Ross, Gish, Behe, all of us. (And even with the supposed points of agreement, there are sometimes problems!)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc[…]_YE_v_OE.asp

Gish and Behe won’t agree on common descent, for example. Others won’t agree on other things.

******

So here’s the deal. Nobody, on any side, is going to always have the same interpretation about things. The task is to be able to rationally show, explain, justify, defend why your interpretation is of greater merit than the next person’s.

If you look at science journals and theology journals, you can see this process happening literally all the time. It’s just that important.

FL :)

What do theology journals have to do with science?

FL Wrote:

So here’s the deal. Nobody, on any side, is going to always have the same interpretation about things. The task is to be able to rationally show, explain, justify, defend why your interpretation is of greater merit than the next person’s.

And the key to this is to exclude all evidence of any kind from any source (except the sectarian handbook).

Flint summarized it well in his comment #136403. I don’t think I can add anything to that.

FL Wrote:

The task is to be able to rationally show, explain, justify, defend why your interpretation is of greater merit than the next person’s.

Without even bringing up the “naturalism” issue:

Real scientists, or what anti-evolution activists increasingly call “Darwinists,” have relatively minor disagreements on the “hows” and virtually none on the basic “whats and whens” of Earth’s and life’s histories, yet they debate their internal differences fiercely and openly.

As you admit, anti-evolution activists differ far more radically among each other even on the basic “whats and whens” of Earth’s and life’s histories. Yet they acknowledge those differences only reluctantly, and even then, taking every opportunity to move on to the safer turf of challenging “Darwinists.”

It took ~125 posts to even get you to mention Behe’s acceptance of common descent. So if it is as you say, only a matter of interpretation, Behe should be no more correct than a “Darwinist,” and Ross, only slightly more correct, right?

FL Wrote:

You don’t see a lot of (indeed, any at all?) disagreement between Gish, Ross, and Behe when it comes to discussing what’s wrong with the prebiotic evolution hypothesis.

Which proves my point even more. All Behe, Ross and Gish agree on is that it’s OK to misrepresnt it. If they were real scientists, they’d be emphasizing their radical differences about when, and how many times it occurred.

FL:

FL, I’m giving you another chance. Either Ross is wrong or right. Same for Behe. Same for Gish. Or maybe Ray Martinez, with his old-earth-young-biosphere. At most one can be right. Which one is?

The honest answer is that depending on the issue, more than one person can be right. Or wrong. Which is why it is important to be able to rationally explain, justify, and defend why your particular interpretation of things(whether scientific or Scriptural) should be considered better-supported and hence substantially more likely than the next interpretation.

The same people agree on some things and disagree on other things. You don’t see a lot of (indeed, any at all?) disagreement between Gish, Ross, and Behe when it comes to discussing what’s wrong with the prebiotic evolution hypothesis.

Nor will they disagree with Behe, AFAIK, with regards to the existence and significance of irreducible complexity.

And as for Ross, there’s actually some items with him that many YEC’s would surely appreciate and many evolutionists would hate. For example, did you know that Ross believes.….

1.The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. 2.The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship. 3.The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created. 4.Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life. 5.Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution. 6.Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth. 7.Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system. 8.Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its content. It describes God’s “very good” creation in the space of six days. 9.Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago. 10.All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve.

Utterly delicious, at least to me! But there are many other places where everybody will disagree with each other on SOMETHING or other. Ross, Gish, Behe, all of us. (And even with the supposed points of agreement, there are sometimes problems!)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc[…]_YE_v_OE.asp

Gish and Behe won’t agree on common descent, for example. Others won’t agree on other things.

******

So here’s the deal. Nobody, on any side, is going to always have the same interpretation about things. The task is to be able to rationally show, explain, justify, defend why your interpretation is of greater merit than the next person’s.

If you look at science journals and theology journals, you can see this process happening literally all the time. It’s just that important.

FL :)

And yet, in your latest parade of idiotic semantics games, you still refuse to demonstrate how a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, or even theology, is necessary for scientific inquiry.

Stanton,

The bigger point is that people who think that Genesis and/or theology is necessary for scientific inquiry - like FL - and many who don’t - like Behe - nevertheless resort to nearly all the same habits ant tactics (see Mike Elzinga’s title post) that puts them solidly in the category of pseudoscience.

Ummm .….

1. Let say that explanations given by ID if correct. Or Ross is correct. Or Dr King is correct (anybody knows him?). I still cannot see why the “Creator” must be a Christian God. Maybe the Designer was Allah? Or maybe It was Shiva? Or maybe It was Beelzebub? Or maybe Zarathos the Ghost Rider?

