[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[BobRyan]

Wait! I know what you're saying to yourself now "boy if that is the defintion for Intelligent Design I wonder what the defition for the junk-science religion we call Darwinism would look like" --

Thought you would never ask -- here it is.

Enjoy!

Darwinian Evolutionism:

A distinctively atheist set of religious doctrines and dogmas unwittingly expressed through a thin façade of hijacked science terms wrapped around a hollow junk-science core of both hidden and unmasked hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith.

Some of you will "instantly" recognize the truth of this.

So much for Darwinism -- now on to ID.

[/quote]

Notice the point of the definition above is to isolate the destinctives of atheist Darwinism not necessarily to portray all efforts to embrace evolutionism in one form or another. In fact many of the ID scientists are themselves still evolutionists.

(Hard as that may be for atheists and those that follow after them to accept)

A definition should not be biased, and should accurately describe the idea/word in question. Your definition says nothing about what evolution is, just what you think it is.

"details" needing correction in your statement - I am not going after evolutionism in general -- I am going after the distinctives of atheist darwinism as it stands out from actual science.

A better definition for evolution would be, a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage

Indeed -- and that is not the "distinctive" of atheist darwinism -- even the ID scientists (some of whom are also eovlutionists -- just not atheist darwinists) also embrace that more general statement.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Proponent
In the same respect, a terrible definition for ID would be: An idea held by devout Christians and all those that love God that is completely true because it is spoken in the Holy Bible,

Indeed the Hundu ID scientists would object -- because the issue with ID is more about "academic freedom to follow the data where it leads" it is not about "reading the Bible".

In fact - 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.

[/quote]

Proponent
In the same respect, a terrible definition for ID would be: An idea held by devout Christians and all those that love God that is completely true because it is spoken in the Holy Bible, and because it is supported by the infallible Word of God, can not be refuted. While I'm sure that you more or less agree with most of the statements, you must admit that as a definition for ID it's worthless, if you told it to somebody who had know idea what ID was, thy would still have no idea.

That statement fits YEC much better and it makes an excellent "religious counterpart" to the religionist proposals found in atheist darwinism.

ID is more of the "Science" in the middle. YEC does not like ID because it does not specify a Young Earth, Young Life or 7 day creation week. Atheists don't like it because it promotes "academic freedom to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to conclusions for design that do not pander to atheist dogma".

But in the end -- that is probably a good place for SCIENCE to be.

Bob

 

[proponent]

You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I said, and gone on the offensive instead of actually considering the point of what I said. I never said that the loaded language in the definition was false (which it is),

I see. So you wanted to omit the TRUE or you wanted to LEAVE IN the false or you were trying to omit it because you differ with the conclusions of the "Junk-Science basis for Darwinism" thread?

I simply pointed out that that is a useless definition for evolution

When we look at the junk science basis for Atheist Darwinism as exposed in its long a reveared history of junk-science frauds, hoaxes and blunders we can not help but "wonder" at the ways the followers of that dogma have found to "turn a blind eye" the systemic fraud and political maneuverings it uses to promote itself.

Why in the world would you suppose that "noticing that glaring fact" is out of place when comapring atheist Darwinism to actual science?

Where is your logic to support that position?

[quote:13e58]
as coming to a correct conclusion based on false data is as unlikely as finding a needle in a haystack.

Which was exactly my argument with atheist darwinism and Simpson's horse series in the "Junk-science basis for Darwinism" thread.

Bob[/quote:13e58]
Stop ignoring what I'm saying and simply quoting another thread, do you or do you not recognize that your "definition" of evolution says nothing about what the theory actually MEANS, and is just you trying to bias any discussion on the subject before it begins? If not, I propose that we use the following definition for ID: An idiotic childlike belief that an almighty man in the sky made everything, despite no evidence for this if one lacks faith, and overwhelming scientific evidence that things have come to be how they are now through the process of evolution.

 

[Deep Thought]

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

That's like saying Scientology is "religion by definition" even according to Scientologists.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes. Scientologists admit that it's a religion. For some reason, IDers are embarrassed to admit it. Actually, we know why.

They want to disguise it as a science so that they can get it into public schools. P.T. Barnum was once quoted as saying that there was a sucker born every minute. IDers are betting he was right.

 

[jwu]

Still no explanation from the ID side on how to quantify information...

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.

Content from human intelligent designers, and in most cases these designed the signals to be easily detected. Also, we know exactly what to look for when we search for such signals.

This however is an entirely different question. Distinguishing intended signals from noise is not the same as Intelligent Design (as a hypothesis of the origin of the diversity of life).

I also note that you didn't name an actual company that uses anything that has been produced by the ID movement and its proponents, and especially not an actual paper which they published based on which the methods of such a company are based.

 

[Barbarian]

You know, the question in the OP was asked of ID'er Michael Behe in the Dover trial. He testified under oath that ID is scientific in the same sense that astrology is scientific.

