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

FAQ

Contact

Profile

On Evidence for Evolution

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

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

Author

Message

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6292

Location: Memphis

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:25 am Post subject:

joman wrote:

The theory of evolution is a very small, and temporaryly needed part of a bigger and better lie.

1. Darwin never met Hitler.
2. Hitler did not promote evolution in any form.

So where are you getting your ideas?

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:10 am Post subject:

FFT wrote:

joman wrote:

The theory of evolution is a very small, and temporaryly needed part of a bigger and better lie.

1. Darwin never met Hitler.
2. Hitler did not promote evolution in any form.
So where are you getting your ideas?

1. FFT neve met Hitler.
2. FFT never met Darwin.

So where is FFT getting his ideas. Rolling Eyes

_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8243

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:43 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

And when these 'mountains' of evolutionary evidence are actually challenged... they are nothing more than opinion and conjecture... there is huge difference here and there is absolutely no correlation.

That's just it... They are NEVER challenged; at least not scientifically. Papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals challenging evolution based on scientific arguments are EXTREMELY hard to find; I have yet to see one, and I ask for them all the time...

I'll have to wait until I get home to look this one up... but it seems that when articles are written that are critical of ToE... people loose their jobs. Could it be that perhaps that might be problem?

No, the problem really and honestly is that ID is NOT scientific. It really, really, isn't. It therefore should not be published in any science journals.

It's pretty easy to see WHY it isn't scientific. One simple way in which it isn't scientific is that it claims that everything was designed by an intelligent designer, and yet nobody has any physical evidence proving the existence of the designer. How can you even START to investigate whether or not there is any design if you don't even know whether or not a potential designer exists?
_________________
"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.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:55 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

No, the problem really and honestly is that ID is NOT scientific. It really, really, isn't. It therefore should not be published in any science journals.

I'll find the article. It had to do with an editor of a peer reviewed journal allowing an article to get published that just inferred ID... or something like that... and he got axed. Not over that of course... he got axed over failure to follow procedure... which was defined later. It is quite comical.

Quote:

It's pretty easy to see WHY it isn't scientific. One simple way in which it isn't scientific is that it claims that everything was designed by an intelligent designer, and yet nobody has any physical evidence proving the existence of the designer. How can you even START to investigate whether or not there is any design if you don't even know whether or not a potential designer exists?

Are you reading what you wrote P. Come on. You should know better than this. What mechanism is there to go from goo-to-you? Where is the fossil evidence for it? Where do we see this happening today that would allow for such bold inferences? Apply the same standard and you come to the same conclusion you just did for ID. ToE is no more science than ID is.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

No, the problem really and honestly is that ID is NOT scientific. It really, really, isn't. It therefore should not be published in any science journals.

HERE is that fella I was talking about. He was one of the 'gate keepers' of a peer reviewed journal. Here is what was leveled agaisnt him:
1. Efforts to remove me from the Museum.
2. Efforts to get NIH to fire me.
3. Perceived political and religous beliefs investigated.
4. Smeared with false allegations.
5. Pressured to reveal peer reviewers and to engage in improper peer review.
6. Creation of hostile work environment.

The bottom line:

Quote:

I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy.

What this does is makes those who wish to publish, try to publish, think about publishing anything supporting ID/Creationism about their futures in science.

This is just one. There are others! If you follow the page, there are rebuttles to the charges leveled against him.

Here is an article about this case too.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8243

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:07 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Quote:

What you have given here is an argument against abiogenesis being scientific, and NOT an argument against ToE. In any case, it really doesn't matter; whether or not ToE and abiogenesis are scientific has exactly zero (and I really mean this: EXACTLY ZERO) bearing on whether or not ID is scientific. You have not even attempted to rebutt my point about ID not being scientific.

Where's the evidence for a designer? How can there by ID without a designer? ID truly and honestly is not scientific at all, and papers about it truly and honestly should not be published in scientific journals.
_________________
"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.

Last edited by P1234567890 on Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8243

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

No, the problem really and honestly is that ID is NOT scientific. It really, really, isn't. It therefore should not be published in any science journals.

Trinity, this isn't nearly as clean a case as you'd like to believe.

The Journal that fired Sternberg as editor did so for very good reasons. In their own words (from http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html):

Quote:

Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.

