[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[freeway]

...Thanks for ignoring the core point of my post....

I did try my best.
And with that, I withdraw from this thread. Enjoy yourselves

agree.CC.. Jesus says they will follow teaching that tickle there ears, and turn their backs on what is true... so I will also withdraw from this thread.... yes enjoy 8-) 8-) 8-)

 

[turnorburn]

As we all know, Christians come in many colours and flavours with each one claiming to be a "True Christian (tm)". Darwin believed in the Christian God until his death. While he may well have changed his views on the fundamentalist Christianity (which was considered normal at the time), he was still a Christian by most people's definition.

You say Christians come in different colors and flavors I say atheists do as well, but we both have one thing in common.
If we were dangling from The Empire State Building we would both cry out for God to save us.
What will you do when your dangling over hell, would you cry out for salvation, or asked to be thrown in :smt045

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Proverbs 13:16 Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.

Interesting choice of signature verse, TurnOrBurn.

I think the disconnect is that people who grow up believing in a higher power have a hard time understanding people who do not, and vice versa.

To someone raised in the faith, it is hard to imagine a person not crying out to a higher power in distress, therefore they may incorrectly generalize that to everyone.

Mean while, a person not raised around faith, and does not take it up later in life, likely will not have an inclination to call upon a higher power.

Many in the US have a hard time imagining the second example because faith is everywhere. It would be difficult to raise someone not exposed, whereas in Europe, specifically France, thats just not so. Religion is not part of many peoples lives there.

So, with that, the question may not be, "Would someone call out to a diety hanging from the Empire State Building", but rather, "Would someone call out to a deity hanging from the Eiffel Tower".

That would likely be a better question for you Turnorburn.

I myself grew up around religion, but have been unreligious most of my life. I do not find that cliche' to have been true for me during my teen driving years, when I had many close calls, yet I can not say it wouldn't hold true if I had more time to contemplate. Who knows. Not really relevant to any religious discussion anyways.

 

[Snidey]

As we all know, Christians come in many colours and flavours with each one claiming to be a "True Christian (tm)". Darwin believed in the Christian God until his death. While he may well have changed his views on the fundamentalist Christianity (which was considered normal at the time), he was still a Christian by most people's definition.

You say Christians come in different colors and flavors I say atheists do as well, but we both have one thing in common.
If we were dangling from The Empire State Building we would both cry out for God to save us.
What will you do when your dangling over hell, would you cry out for salvation, or asked to be thrown in :smt045

I would not call for God to save me, at least not in any serious fashion. The fact that people on the brink of death suddenly hope that an afterlife exists is not really an argument in your favor.

 

[Barbarian]

I was a kid of the late 60's and 70's, and no one ever got shot at my schools. No teacher ever got raped.

Mine either. It was never common. But it's a lot less common now, as you saw from those figures from the department of education. Schools are a lot safer now, than they were.

I never saw a pregnant schoolmate.

For a good reason; they used to kick them out of schools. "You messed up, so we figure it's appropriate to ruin your education as well." That was the thinking.

I'm not saying we were innocent, but compared to todays world, we were angels.

I had kids in school in the 70s. And you're stuffed with prunes, my friend. I know what schools were like then.

And if the curve continues,

Crime will continue to drop in public schools. But I'm not sure the curve will continue.

 

[Deep Thought]

As we all know, Christians come in many colours and flavours with each one claiming to be a "True Christian (tm)". Darwin believed in the Christian God until his death. While he may well have changed his views on the fundamentalist Christianity (which was considered normal at the time), he was still a Christian by most people's definition.

You say Christians come in different colors and flavors I say atheists do as well, but we both have one thing in common.
If we were dangling from The Empire State Building we would both cry out for God to save us.
What will you do when your dangling over hell, would you cry out for salvation, or asked to be thrown in :smt045

Wrong assumption. I might as well say that we'd cry out to the elves and fairies to save us.

I don't know why religious people make the mistake of thinking that all atheists are angry at God. How on earth can you be angry at something you don't believe in?

 

[Guest]

ID is not science. Science gathers together evidence and then draws a conclusion based on the evidence.

Then what do you call the Big Bang?
Or better put by the scientists."
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure..."

I actualy know fairly little about the big bang theory, so I'm going to pass up on answering this one. Big bang theory is moving into the modern areas of science which are often just postulates rather than established theories. However, to propose something like the Big Bang, you still require evidence, hence is why it is science.