 

[BobRyan]

Aside from the cartoons being posted by believers in the atheist darwinist stories for origins -- we have some actual "science fact" observed by "actual scientists". They argue that the Academic Freedom to Follow the Data where it leads EVEN if it leads us to observe "design" is "Science by Definition".

The thought-police barbarianism of the dark ages that tries to force minds to ignore the data in a bold effort to pander to atheism - is simply "bad religion".

Wernher Von Braun:

The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

…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.

Welcome to the light my atheist-believing friends!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Stop ignoring what I'm saying and simply quoting another thread, do you or do you not recognize that your "definition" of evolution says nothing about what the theory actually MEANS, and is just you trying to bias any discussion on the subject before it begins?

Atheist Darwinism is a "search for origins" that will "satisfy atheists".

As Huxley himself pointed out "leadiing to an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

Atheist Darwinism "serves no purpose" according to the atheist Darwinist Colin Patterson.

Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "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: '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..."

While you are busy "making stuff up" against the obvious proven science of that "IS ALLOWED to follow the data where it leads" -- your own atheist darwinists are ADMITTING to the debunked blind-junk-science system you clling to "so desperately" in opposition to reason and science.

I have a suggestion -- step into the light and see life for what it is.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Atheist Darwinism is a "search for origins" that will "satisfy atheists".

Evolutionary theory was presented by two theists. You've been suckered again, Bob.

As Huxley himself pointed out "leadiing to an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

Elsewhere on this site, I posted the statement from Patterson, pointing out that the creationists had edited his statement to make it appear he believed things he did not.

Totally ineffective, even if Patterson for some reason actually believed what his words were edited to present. It would just make him wrong. There even scientists who are creationists. If you compare the Discovery Institute's list with Project Steve, you'll find that about 0.3% of doctorates in biology are creationists. A tiny fraction, but they exist.

This does not mean that science is wrong. It just means that some have religious reasons to deny some parts of science.

During the Arkansas trial, Harold Coffin, a Creation Research Society member from Loma Linda University, was asked about the Burgess Shale fossil site, which has been dated to the early Cambrian period:

"Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?

COFFIN: Yes.

Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?

COFFIN: Correct.

Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?

COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible." (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)

 

[BobRyan]

While reading this thread I came cross this post --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&start=75#p386810

 

[BobRyan]

Elsewhere on this site, I posted the statement from Patterson, pointing out that the creationists had edited his statement to make it appear he believed things he did not.

Totally ineffective, even if Patterson for some reason actually believed what his words were edited to present. It would just make him wrong.

No -- in fact what you did "elsewhere" is embarrass yourself in your efforts to escape the damage to atheist darwinism done by this devastating comment from Patterson --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p386818


Your "solution" ws to find ANOTHER even MORE devastating Patterson quote that AFFIRMED the accuracy in what I provided here AND ADDED the more damaging claim that evolutionism is comprised of storytelling about "how one thing came from another" storytelling that as Patterson said in YOUR QUOTE is "NOT SCIENCE".

In fact in YOUR quote Patterson went on to claim that he ADMITS that the quotes I have given from him accurately reflect his OWN view that "Evolutoinism has done MORE HARM THAN GOOD to systematics".

Hang on to your hat because -- as it turns out -- that unwitting blunder of yours on that "other thread" was in fact "planned".

see it in living color.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&start=15#p387034


Bob

 

[Barbarian]

No -- in fact what you did "elsewhere" is embarrass yourself by finding ANOTHER Patterson quote that AFFIRMED the accuracy in what I provided here AND ADDED the more damaging claim that evolutionism is comprised of storytelling about "how one thing came from another" storytelling that as Patterson said in YOUR QUOTE is "NOT SCIENCE".

You've confused "evolutionism" with evolutionary theory. Patterson's complain was like Gould's; some have a hyperadaptionist idea that all things in organisms are meaningful results of natural selection. Some aren't. Because you don't know the difference between natural selection and systematics, you got tangled up in your own hopes here.

Hang on to your hat because -- as it turns out -- that unwitting blunder of yours on that "other thread" was in fact "planned".

Most quote mining is intentionally deceptive. It's not surprising that this one was also. Nor is it surprising that when Patterson points out that he didn't mean what the doctored quote seems to have him say, you'd refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[BobRyan]

Elsewhere on this site, I posted the statement from Patterson, pointing out that the creationists had edited his statement to make it appear he believed things he did not.

Totally ineffective, even if Patterson for some reason actually believed what his words were edited to present. It would just make him wrong.

No -- in fact what you did "elsewhere" is embarrass yourself in your efforts to escape the damage to atheist darwinism done by this devastating comment from Patterson --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p386818


Your "solution" ws to find ANOTHER even MORE devastating Patterson quote that AFFIRMED the accuracy in what I provided here AND ADDED the more damaging claim that evolutionism is comprised of storytelling about "how one thing came from another" storytelling that as Patterson said in YOUR QUOTE is "NOT SCIENCE".