If you look up Sternberg on Wikipedia, here is what it says:

Quote:

In 2001 Sternberg also joined the editorial board of the Baraminology study group, a young earth creationist "creation science" attempt to identify and classify the created kinds mentioned in scripture. He has stated that he as an outside critic and remained skeptical of their young earth beliefs [3] Sternberg serves as a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), an intelligent design group[4]. In 2002, Sternberg presented a lecture on intelligent design at the ISCID's Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference[5]. He is also a signatory to the Discovery Institute's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition[6]

In other words, Sternberg allowed his religious bias and his position as editor of the journal to sneak a paper in for publication that would and should NEVER have been published in a scientific journal.

This is EXTREMELY dishonest, deceptive, and unprofessional (not to mention dumb -did he think that nobody would notice?).

In other words, he SHOULD have been fired as editor for his unethical and unprofessional conduct.

As for people harassing him and creating a hostile working environment, this is unfortunate. However, I can certainly understand why proper scientists who hold science dear would be angry with him. Getting a paper published in a respected journal has been a long-time goal of the ID movement. Sternberg underhandedly tried to sneak one in. This really is an assault on science, and it makes sense that people who hold the institutions of science dear and see what kind of harm Sternberg could have done would be a little angry about that.

Besides, people tend to not like the kinds of scum-bag tactics that Sternberg used, so it makes sense that he became unpopular.
_________________
"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.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:39 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Trinity, this isn't nearly as clean a case as you'd like to believe.
The Journal that fired Sternberg as editor did so for very good reasons. In their own words (from http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html):

Quote:

Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.

No... if you read the other citation, the fella that actually wrote the article, Meyer, states that 3 other folks reviewed the article. This wasn't just one guy working on his own here. Second, read Sternberg’s rebuttals… that was never a requirement. It was made up after the fact to get him out.

This is quite confusing:

Quote:

Are you saying that just because a person holds personal beliefs about one thing, does it mean that these beliefs will creep into their work? Or does this only apply to Christians... IDist's? I don’t think so. Then, if I remember correctly, you have asserted that these beliefs would have been weeded out in the peer reviewed process…but now… we have a crystal clear example of the process at work… and this all doesn’t even seem to raise your eyebrows. Confused or disgusted

Quote:

In other words, he SHOULD have been fired as editor for his unethical and unprofessional conduct.

And what conduct was that? On one hand you keep insisting there isn't any creditable evidence for ID... or God, and then, on the other hand, when some is published pointing in that direction, you are all for an inquisition of sorts to get people like that weeded out of this pristine process.

You don't think scientists don't know this? You think they don't think twice about what they send for publishing? The editors don't think twice about what is published? And you want to now state that there is no evidence for God... or evidence in journals? This peer reviewed process is exactly what I have been telling you P... it is not the pristine process that you think it is... there are do's and don'ts... and a don't is print anything that supports or infers design. Period.

For someone like you... I would believe that you would be an 'honest broker' in the process... but obviously there are others who would let their peronsal beliefs creep into the process.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8243

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:25 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Trinity, this isn't nearly as clean a case as you'd like to believe.
The Journal that fired Sternberg as editor did so for very good reasons. In their own words (from http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html):

Quote:

Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.

No... if you read the other citation, the fella that actually wrote the article, Meyer, states that 3 other folks reviewed the article. This wasn't just one guy working on his own here.

There is definitely something strange going on here. Sternberg's claim that three other tenured professors reviewed the paper sounds like a big fat convenient lie to me. It would be VERY difficult to find one, let alone three qualified people who would sign off on THAT paper. Notice how he has not revealed their identities, and can easily hide behind the ideal that their identities remain secret. He's not stupid; he knows that he is safe in this lie.

As for Meyer stating that three others reviewed the article, he should not know the identity of the people who reviewed his paper; the entire peer-review process MUST be kept secret. It sounds to me like he is just repeating Sternberg's lie.

Just look at the facts in this case. Sternberg is a creationist. He is a member of the Discovery Institute, the same institute at which Meyer (the guy whose paper Sternberg published) is the DIRECTOR. At the very least, their personal relationship was a conflict of interest, and Sternberg should have removed himself from the peer-review process. This alone was an ethical violation.

