Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

The things that come out in court.

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

Dust
Growing Lion

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 894

Location: All over the western U.S.

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject:

Ana wrote:

You haven't defined a scale on which these things can be compared with the out come "greater".

Oh boy.....Ok. Here's the basis for the scale....

There is no investigation of a design if there is no design. The design comes first. Do you concur?

Ana wrote:

Further, I am curious as to what utility or significance this hierarchy you're trying to set up has.

It demonstrates that the scientific method is not contrary to the ID-concept/the-biblical-creation-story/God.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096

Location: Memphis

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

Well, here's how I look at it.....Intellegent design is the product of an intellegent designer.

Yes.

Dust wrote:

So the greater of these, of course, is the designer. Then second the design.

Theoretically.

Dust wrote:

And finally we arrive at the scientific-method. The scientific-method allows us to discover certain elements of the design, and perhaps eventually all discoverable elements of the design.

Using the scientific method, how would we look for non-human design?

Dust wrote:

Now that's logical....is it not?

Only if you have a real answer to the question I just asked.

Dust wrote:

FFT, you need to broaden your horizons. Many subjects not related to the scientific-method are taught and have value. Ever here of a little discipline called philosophy.....religion nor science would exist without it. Not to mention reading, writing, history, moral values, and such.

I'm well-acquainted with philosophy, and the rest of your silly irrelevant examples. All well and good to say that these things should be taught, but not in science classes.

Dust wrote:

There is no investigation of a design if there is no design. The design comes first. Do you concur?

Only if design did come first. You're playing word games.

Dust wrote:

It demonstrates that the scientific method is not contrary to the ID-concept/the-biblical-creation-story/God.

No it doesn't. It demonstrates that you're trying to keep them separate.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7647

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

I see the court ruling as a victory for the ID concept.

Well, at least you're consistent. Normal people would only say something like this on opposite day, but you're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be.

Dust wrote:

The court ruling does not show the ID concept to be untrue.

Quite right. Scientists did that long before the court case came up.

Dust wrote:

The official court ruling may be used to prevent ID from being taught in Public Schools, but this is not a victory for education.

It sure is! ID has about as much legitimacy in a science classroom as astrology does. Actually, it probably has LESS, since astrology at least has some astronomy in it which is worth something. ID has exactly no legitimate science in it at all. The one and only scientifically-testable claim made by ID was called 'irreducible complexity', and that was proved false.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7647

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

There is no investigation of a design if there is no design. The design comes first. Do you concur?

Nope. People can dig for buried treasure on a beach where there isn't any. People can (and have) tried to set up cameras to investigate the existence of ghosts, even though they don't exist. People can chase and investigate all sorts of fictitious things.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Dust
Growing Lion

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 894

Location: All over the western U.S.

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject:

FFT wrote:

Using the scientific method, how would we look for non-human design?

Observation, and all that goes along with it. Observe, theorize, test, observe, post results. Basically, exactly how we do it now.

FFT wrote:

not in science classes.

Granted.

I suppose the best system is to continue teaching speculative/presumptive science, such as speculative/presumptive evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships, in public schools, while creation is taught at home and in the church. It's just that Im not sure the speculative and presumptive nature of this type of science is transfered very well to our children during the public-school teaching process. Jeepers, as I think about it, this creates a lot of problems for Christian families needing to utilize public schools.

FFT wrote:

It demonstrates that you're trying to keep them separate

Well, you dont have a problem with that do you?

___________________________________________

Hey Bouncer,

I just noticed your last reply.

Bouncer wrote:

It was a smashing defeat for a deception

So you would agree, as I have demonstrated, this court case was not a defeat of any kind to the concept of ID.

Deception? As in purposeful? I doubt it. The field of science has undergone a transition, folks are just now becoming more aware of it's speculative/presumptive side. There is a huge difference between empirical science and speculative/presumptive science.

Bouncer, I believe your victory has come in the midst of misunderstanding (Im sure you'll take it none-the-less). I've agreed that ID is not science......

ID is no more science than speculative/presumptive evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationship is science.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7647

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

FFT wrote:

Using the scientific method, how would we look for non-human design?

Observation, and all that goes along with it. Observe, theorize, test, observe, post results. Basically, exactly how we do it now.