ID has a conclusion right from square one and it frantically goes about searching for evidence to support this conclusion.

Not just ID, everything. We look at a tree and ask " How did it get there? " Of course the answer would be from a seed; so then we might ask " Well where did that come from? " ..And so on until
eventually you have one person concluding that it came from an implosion and another concluding it was created.

I think this is somewhat different to the Intelligent Design I am familiar with, indeed your logic makes perfect sense. In the end, it's perfectly acceptable to say "God started the big bang" or "God used evolution to fashion mankind". Intelligent Design as I am aware of it is largely the anti-evolution crew trying to push their view that the world is 6000 years old and that mankind appeared out of thin air.

ID exists to pour sugar in the gas tank of progress.

Progress? Many ID scientists have made some of the greatest thinkers of all time, take for example the Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel whom is called the Father of Genetics.
If for nothing else, ID is good for pointing out the flaws scientists make when on the topic of evolution.

The term "Intelligent Design" is a new one, invented only recently as a facade for young earth creationism. Mendel would not have identified himself as an advocate of intelligent design. A christian scientist, yes, but Intelligent design is far more modern than that.
What do you mean by ID is useful for pointing out the flaws scientists make?

It seeks to undermine science in general by thrusting the false claim that there is actually a real debate going on in the scientific community, making science seem confusing and inconclusive, thus weakening it to attack by lobbyists etc.

Now that's a bit ill-based, somtimes mis-information is thrown around just as evolutionists do to christains, yes. Your seeming to want to blame christains for every false piece of information out there.

I have no wish to blame everything or anything on Christians. There have been many great Scientists who are Christian. The people I do have a problem with are the fundamentalists. The ones who believe the only truth is the literal interpretation of the bible, and further, think that everyone else should too. Fundamentalists of any religion are a fantastic retardant of scientific progress and indeed progress of any kind. Case in point, the middle east today. There are many great Muslim scientists, but once the fundies get control of a country things go wrong.

The fundamentalist Christians are simply the ones we have to deal with in our western societies. As far as mis-information goes, a lot of them demonstrate a rather flagrant disregard for the ninth commandment.
All you have to do is watch a couple of their videos, Mr Stein's Expelled is a rather current example.

@ On topic, I'd say no. ID is not science, ID is the belief that everything that was or ever will be had an intelligent creator, Science is Science.

Agreed, Intelligent Design cannot be a science. I think our difference in viewpoints is based on the fact that many proponents of ID are claiming that it IS.

 

[KenEOTE]

Well most science is coming up with theories and testing them. So ID is one theory among many. If it is a theory then would it not then be science. People are testing the theory and coming to conclusions.
Pure Darwinians do the same thing.

Both of these are theories.
One starts at the point that there had to be a creator to create these complex organisms. Including the so called single cell creatures which have more going on in them than scientists originally thought.
The other starts at the point of it was an accident. And we continue to accidentally develop.

 

[Jayls5]

Well most science is coming up with theories and testing them. So ID is one theory among many. If it is a theory then would it not then be science. People are testing the theory and coming to conclusions.
Pure Darwinians do the same thing.

Both of these are theories.
One starts at the point that there had to be a creator to create these complex organisms. Including the so called single cell creatures which have more going on in them than scientists originally thought.
The other starts at the point of it was an accident. And we continue to accidentally develop.

No, and No.

Wrong. I said i wasn't coming back to this forum but this is hilarious.

 

[KenEOTE]

How is your answer no and no?

Is no one testing the theories? Or do we not test theories any longer. I say if someone wants to be ID let them do it, what does it hurt for them to come up with a theory.

Isn't it the job of a scientist to explore all avenues?

Every year new things are discovered. Just a few years ago we thought Neanderthal Man was pretty much mindless and had no contact with Modern Man. Now we know he was very intelligent, from the tools they have found.

Also Just 2 weeks ago National Geographic Channel aired an episode that showed NM and MM actually fought against each other for Territory.

 

[BobRyan]

Well most science is coming up with theories and testing them. So ID is one theory among many. If it is a theory then would it not then be science.

IN fact as Wernher Von Braun points out -- ID is "science" by definition.

It can be argues that the ID approach is to "ALLOW the Academic freedom to follow the data where it LEADS EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not pander to atheist dogma".

And as we saw in the case of Electromagnetic wave form - ID AS SCIENCE can mature to the point of creating electronic circuits able to distinguish between ID and "background noise" and to discriminate in favor of design.

All without possible when one does not have to worry about the need to pandar to the atheist dogma about the myth that "there is no god".

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

How is your answer no and no?

Is no one testing the theories? Or do we not test theories any longer. I say if someone wants to be ID let them do it, what does it hurt for them to come up with a theory.

Isn't it the job of a scientist to explore all avenues?

Every year new things are discovered. Just a few years ago we thought Neanderthal Man was pretty much mindless and had no contact with Modern Man. Now we know he was very intelligent, from the tools they have found.

Also Just 2 weeks ago National Geographic Channel aired an episode that showed NM and MM actually fought against each other for Territory.

All avenues within the realm of science. ID doesn't qualify as science. So like I said, no.

 

[BobRyan]

For your convenience -- as noted above

Wernher von Braun
(Head of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center at the time of this letter)

…The scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.

To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

*On September 14, 1972, this letter addressed to a Mr. Grose and attributed to rocket scientist Wernher von Braun was read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford;

I will be considering von Braun's opinion for now -- as having value and substance as opposed to the transparent efforts of those who blindly post in service to atheist darwinism "at all costs to science".

 

[KenEOTE]

All avenues within the realm of science. ID doesn't qualify as science. So like I said, no.

So Jay you speak for all scientist everywhere? You are who we go to when we want to come up with a Theory? I did not realize you are the POPE or more accurately the god of the science world.

Isn't it the scientists Job to find the truth in how things work, how they started?

Its funny how evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, claim that creationists, ID's and Christians are so closed minded when in reality I have found more closed mindedness coming from your side of the discussion.

You asked is ID science. But you say it isn't. What was your point of this thread to just keep saying no to everyone?

 

[BobRyan]

Insights from page 3 that stood the test of time on this thread --

Again for the objective unbiased reader --

Intelligent Design:
"Academic Freedom to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to DESIGN and a position that does not pander to the doctrines and dogma of atheists"

This defintion is "distinctly" science-based and as such is "designed" to drive dogmatic believers in atheist darwinism through the roof and to willingly demonstrate the wild leaps of non-science ranting that they unwittingly "exchange" for respect and appreciation for "actual science".

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a post from Page 4 -- still going unnanswered.

The entire point for the electromagnetic wave form is that many are just random background noise -- get it??

You have to DETECT design and information. Just accepting every electromagnetic wave form or EVERY compound EVERY molecule does not get you the science case for "design" much less "intelligent design" at our level of ability to detect it.

So fine - tRNA (something you can actually transmit through the nucleus wall) - DNA - Ribosomes you know "the entire architecture superstructure" that produces the proteins and enzymes required for the overall individual living system.

Decoding done in the Ribosome vs the encoding done inside the nulceus so that the pattern sent creates the correct sequence of Amino Acids for the required Protein or Enzyme that is determined for that specific project.

You know -- design.

Just like we would transmit signals that can be decoded and then displayed in a usable format so action can be taken - or in this case thousands of actions in predetermined sequence depending the project being requested.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

ID is "science by definition" even according to the Discovery Institute -

And here is why -- when you compare it to blind atheism and the junk-science of Darwinism that it uses for "cover" here is what you get --

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

 

[BobRyan]

Now let's compare the SCIENCE we see in ID as shown in the posts above - to the evidence for atheist darwinism being "junk science religion" evidence that comes from atheist DARWINIST summations -- no less.

--------------------

Reader -- take note:

Here is a case where we have a well-known well-accepted atheist darwinist bemoaning the lamentable ANTI-Knowledge of atheist darwinism!

Let's take a look at an actual Atheist Darwinist who IS capable and willing to freely express his own discoveries about the weaknesses in THE religious system that he MUST cling to "at any cost to science and reason" --

Dr. Frair quotes Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

"...I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing you think is true?'
"I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.

I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: 'Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.' "...It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

(Patterson took the words of Neal C. Gillespie alleging that the "pre-Darwinian creationist paradigm" was "'...not a research-governing theory, since its power to explain is only verbal, but an anti-theory, a void that has the function of knowledge, but conveys none'" and suggested ")...It must seem to you that I'm either misguided or malicious to suggest that such words can be applied to evolutionary theory.

"...Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?...I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely void, not just a lack of knowledge-I think it has been positively anti-knowledge. "...

What about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but has it conveyed any?...It is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it.

"Well, here we all are with all our shelves full of books on evolution. We've all read tons of them, and most of us have written one or two. And how could it be that we've done all that, we've read these books and learned nothing from them? And how could I have worked on evolution for twenty years, and learned nothing from it?

"...There is some sort of a revolution going on in evolutionary theory at the moment...It concerns the possible mechanisms that are responsible for the transformation...natural selection is under fire, and we hear a rash of new and alternative theories..."

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Frair provides his own testimony as a front-row attendee of this talk by Patterson

Dr Frair:
I was sitting in the front row next to an AMNH curator of mammals, Karl Koopman, who, obviously very agitated kept slamming his pencil down in front of him.

Niles Eldredge in the Department of Invertebrates at AMNH was standing by the left wall (as one looks toward the speaker). Beside Eldredge stood a high school biology teacher, Roy Slingo, from the prestigious Scarsdale NY district.

Slingo later informed me that at one stage of the talk Niles Eldredge (well known for his anti-creationist perspective) grabbed his forehead and slid down the wall proclaiming, "My God, how can he be doing this to us."

Oh if only we had actual Christian devotees to atheist darwinism that were as honest and objective as the comitted atheist darwinist Colin Patterson!


[/quote]

 

[Barbarian]

Here is a post from Page 4 -- still going unnanswered.

BobRyan wrote:The entire point for the electromagnetic wave form is that many are just random background noise -- get it??

You have to DETECT design and information. Just accepting every electromagnetic wave form or EVERY compound EVERY molecule does not get you the science case for "design" much less "intelligent design" at our level of ability to detect it.

So fine - tRNA (something you can actually transmit through the nucleus wall) - DNA - Ribosomes you know "the entire architecture superstructure" that produces the proteins and enzymes required for the overall individual living system.

Decoding done in the Ribosome vs the encoding done inside the nulceus so that the pattern sent creates the correct sequence of Amino Acids for the required Protein or Enzyme that is determined for that specific project.

You know -- design.

Just like we would transmit signals that can be decoded and then displayed in a usable format so action can be taken - or in this case thousands of actions in predetermined sequence depending the project being requested.

CREATURES FROM PRIMORDIAL SILICON


Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it
creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands. Clive Davidson
reports

"GO!" barks the researcher into the microphone. The oscilloscope in
front of him displays a steady green line across the top of its
screen. "Stop!" he says and the line immediately drops to the bottom.

Between the microphone and the oscilloscope is an electronic circuit
that discriminates between the two words. It puts out 5 volts when it
hears "go" and cuts off the signal when it hears "stop".

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a
task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson,
does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there
wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of
silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and
survival of the fittest...That repertoire turns out to be more intriguing than Thompson could
have imagined. Although the configuration program specified tasks for
all 100 cells, it transpired that only 32 were essential to the
circuit's operation. Thompson could bypass the other cells without
affecting it. A further five cells appeared to serve no logical
purpose at all--there was no route of connections by which they could
influence the output. And yet if he disconnected them, the circuit
stopped working.

It appears that evolution made use of some physical property of these
cells--possibly a capacitive effect or electromagnetic inductance--to
influence a signal passing nearby. Somehow, it seized on this subtle
effect and incorporated it into the solution.[/b]
http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73

Precisely the way evolution works in real life. Since this breakthrough, engineers have been using simulations of evolution by natural selection to solve problems that aren't solvable by design.

Oh, and the Patterson quote-mining? Bob already knows it's a scam. We showed him that Patterson himself said so. But Bob insists that he knows better than Patterson what Patterson thinks. Would you like to see it again, Bob?

 

[Jayls5]

All avenues within the realm of science. ID doesn't qualify as science. So like I said, no.

So Jay you speak for all scientist everywhere? You are who we go to when we want to come up with a Theory? I did not realize you are the POPE or more accurately the god of the science world.

Isn't it the scientists Job to find the truth in how things work, how they started?

Its funny how evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, claim that creationists, ID's and Christians are so closed minded when in reality I have found more closed mindedness coming from your side of the discussion.

You asked is ID science. But you say it isn't. What was your point of this thread to just keep saying no to everyone?

Wow, a bunch of strawman argumentation. Who would have thought?

Simple: Show how it's science. Show it. The guy who designed it already admitted astrology would be science by the same logic. Nobody can form any testable hypotheses to date. I'm not speaking for science so much as asking for basic qualities that would make ID science. Instead of giving me this, you resort to some absurd explanation saying I'm trying to speak for all scientists. I see this forum hasn't changed one bit. hahaha, later.