The ID movement hasn't been able to get ONE SINGLE paper published in a respected scientific journal, and then suddenly a ridiculously unscientific ID paper gets published in a Journal whose editor, Sternberg, is a creationist, and friends with the author... You don't think that this story sounds very fishy???

Based on the facts, I am strongly inclined to believe that Sternberg pulled a fast one. If he wants to vindicate himself, all he has to do is supply the names of these three mysterious peer-reviewers. It's not like he's ever going to be the editor of a journal ever again anyways, so he really has nothing to lose. Note that the editorial board of the journal explicitly has the right to know the names of all reviewers, in order to ensure transparency in the peer-review process. Sternberg refused to give them the names, even though they're SUPPOSED to know them!!! I claim that these guys don't exist.

Besides, if Sternberg revealed the names of these three guys, think about what a victory it would be for creationism and the Discovery Institute! He would do it in a second if these guys actually existed. They're fictitious!

Finally, look at the paper! It's a joke! It's a terrible scientific paper without any merit. Every qualified scientist (who is not a member of the Discovery Institute) agrees!

One more thing: Sternberg's supervisor at the Smithsonian had this to say about Sternberg's allegations of harassment:

Quote:

Although I do not wish to debate the merits of intelligent design, this forum seems an apt place to correct several factual inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal’s Op Ed article by David Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic” (Jan. 28, 2005). Because Dr. von Sternberg has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, I cannot comment as fully as I would wish.
1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, “Research Associate,” means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.
3. I am, and continue to be, his only “supervisor,” although we use the term “sponsor” for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever “assigned to” or under the “oversight of” anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.
On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can’t speak to his interactions with anyone else.

Trinity, there really isn't some kind of witch-hunt going on to suppress the scientific validity of ID. Sternberg was dishonest and unprofessional, and paid the price. It's that simple.

If the proponents behind ID want to get one of their papers published, all they have to do is find some evidence supporting ID. It is a lack of evidence, and NOT corruption in the system that is keeping their papers from being published.
_________________
"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.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:49 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Yet, further down you repeat this necessesity when it comes to Meyer...

Quote:

As for Meyer stating that three others reviewed the article, he should not know the identity of the people who reviewed his paper; the entire peer-review process MUST be kept secret. It sounds to me like he is just repeating Sternberg's lie.

Quote:

Just look at the facts in this case. Sternberg is a creationist. He is a member of the Discovery Institute, the same institute at which Meyer (the guy whose paper Sternberg published) is the DIRECTOR.

Any idea when he became a member of the Discovery Institute? When they did begin a 'personal' relationship?

Quote:

The ID movement hasn't been able to get ONE SINGLE paper published in a respected scientific journal, and then suddenly a ridiculously unscientific ID paper gets published in a Journal whose editor, Sternberg, is a creationist, and friends with the author... You don't think that this story sounds very fishy???

But P... the paper wasn't even about Intelligent Design... it was critical of ToE... and that is the point. It is consider blasphemy!!! You just don't start criticizing what everyone knows to be true. And this is the weirdest part... if science is the pursuit of knowledge, and everyone knows Evolution is true... there should be NO PROBLEM in getting at how this happened!!! Even when there is criticism. AND NO ONE SEES IT!!!

Quote:

Based on the facts, I am strongly inclined to believe that Sternberg pulled a fast one. If he wants to vindicate himself, all he has to do is supply the names of these three mysterious peer-reviewers. It's not like he's ever going to be the editor of a journal ever again anyways, so he really has nothing to lose. Note that the editorial board of the journal explicitly has the right to know the names of all reviewers, in order to ensure transparency in the peer-review process. Sternberg refused to give them the names, even though they're SUPPOSED to know them!!! I claim that these guys don't exist.

And when was this 'requirement' made? Follow the facts here. This was not a rule in the process. This was only made up after the fact!!! So, basically, Sternberg is telling to stick up their over-evolved keisters! I love it!!!!

Quote:

Finally, look at the paper! It's a joke! It's a terrible scientific paper without any merit. Every qualified scientist (who is not a member of the Discovery Institute) agrees!

"Comrade... do you just think Comrade Stalin's coat is the most fantastic garment ever made".
"Why of course, Comrade, don't you?"

Yea... I'm sure any subsequent support for this paper will be coming just as soon as the 're-education camps' are finished.

Quote:

Trinity, there really isn't some kind of witch-hunt going on to suppress the scientific validity of ID. Sternberg was dishonest and unprofessional, and paid the price. It's that simple.

Sorry you see it that way... as it perfectly obvious what happened to this fella. If you think for a second anything public is going to be stated about this being about ID you truly are unable to see the forest through the trees here. If it was about the issue they know full good and well that a lawsuit would be forth coming... Confused or disgusted

Quote:

If the proponents behind ID want to get one of their papers published, all they have to do is find some evidence supporting ID. It is a lack of evidence, and NOT corruption in the system that is keeping their papers from being published.

It is odd how nothing from RATE is getting published. Here you have several PhD'ed scientists finding not only c14 in coal... but wood and several other supposed 'c14 dead' samples and no one is touching it with a ten foot pole. We have helium in rock that should have none. There are several items here and none of these journals will touch it!!!

If you worked your entire life to get to the position of Sternberg, saw what happened to him, doncha you think that you would have second thoughts about even considering an article like this? Let alone publishing it? This process is not what you think it is. In the Army, I hated playing politics... I just liked being a soldier and doing my job.... but inevitably, the further up the food chain you progress, things no longer are just black and white... you have to engage in this activity that you hated... and this is no different. The system itself should be pure... but it is not... you have human beings running it and this is what is going to happen.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8243

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

But P... the paper wasn't even about Intelligent Design...

Have you not looked at the paper?!? You can find Meyer's paper on-line at the Discovery Institute's web site right here.

He entitled the paper "Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories".

Here are his own words, from the conclusion of his paper:

Quote:

An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent.

Do you seriously think that this paper is not about ID???

Trinity1 wrote:

If you worked your entire life to get to the position of Sternberg, saw what happened to him, doncha you think that you would have second thoughts about even considering an article like this? Let alone publishing it? This process is not what you think it is. In the Army, I hated playing politics... I just liked being a soldier and doing my job.... but inevitably, the further up the food chain you progress, things no longer are just black and white... you have to engage in this activity that you hated... and this is no different. The system itself should be pure... but it is not... you have human beings running it and this is what is going to happen.

I happen to AGREE with you that the system is far from perfect. In fact, it has MANY flaws. However, I don't think that the Sternberg case is an example of this. He should have lost his job as editor for publishing that unscientific paper. The fact that he refused to tell the board the names of the supposed three reviewers is REALLY suspicious.

Put it this way: Trinity, do YOU think that ID is scientific? I am being very specific here; I am NOT asking whether you think it is TRUE. I don't care if it is TRUE. I want to know if you think it is scientific. (Remember, there are plenty of unscientific statements which are perfectly true, so I am not discussing truth here.)
_________________
"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.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

Do you seriously think that this paper is not about ID???

*NOTE to Trinity*

Quote:

When making stupid statements... at least give an explanation.

Sorry P... yes... it was about ID... I was focusing more on the criticism of ToE… my fault.

Quote:

How often do publishers reveal the names of the people doing the reviewing?

Quote:

Put it this way: Trinity, do YOU think that ID is scientific? I am being very specific here; I am NOT asking whether you think it is TRUE. I don't care if it is TRUE. I want to know if you think it is scientific. (Remember, there are plenty of unscientific statements which are perfectly true, so I am not discussing truth here.)

Hmmm…. No, not really. (I know – shock! Shocked

) Let me explain though.

If science is about what we can observe, test, falsify, etc… then no, of course not. It is a purely materialistic process. God is not made of matter. We therefore are unable to develop a test to determine whether He exists or not. So, if Intelligent Design is intended to demonstrate the God exists we obviously will never succeed using the scientific method.

With that said, we most certainly can make some pretty good deductions based on what our observations, tests, and processes tell us. These observations tell us that:
1. Everything that exists exists necessarily. Meaning that if matter exists, it must have an equal or greater cause. Since matter is neither created or destroyed (1LoTD) then it is contingent on something. Does this demonstrate God… not directly… but it does demonstrate that there is something out there that we are unable to detect… or determine what caused matter to exist. That is science and is what ID would predict.
2. Life exists. Life can not arise on its own. Despite our greatest attempts to demonstrate otherwise, our observations, tests, processes (science) demonstrates that it didn’t. This is science and is what ID would predict.
3. Animals have not evolved into different kinds of animals. All of our observations, tests, processes demonstrate that animals can not change into something they are not. We call it stasis. The essentially stay the same. There are variations within kinds of animals, but those are only results of already present information within the genome. They are not created through a series of chance mutations that were selected based on whatever environmental pressures one wants to dream up. Despite all of our attempts to demonstrate otherwise, our observations, tests, processes demonstrate that dogs begat dogs, fruit flys begat fruit flys, and ducks begat ducks. That is science and what ID would predict.
4. Everything is dying and decaying. There is no net increases in order and complexity in the universe. We see the application of 2LoTD everywhere. Animals are becoming less and less complex through these mutations, the universe is spiraling towards a heat death, and nothing new is being created or being organized. Despite all of our attempts to demonstrate otherwise, our observations, tests, processes demonstrates that there is no net increases in the complexity or organization of the universe, our extant biosphere, and everything is going in the opposite direction of what ToE requires. That is science and what ID would predict.
So, for a predictive model of what we can deduce through science, ID does a much better job at explaining what we observe than ToE.

ToE requires faith in mechanisms and processes that have never been observed, in mechanisms and processes that tell us the opposite is happening, and for all intents and purposes, has been falsified. It requires a purely materialistic explanation that is not available. So, it is assumed, it happened at some other time. But that is not science, that is faith. That is faith in something that ca not happen… based on what we know. But the alternative, ID, is unbearable. It falls outside of this materialistic process… so, anything alluding to it is vilified as non-science. But at the same time, no one seems to mind the fact that ToE (materialism) is also non-science. It is actually, non-sense when we can actually reason and demonstrate the foundational premises of it.

Soooooo… to answer your question, no. In the strictest definition of the term, ID is not science. But neither is materialism and ToE. One just happens to be the only acceptable explanation and those who do not follow the party line at sent into exile. In Sternberg’s case, it just happen to be the Discovery Institute.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8243

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Sorry P... yes... it was about ID... I was focusing more on the criticism of ToE… my fault.

No problem Trinity; it was an honest mistake! I don't think you were trying to pull a fast one! Wink

Trinity1 wrote:

How often do publishers reveal the names of the people doing the reviewing?

The identities of the peer-reviewers should probably not be made public in most cases. This protects them against the wrath of people whose papers were rejected. However, the identities of the reviewers should DEFINITELY be made available to the editorial board of the journal. The reason is obvious: the peer-review process must be transparent. If it were COMPLETELY secret, then editors who want to have a paper published which shouldn't be published can either:

a) Pretend that it was peer-reviewed, when in fact nobody read it.
b) Stack the deck with a bunch of biased people who will definitely sign off on it.

And this is EXACTLY why it is so bad that Sternberg refused to tell the editorial board what the names of his three other reviewers were. It makes it look a lot like he just made them up.

Trinity1 wrote:

Quote:

Hmmm…. No, not really. (I know – shock! Shocked

Yes, exactly, which is why ID papers should never be published in SCIENTIFIC journals. ID is clearly outside of the purview of science, and all ID papers should therefore be published in some other kinds of journals, but NOT scientific ones!

Trinity1 wrote:

1. Everything that exists exists necessarily. Meaning that if matter exists, it must have an equal or greater cause. Since matter is neither created or destroyed (1LoTD)

Not quite true; matter can be destroyed to make energy, and it can also be created from energy. Besides, the first law is a puny little theory that is totally insufficient for addressing why the universe exists.

Trinity1 wrote:

then it is contingent on something. Does this demonstrate God… not directly… but it does demonstrate that there is something out there that we are unable to detect… or determine what caused matter to exist. That is science and is what ID would predict.

I happen to AGREE that it's pretty strange and cool that the universe exists at all. Why is there something rather than nothing whatsoever? I agree that it will be a long time before science figures that one out (if ever).

Trinity1 wrote:

2. Life exists. Life can not arise on its own. Despite our greatest attempts to demonstrate otherwise, our observations, tests, processes (science) demonstrates that it didn’t. This is science and is what ID would predict.

This is much too strong a statement. All this means is that we're dumb. Our knowledge as to how life came about is inconclusive, one way or the other.