And what does a 'test' for something being intelligently designed look like? What kind of test can you do in order to confirm that something was designed by a superior intelligence?

Dust wrote:

FFT wrote:

not in science classes.

Only if they think that a proper education for their children is a 'problem'.

Dust wrote:

So you would agree, as I have demonstrated, this court case was not a defeat of any kind to the concept of ID.

It depends on what you mean. ID was dead long before the court case because as a scientific theory it is a non-starter, and because irreducible complexity had been refuted.

The court case didn't prove anything new, but it sure got a lot of publicity and therefore got the word out that ID is not science. That most certainly was a defeat for ID because it relies very heavily on people's ignorance.

Dust wrote:

Deception? As in purposeful? I doubt it. The field of science has undergone a transition, folks are just now becoming more aware of it's speculative/presumptive side. There is a huge difference between empirical science and speculative/presumptive science.

Where do you get this from? Scientific conclusions aren't AT ALL about speculation or presumption. There isn't any speculation in evolutionary theory. Macroevolution is a FACT. It was shown to be a FACT by science.

Dust wrote:

Bouncer, I believe your victory has come in the midst of misunderstanding (Im sure you'll take it none-the-less). I've agreed that ID is not science......

Great, so what are we debating?

Dust wrote:

ID is no more science than speculative/presumptive evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationship is science.

I don't know what speculative/presumptive evolutionary theory is. If you're trying to say that mainstream evolutionary science is speculative and/or presumptive, then you're totally wrong. It is an extremely robust, rich, and mature theory which is accepted almost universally by the world's relevant scientists.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Dust
Growing Lion

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 894

Location: All over the western U.S.

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject:

Hey P!

Dust wrote:
The court ruling does not show the ID concept to be untrue.

P1234567890 wrote:

Quite right. Scientists did that long before the court case came up.

I see. These guys are smart, so their speculation/presumption must be true....even though they themselves dont say it's true, but rather put it forth as honest postulation.

STOP IT P! Discuss things with me man-to-man!

P1234567890 wrote:

ID has exactly no legitimate science in it at all.

Well, you're emotional....I like that!

I've agreed it's not science. Does that make me atheist? No it doesn't. Furthermore, your statement doesn't legitimately further the atheist cause.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7647

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

I see. These guys are smart, so their speculation/presumption must be true

Evolution isn't true because scientists are smart. It is true because it really happened. We KNOW that it really happened because there is an outrageous amount of rock-solid evidence supporting it and said evidence is extremely compelling to anyone who is not extremely biased.

As for your attempts to slander evolutionary biology by calling it speculative and presumptive, instead of calling it names, perhaps you could point out where the speculation and presumption enter the theory.

Dust wrote:

....even though they themselves dont say it's true, but rather put it forth as honest postulation.

You obviously haven't read many biology textbooks or papers. Evolution is NOT put forth as a postulation. It is stated as a fact, and the vast majority of the relevant scientists out there agree that it is a well-supported fact. The only reason why it isn't called the 'law of evolution' rather than the 'theory of evolution' is because the word 'law' is typically reserved for physics.

They really should call it a law, though, because that is how it is used throughout the scientific literature.

Dust wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

ID has exactly no legitimate science in it at all.

Well, you're emotional....I like that!

My statement isn't emotional. It's factual. There really isn't any legitimate science in ID.

Dust wrote:

I've agreed it's not science. Does that make me atheist? No it doesn't. Furthermore, your statement doesn't legitimately further the atheist cause.

I'm not here to further the atheist cause. I'm here to discuss evolution and creationism (ID).
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096

Location: Memphis

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

FFT wrote:

Using the scientific method, how would we look for non-human design?

Observation, and all that goes along with it. Observe, theorize, test, observe, post results. Basically, exactly how we do it now.

Examples?

Dust wrote:

Well, you dont have a problem with that do you?

No, but the ID movement does. They have to pretend to a veneer of science to have any chance of being taken seriously.

Dust wrote:

So you would agree, as I have demonstrated, this court case was not a defeat of any kind to the concept of ID.

It was, however, a smashing defeat to the concept of ID as scientific.

Dust wrote:

Deception? As in purposeful? I doubt it.

Find and read the Wedge Document. Look at the transition from the Creation Science movement to the Intelligent Design movement.

Dust wrote:

I've agreed that ID is not science......

When the ID proponents that matter in the grand scheme of things (no offense) admit this you'll have a point. For now, they're still pretending.

Dust wrote:

ID is no more science than speculative/presumptive evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationship is science.

Ah, sorry, no. You were on a good track there when you admitted that ID isn't scientific, but to then turn around and claim that evolution isn't scientific is far from accurate.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7647

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject:

FFT wrote:

Dust wrote:

Deception? As in purposeful? I doubt it.

Find and read the Wedge Document. Look at the transition from the Creation Science movement to the Intelligent Design movement.

Ooh, I think that FFT is talking about this Wedge Document which Wikipedia describes thusly:

Quote:

The Wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]

Thanks for this, FFT. I didn't know that they were so blatant (and sloppy) about their dishonesty.

Usually when evil right-wing think-tanks hatch evil plots, they have the good sense to keep them secret in order to maintain plausible deniability.

I always knew that the Discovery Institute was evil, but I had them pegged as politically shrewd. I didn't think it was possible, but apparently they are as much flunkies in propaganda as they are in 'science'.

Apparently even their close allies (who have even less scruples than them) agree:

Quote:

An October 2005 conference called "When Christians and Cultures Clash" was held at the Pennsylvania Evangelical School of Theology. Attorney Randy Wenger, who is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, and a close ally of the Discovery Institute, and one of the presenters at the conference advocated the use of subterfuge for advancing the movement's religious goals: "But even with God’s blessing, it’s helpful to consult a lawyer before joining the battle. For instance, the Dover area school board might have had a better case for the intelligent design disclaimer they inserted into high school biology classes had they not mentioned a religious motivation at their meetings. Give us a call before you do something controversial like that, I think we need to do a better job at being clever as serpents."[96]

_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Dust
Growing Lion

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 894

Location: All over the western U.S.

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

And what does a 'test' for something being intelligently designed look like?

Observation.

P1234567890 wrote:

What kind of test can you do in order to confirm that something was designed by a superior intelligence?

Observation.

P1234567890 wrote:

Only if they think that a proper education for their children is a 'problem'.

I am actually talking about not properly characterizing the nature of speculative/persumtive science, and erroneously passing it off as actual truth. Which, of course could be confusing to Christian children, and would indeed be deceptive to all children.

P1234567890 wrote:

Macroevolution is a FACT. It was shown to be a FACT by science.

So, apparently you are talking about factual evolutionary relationships, which, of course, are not counter to biblical accounts. I'm actually more concerned with the presumptive evolutionary relationships being passed-off as factual.

From Wiki......

Quote:

A distinction is to be made between taxa/taxonomy and classification/systematics. The former refers to biological names and the rules of naming. The latter refers to rank ordering of taxa according to presumptive evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships.

_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096

Location: Memphis

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

Observation.

That's it? That's as far as you're willing to go?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

Dust
Growing Lion

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 894

Location: All over the western U.S.

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject:

Alright P and FFT, If we are going to have a discussion you'll need to read my posts, and not read-into my posts. I've made some distinctions.....apparently these distinctions were too subtel. I'm talking about Intelligent Design as a concept, not as a movement. I've not indicated that I am against the facts of the evolution theory. I'm not even agaisnt some of the assumptions. I specifically have a problem with taxa according to presumptive evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships. As far as the Wedge Document I haven't read it, except for the portions P quotes. I have to agree......it seems pretty damning. _________________ The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096

Location: Memphis

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject:

Dust wrote:

I'm talking about Intelligent Design as a concept, not as a movement.

That's all well and good, but observation alone isn't a particularly realistic testing method.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

Dust
Growing Lion

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 894

Location: All over the western U.S.

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:59 am Post subject:

Alright here's the question again.....

Quote:

And what does a 'test' for something being intelligently designed look like?

I could point to a 757, it's intelligently designed. We know, by simple observation, and by the faculty of common sense it would be impossible for a 757 to evolve. We know that it was designed by educated Boing engineers utilizing computer aided design software, but what about an ant hill, who and/or what designed that marvel?
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6