2. Once a Spanish friend said, “I don’t want clerics to control my life.” I strongly agree with him. I realise sometimes the Creationists and IDers act as if everybody is evil, and they only will inherit heaven. Peoples with minimum education and unpleasant personality try to “lead” and “guide” and sometimes “judge” others, just because they think (or have a delusion) that they are role model Christians. Well. Why should we listen to you? Why should you bug us? Honestly, I think many Christians are unpleasant - they’re bossy, and judging, filled with jealousy, and dominating. And they use “the Bible” or any of the so-called “God given authority” delusion to justify those acts.

3. Why can’t Creationists and IDers just leave evolution alone? If you want to believe what you want to believe, fine. If you want to educate your children with those anti-evolution junks, well, pretty fine. Just stop sending your kids to such schools. Stop praying to god so that your kid can enter the Ivy Leagues. And of course: stop hoping the best for your children of yourself, because everything good, rich, and considered as the best in this world is pretty worldly - very un-Christian, you see. Start to create your own community, a community which does not require current secularly standardised education and social system. But don’t force those who doesn’t want to follow you. Everybody has their own right to conduct life and to believe whatever religious creed they want to believe - as long as the acts and faith do not cause others to suffer. It is pretty funny that such people want to stop secular science while they love to live in a secular world - with them as the reference / leaders.

4. Sometimes hardline Creationists and IDers are too aggressive that they act very un-christian. I thought Christians are supposed to observe the two love rules given by Jesus. I don’t think a jihad at all costs against science and the world, which on the contrary show bitter and evil personality, is a good example of Christianity. Please, read your bible again. It is really crazy that they force people to believe exactly the same thing, and the same way as they do.

5. I honestly think that this ID / Creationism vs. Evolution is just another political and economical clash - and also an act of jihad to acquire lost past glories of the religious geeks. C’mon, these guys attacks even Christian scientists! I would say that this is just another unintellectual geeks vs. handsome smart kids - that is, unpopular kids trying to get back on the smart and popular guys at school who got all the babes.

6. I still cannot see the “greater merrit” of a “Biblical explanation”, besides halting scientific progress. If “Biblical explanations” can be accepted, that means that an explanation given by one of my Indonesian moslem friends who believed that she is a paranormal, that invisible djinns transmitted knowledge to those who study “age measuring” science (such as history and archaeology or palaeontology) by whispering to the ears of those people, must have a chance to be accepted as correct also then. Her “explanation” must have a chance to be right also, because I haven’t been able to find any explanation from IDers or the Creationists which are able to satisfyingly explain why it must be the Judaic / Biblical God - which means ALL theistic explanations must be given a fair chance - even those coming from old myths and other non-Christian religions! It is very funny that IDers and Creationists would state strongly that explanations coming from outside the Bible or different belief system as erroneous as evolution, while the way how they interpret the bible, interpreting the interpretation, and modify those to give an explanation is pretty similar to methods given by any belief system!

7. IDers and to some extent, Creationists, claim that they just want to say that a “Designer” or a “Creator” created, but the essence of that creator is not yet known - hence they claim that they are not attached to any particular belief system namely Christianity. If that so: Anybody knows Harun Yahya? He is a creationist, but being a moslem, he explains and defends his ideas using verses from the Holy Qur’an. How come IDers - who claims that they refer to no specific God - does not use his sharp analyses based on the Qur’an? Or, I haven’t been able to see any ID or Creationism refering to Dr. Maurice Buccaille. Or, there is this Buddhist monk in my country who thinks that Black hole is the place where Buddha Gautama and the incoming Buddha Maitreya live. Nobody refers to that explanation. So, it is pretty clear that IDers and Creationists, despite their claim of no attachment to a particular religion, is just another Christian movement.

Please pardon my poor English, I do not know if I was able to transmit my ideas properly.

But, one more info. I am an Evangelical Christian, a member of the Campus Ministry, and an Evolutionary biologist in training (I’m a PhD student in molecular phylogenetics) at the same time. I am at ease with my faith, and greatly love my research. But honestly, the most unpleasant and hurtful remarks and comments come mostly from .… the pious and religious ones, and not from the scientists or “darwinati” or whatever you want to call the paper-publishing intelligent peoples .…..

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on November 23, 2007 2:14 PM.

The DI and Short term memory was the previous entry in this blog.

There is no bottom to dumb is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter