Creationism education bills

[FeelingMN 273]

No, I don't have to answer questions about it. The exercise to delve into the nature of a Designer is a completely separate exercise from determining if there is such a Designer. Your question is as off-base as a cop asking a burglary victim about the characteristics of a burglar that they didn't see - and threatening to claim that there was no burglary if the victim cannot produce the answer.

 

So you have no idea what a Designer is? The concept most central to your theory....and you've got nothing. In your analogy, the burglar can at least be assumed to be human. He operated at a given hour and used specific tools to break in. There are some facts about that situation. And even if you personally hadn't seen the burglar, someone else may have.

 

But nobody in the ID camp knows what they're looking for?

 

 

Hypocrite? While you just sat there and made your own presumptions on his thoughts in order to deride my presumptions?

 

I told you I was speculating on why a guy's evidence wouldn't result in him getting into consideration of a God. What did you just do? Speculate, while being a hypocrite? Yes.

 

I'm using actual quotes from Shapiro. Not made up quotes like you.

 

 

If it had facts already, it would already be proven. You're doing the same damned thing here that you did with demanding some information on the nature of a Designer before consideration of the validity of researching where there even is a Designer.

 

See link. Pure science, and very simple to understand. You underestimated my "comeback", since it was so extremely easy to point out how similar what you did was to what you claim I did.

 

So the theory of evolution has no facts associated with it? Because if it did, it would be proven. Sound rationale.

 

 

 

Now you're just trying to twist words. There is a clear differentiation between what Shapiro believes personally, and what his data illuminates. There are different ways to address his findings: his primary (and seemingly only) focus is to refute Darwinian Random Mutation theory.

 

Ontologically, it has much to say about the criticisms that Darwinism has endured from Creationists - and Shapiro addresses this himself. It is Shapiro who mentions Creationists. I wonder why such mention would matter if the core of his study had nothing whatever to do with Creationism.

 

Can you answer that for me?

 

 

 

No - mostly this thread has been a fusillade of people misinterpreting what I say and trying to put me in boxes in which I do not belong.

 

 

 

Oh, it isn't. I argue to be intellectually stimulated and learn. I know when an argument is strong, and when it is weak - and when an opponent is being dishonest or obtuse.

 

I'll address all this crap a little later.

[Frank M 181]

Tests in Intelligent Design following the Scientific Method

 

From your link:

 

i. Observation:

The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

 

Really? Whose understanding of the world might that be?

 

The flaw in the reasoning comes in this first paragraph. It forces everything that follows to conform to this unproven and biased statement rather than reveal any useful information.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Are you still trying to say that Dr. Shapiro believes in Intelligent Design?

 

No (sigh). I believe what I wrote. I cannot drag you through this if you don't want to use your legs.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I already disproved that theory and we have a new and improved theory. The magic light cave did it.

 

Copping out with an illegitimate joke is just dodging what was written.

[The Next Generation 11]

Now you're just trying to twist words. There is a clear differentiation between what Shapiro believes personally, and what his data illuminates. There are different ways to address his findings: his primary (and seemingly only) focus is to refute Darwinian Random Mutation theory.

 

Ontologically, it has much to say about the criticisms that Darwinism has endured from Creationists - and Shapiro addresses this himself. It is Shapiro who mentions Creationists. I wonder why such mention would matter if the core of his study had nothing whatever to do with Creationism.

 

Can you answer that for me?

 

I attempted to answer this for you pages ago, but obviously my response, while time consuming, was not worthy of a reply.

 

All that has been proven thus far is that there is an intelligence at work at the cellular level, not that it has been designed by a being and placed here on Earth/in the Universe. Again, as Shapiro states, "we are just on the threshold of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations." That threshold is intelligence to the mutations NOT specifically that they were designed by an entity. To me (and I'm making an assumption here), THAT is what Shapiro is trying to accomplish. Trying to convince the staunch proponents on both sides of the debate to give a little and consider evolution in this new paradigm. NOT to make the gigantic leap that Marshall makes and conclude that there is a grand Designer behind it all. Let science dictate where that takes us, and, when we get there, rest assured THAT will be taught in public schools. We're not there yet. "we are just on the threshold"

 

I eagerly await your reply.