In fact in YOUR quote Patterson went on to claim that he ADMITS that the quotes I have given from him accurately reflect his OWN view that "Evolutoinism has done MORE HARM THAN GOOD to systematics".

Hang on to your hat because -- as it turns out -- that unwitting blunder of yours on that "other thread" was in fact "planned".

see it in living color.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&start=15#p387034

Most quote mining is intentionally deceptive. It's not surprising that this one was also. Nor is it surprising that when Patterson points out that he didn't mean what the doctored quote seems to have him say, you'd refuse to acknowledge it.

your OWN quote has Patterson saying that all that evolutionist story telling is "doing more HARM than GOOD" and in fact is conveying "anti-knowledge" (which is very obvious as we observe it's blind faith sacrifice-all-science for darwinism slash-and-burn tactics leaping from one hoax claim to another to make it's claim.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the post you were complaining about --

Well known atheist darwinist Colin Patterson admits to the blind religionist dogma in atheist darwinism...

Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "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: '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..."

 

[BobRyan]

Here we note the blunder in appealing to Patterson's letter where HE CONFIRMS the accuracy in the quotes given AND goes ON TO ADD that the storytelling being done by devotees to darwinism is doing MORE HARM than GOOD.

I provide red letter highlights for YOUR OWN quote of Patterson to show just how true Patterson's statement is that you have embraced "anti-knowledge".

Barbarian -- Sorry that once "again" you've been suckered into thinking that in PAtterson's letter below he denied ANYTHING of what was quoted prior -- IN FACT he AFFIRMS it.

Maybe a little "red lettering" will help disabuse you of the myths you seem tied to

(from your OWN quote of Patterson here --
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p386847)

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. [/color] The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Instead of HELPING your argument -- you just unwittngly shot yourself in the foot using Patterson to finish what my first Patterson quote started -- why do that? How is shooting your own side "more" helping you??

And then worse (as if you don't even read your own posts) you then claim that it is those who READ the details in what Patterson's letter said as he (one of our leading Atheist Darwinists) AFFIRMS that the initial quotes were "Accurate as far as they go" --- you want to claim THEY who SEE your blunder are "suckered"??

you need to actually read what you post as step 1. Then make a rational argument to support your position -- 2. Don't simply blindly "believe" whatever the leadership in the atheist darwinis dogma camp tell you to "think" about the letter Patterson wrote -- go ahead and actually READ it.

Patterson continues

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort.

Notice that in this part of the Letter Patterson inserts a "build up" as if he is about to debunk all that was quoted by showing DETAILS that are not correct or out of context... and the DETAIL he singled out??? "KEY NOTE ADRESS"

BTW -- did you find a "KEY NOTE ADDRESS" phrase in MY QUOTE? No?? but yet you choose to claim that THIS IS the part of my post that is in error??

Do you even read the text of what get's posted on this thread?

[quote:c4eec]PAtterson
It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification).

So Patterson's OWN CLAIM to have given a talk on the glaring fact that EVOLUTION has done MORE HARM THAN GOOD -- is your way of saying that those "who notice that fact" in what Patterson said.. are wrong??

Do you even READ your own posts???

Patterson said
I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Clearly you've been atheist-dogmatized into thinking that the letter Patterson wrote was supposed to HELP you instead of merely CONFIRMING THE DETAILS of what was already posted. But remember you are only the prey of those atheist religionists as long as you continue to trust THEM and turn a blind eye to facts -- (even when those facts are in your OWN POSTS!!).

Notice that in this final salvo against your position Patterson exposes one last glaring elephant standing in your living room --- the glaring fact of your uncritical approach to the myths and storytelling of evolutionism -- a "critical view" that Patteson says is key to REAL science.
[/quote:c4eec]

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So Barbarian -- in YOUR OWN quote of Patterson YOU have him quoted as saying that "the Theory of Evolutionism has DONE MORE HARM THAN GOOD" --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p386847

Please explain your thinking there. HOW is that helping you?

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

So Barbarian -- in YOUR OWN quote of Patterson YOU have him quoted as saying that "the Theory of Evolutionism has DONE MORE HARM THAN GOOD" --

To systematics, he thought. Of course, as you know, he was in the minority even there. But here's what Patterson himself said about the doctoring of his statments:

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

Please explain your thinking there. HOW is that helping you?

It shows that even Patterson, who is no fan of Darwinian theory, agrees that evolution is a fact, and it also shows that he was misrepresented in a most dishonest way by creationists. It just points out the fact that creationists, lacking evidence as usual, resorted to dishonesty.

No news there, of course.

 

[Patashu]

BobRyan, would you please demonstrate that you understand the difference between
arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification)
and
arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good
?

 

[Deep Thought]

Don't expect a reasonable answer from Bob. He loves his selective quotes, strawman arguments and repeating his "atheist darwinism" mantra

Bob has been caught out good and proper.