Trinity1 wrote:

3. Animals have not evolved into different kinds of animals. All of our observations, tests, processes demonstrate that animals can not change into something they are not. We call it stasis. The essentially stay the same. There are variations within kinds of animals, but those are only results of already present information within the genome. They are not created through a series of chance mutations that were selected based on whatever environmental pressures one wants to dream up. Despite all of our attempts to demonstrate otherwise, our observations, tests, processes demonstrate that dogs begat dogs, fruit flys begat fruit flys, and ducks begat ducks. That is science and what ID would predict.

This is where I strongly disagree with you. There is ample evidence to the contrary. For example, whales are sometimes born with hind legs. This is conclusive evidence that whale's ancestors used to live on land, and that they still have some genes needed for life on land burried somewhere in their genomes. These genes are sometimes expressed.

Trinity1 wrote:

4. Everything is dying and decaying. There is no net increases in order and complexity in the universe. We see the application of 2LoTD everywhere. Animals are becoming less and less complex through these mutations, the universe is spiraling towards a heat death, and nothing new is being created or being organized. Despite all of our attempts to demonstrate otherwise, our observations, tests, processes demonstrates that there is no net increases in the complexity or organization of the universe, our extant biosphere, and everything is going in the opposite direction of what ToE requires. That is science and what ID would predict.
So, for a predictive model of what we can deduce through science, ID does a much better job at explaining what we observe than ToE.

This is false. There are plenty of simple counterexamples to your claim that complexity cannot increase. Go walk on a beach. You will notice that the TOTALLY UNINTELLIGENT waves somehow are able to sort all of the pebbles according to size. All of the large pebbles are together, all of the medium pebbles are together, and all of the grains of sand are together. That is organization. In other words, order can certainly INCREASE in isolated pockets, even when there is no intelligence working on it.
_________________
"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.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:38 am Post subject:

P1234567890 wrote:

The identities of the peer-reviewers should probably not be made public in most cases. This protects them against the wrath of people whose papers were rejected. However, the identities of the reviewers should DEFINITELY be made available to the editorial board of the journal. The reason is obvious: the peer-review process must be transparent. If it were COMPLETELY secret, then editors who want to have a paper published which shouldn't be published can either:
a) Pretend that it was peer-reviewed, when in fact nobody read it.
b) Stack the deck with a bunch of biased people who will definitely sign off on it.
And this is EXACTLY why it is so bad that Sternberg refused to tell the editorial board what the names of his three other reviewers were. It makes it look a lot like he just made them up.

"Mr. Sternberg, you're fired for allowing this paper to be published. Now, please provide the names of those individuals who reviewed this paper too."

I don't think so!

Come on P... think this through!

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

If science is about what we can observe, test, falsify, etc… then no, of course not. It is a purely materialistic process. God is not made of matter. We therefore are unable to develop a test to determine whether He exists or not. So, if Intelligent Design is intended to demonstrate the God exists we obviously will never succeed using the scientific method.

BUt P... ToE fals these tests too. I intentionally worte my objections framed aorund this fact. ToE is not observable. It is not testable... how do you test chance? It is not falsifieable... it fails this test too.

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

1. Everything that exists exists necessarily. Meaning that if matter exists, it must have an equal or greater cause. Since matter is neither created or destroyed (1LoTD)

No Sir. Matter can not be destroyed... nor created. Energy is nothing more than another form of matter. But it CAN NOT be created or destroyed. As far as it being punny.... perhaps you ought to look up what Asimov had to say about it...

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

This is much too strong a statement. All this means is that we're dumb. Our knowledge as to how life came about is inconclusive, one way or the other.

Strong statement? You bet. It doesn't happen and we have been up and down this road several times before...

Quote:

HERE.. Is this what you are talking about?

Quote:

Hydrologically sorted pebbles on a beach requiring the energy of an ocean to do is not increasing. First of all... the sorting of pebbles is really not order at all.... it may be asthetically pleasing, but it really has nothing to do with increases in anything. Also, it is still many orders of magnitude short of a single cell... 2LoTD is a good guide to follow on the impossibilities of ToE.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

apocatastasis
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:43 am Post subject:

Trinity, are you saying that order necessarily involves increasing complexity?[/quote] _________________ "Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

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 Next
Page 2 of 4