[IMMensaMind 462]

From your link:

 

 

 

Really? Whose understanding of the world might that be?

 

Um....everyone's. That is obvious facts in evidence, Frank.

 

You can contest that assertion? What understanding of the world do you have that could possibly contest the simple statement that those things we have observed within this world that contain intelligent purposes - high CSI - are the product of intelligent design? This is a comment about the control: those things which we know were intelligently designed: like cars, computers, etc. It is a perfectly valid scientific comparison, just as any scientific experiment would have.

 

The control group are those man-made things you have to acknowledge contain high CSI.

 

The flaw in the reasoning comes in this first paragraph. It forces everything that follows to conform to this unproven and biased statement rather than reveal any useful information.

 

Since our own Science Laws are based upon those same presumptions, you've now skidded into demonstrating that you simply don't want to accept something because you don't like it. Your objections have nothing to do with Science.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I attempted to answer this for you pages ago, but obviously my response, while time consuming, was not worthy of a reply.

 

 

 

I eagerly await your reply.

 

I know what you said - but you have to make an assumption the other way, and I'm not making an assumption at all wrt to what this means in the larger picture. The only speculation I've engaged in revolves around why Shapiro is being so careful with his language: and I explained that he is looking to remain above the fray and focus just on his Science, and allow those with belief systems to confirm or not confirm to argue about what it means.

 

If this topic had nothing whatsoever to address to Creationists, he wouldn't have mentioned Creationists in his writings. He mentions Creationists because of their criticisms of Darwinism. He understands the issues. He believes that his research illuminates the validity of one of the criticisms of Darwinism that Creationists level: that Random Mutation is not a sufficient explanation of Evolutionary advance (a stance with which I agreed before I heard of his research).

 

Why did I disagree? Because it diminished my personally held belief that our reality was designed and purposeful. Darwinian thought literally holds that it is all an accident.

 

That is the same core of dissention between Atheist and Christian. Like it or not, Shapiro's research forces changes to Darwinian modelling that Creationists support.

 

So if I go with your comment, that "we're on the threshold", there is no reason such things cannot still be explained to students. Add "we're on the threshold" if you want - I have no objection. Theories are proof; various scientific endeavors are undertaken without proof of the postulate. That is why I've mentioned SETI.

[MDC 7,899]

Never wrestle with a pig: You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

 

hth

[IMMensaMind 462]

I told you I don't know much about SETI, twice. I think there is a chance for life outside this planet. No government funds. That's it. I don't believe in ID because it has a thinly hidden agenda and is ultimately a reflection of irreducible complexity, which is just an admission of ignorance IMO. Not proof of a creator. And evolution is one of the most elegant, intuitive and scientifically supported theories in the history of biology/genetics. Additional complexity does not detract from random mutation as central to the theory. Oh yea, the thread is about teaching ID in schools, which I think is inappropriate because it is not scientifically validated and based on Christian theology.

 

As far as climate change, I agree with the majority of reputable climatology scientists: My link

 

That's a lot of misinformed scientists or a massive conspiracy, I guess. Truthfully I don't know enough about the underlying science to really scrutize it to the level I can with evolution; you claim to know better. Then again, you claim to know what scientists think about their own experiments even when they say something which contradicts your assumptions.

 

I know it isn't perfect science, but I also think you have to really scrutinize dissenting opinions that feed on personal convenience and save individuals $ - like just ignoring the possibility because it is a nuisance to cut down on driving or seeking alternative fuels. And yes, we need to reduce dependence of fossil fuels for political reasons, too. Forgive me if I don't base my science on people who complain how cold it is where they live or that Al Gore is a hypocrite.

 

I don't have any more time now to respond to this, straw, but here is a treatise on exactly why ID doesn't suffer the limitation of being tied to Creationism. In fact, that is a box that those who have an agenda of opposing Creationism in general are attempting to put this in, because anything that points to a Designer would do that for them.

 

I'll write a more full response later.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The IPCC report has been debunked. Total BS based on cooked books, so much so that they threw all their data away so nobody could see it.

 

Santa Claus has more based in fact than MMGW.

[Frank M 181]

Um....everyone's. That is obvious facts in evidence, Frank.

 

Really? Everyone understands that our natural world is the result of an intelligent designer? Everyone? Or everyone who believes in ID?

 

You can contest that assertion? What understanding of the world do you have that could possibly contest the simple statement that those things we have observed within this world that contain intelligent purposes - high CSI - are the product of intelligent design? This is a comment about the control: those things which we know were intelligently designed: like cars, computers, etc. It is a perfectly valid scientific comparison, just as any scientific experiment would have.

 

The control group are those man-made things you have to acknowledge contain high CSI.

 

You've inserted a conclusion into your observation that limits any possible outcome. Everything that follows is flawed. That is not the way the scientific method works.

[penultimatestraw 473]

The IPCC report has been debunked. Total BS based on cooked books, so much so that they threw all their data away so nobody could see it.

 

Santa Claus has more based in fact than MMGW.

I've heard about some of the data being corrupted, but where is the debunking of which you speak? Please provide an unbiased source. Again I posit that climate change is occurring, but the anthropogenic aspect is somewhat controversial.

 

Santa must exist. How else do we get such exquisitely wrapped gifts on Christmas Day? Who consumes the cookies and milk?

[IMMensaMind 462]

So you have no idea what a Designer is? The concept most central to your theory....and you've got nothing. In your analogy, the burglar can at least be assumed to be human. He operated at a given hour and used specific tools to break in. There are some facts about that situation. And even if you personally hadn't seen the burglar, someone else may have.

 

But nobody in the ID camp knows what they're looking for?

 

You're requiring an impossible standard. By that standard, we shouldn't be investigating the science of how Evolution works before we unwrap all the mysteries of Abiogenesis. There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" to the nature of a Designer, just as Evolution Scientists say "I don't know" to how life began.

 

I cannot put it any simpler than that. Contesting that answer is akin to simply covering your ears and refusing any of this. It is no different than the police investigating whether there was a burglary based upon the evidence of burglarization. That doesn't meant that the police have to come up with the rap sheet of the burglar at the time of the investigation. Many robberies are established as robberies without ever discovering the exact perpetrator.

 

So it is with ID - and it's exactly why this isn't tied to Christianity. There is nothing in ID research that declares that the nature of the Designer if discovered would have the traits attributed to Him in Christian books.

 

Again: that cannot be made any clearer. Your objection to this isn't sound.

 

I'm using actual quotes from Shapiro. Not made up quotes like you.

 

No, you made presumptions to attack my presumptions. Denying it is useless. You're going beyond the mere use of quotes by saying: "Or.....he just doesn't have the same take on his research as you do and doesn't believe in ID". Then you said "anything's possible, right?". All while you say I'm the one that isn't interested in intellectually honest debate. Again: your objection isn't sound.

 

So the theory of evolution has no facts associated with it? Because if it did, it would be proven. Sound rationale.

 

Non sequitur. Evolution is a legitimate scientific endeavor, but the "facts" are constantly under revision. This should be no different.

 

I'll address all this crap a little later.

 

And then I'll address the crap you post later as well.

[penultimatestraw 473]

What is the point of teaching children in classrooms that our climate is changing when there is nothing we can do about it?

 

Remind me what we are going to do about intelligent design? Oh yea, indoctrinate religious beliefs and proselytize a few heathens.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Really? Everyone understands that our natural world is the result of an intelligent designer? Everyone? Or everyone who believes in ID?

 

You're confused; that's not what that sentence said. It is establishing a control - just like any good scientific endeavor attempts to do. It is saying that we can judge what intelligent design looks like by being able to study those things which we know were intelligently designed (read: man-made).

 

You've inserted a conclusion into your observation that limits any possible outcome. Everything that follows is flawed. That is not the way the scientific method works.

 

No, that is not the case. See above. The items in question - that which scientists would call "natural" (read; not man-made) are being studied to determine if they contain enough parallel CSI to those things which we already know contain high CSI (read: man-made) to establish a working theorem that these things are in fact the work of an Intelligence.

 

Now: if your science can contest that by providing evidence that they're not Intelligently Designed, do so. Meanwhile, this should be the base theorem from which we operate.

 

Problem solved.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Remind me what are we going to do about intelligent design? Oh yea, indoctrinate religious beliefs and proselytize a few heathens.

 

?

 

What religious belief?

 

By putting out scientifically established theory? What I posted about ID utilizing sound SM principles is no joke, and it is completely legitimate. You. simply. have. a. bias. that. cannot. disprove. this. theorem. scientifically.

 

Remember: the Establishment Clause prohibits establishment of a State Religion. This is doing no such thing; the results here could literally support any notion of a religion.

 

Including Atheism, since the Designer could merely be another superior race. ID merely seeks to quantify the theory that our nature was designed by something.

 

Ok: now I really have to go.

[FeelingMN 273]

Now you're just trying to twist words.

 

 

Mensa, that's just my interpretation.

 

There is a clear differentiation between what Shapiro believes personally, and what his data illuminates. There are different ways to address his findings: his primary (and seemingly only) focus is to refute Darwinian Random Mutation theory.

 

Ontologically, it has much to say about the criticisms that Darwinism has endured from Creationists - and Shapiro addresses this himself. It is Shapiro who mentions Creationists. I wonder why such mention would matter if the core of his study had nothing whatever to do with Creationism.

 

Can you answer that for me?

 

Shapiro also mentions Darwinists....and Darwinists have extensively criticized creationists. You must love Alice in Chains....because you're the man in the box.

 

No - mostly this thread has been a fusillade of people misinterpreting what I say and trying to put me in boxes in which I do not belong.

 

In which box do you belong then?

 

Also, people might not misinterpret your crap if you came up with something tangible....oh, and if you didn't make up sh!t either. That'd help too.

 

 

Oh, it isn't. I argue to be intellectually stimulated and learn. I know when an argument is strong, and when it is weak - and when an opponent is being dishonest or obtuse.

 

Like when they make up quotes? Is that being dishonest? Or is it just being dumb?

 

And you claim to argue to learn????? You're the one interpreting all the evidence in light of a priori beliefs. I think you confuse arguing for proselytizing. You're no different than that cooky focker preaching on the University commons across America....telling us all we're going to hell....through an interpretation of somebody else's words....without the slightest bit of proof to back your claims.

 

Fail.

[penultimatestraw 473]

?

 

What religious belief?

 

By putting out scientifically established theory? What I posted about ID utilizing sound SM principles is no joke, and it is completely legitimate. You. simply. have. a. bias. that. cannot. disprove. this. theorem. scientifically.

 

Remember: the Establishment Clause prohibits establishment of a State Religion. This is doing no such thing; the results here could literally support any notion of a religion.

 

Including Atheism, since the Designer could merely be another superior race.

My point is we won't be doing anything about it, much as you disputed the utility of discussing climate change. It is a philosophical exercise, mental masturbation IMO. Not science.

[FeelingMN 273]

?

 

What religious belief?

 

By putting out scientifically established theory? What I posted about ID utilizing sound SM principles is no joke, and it is completely legitimate. You. simply. have. a. bias. that. cannot. disprove. this. theorem. scientifically.

 

Remember: the Establishment Clause prohibits establishment of a State Religion. This is doing no such thing; the results here could literally support any notion of a religion.

 

Including Atheism, since the Designer could merely be another superior race. ID merely seeks to quantify the theory that our nature was designed by something.

 

Ok: now I really have to go.

 

 

ID is evolutionary science....with god. ID doesn't have any research of its own. They can't even define a designer....or at least you can't. So they rely on others' research and tack on their interpretations. ID is the intellectual equivalent of a virus....though at least a virus has something of its own (RNA). ID doesn't even have that.

 

ID cannot be disproved, because God cannot be disproved. We call that Faith, not Science.

 

Fail to the failth power.

[Mike Honcho 5,439]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHSTwqCsyVY

[FeelingMN 273]

ID doesn't even have that.

 

Wait. Check that. ID has Netflix.

 

Watch out AFI, you're about to be hijacked for a much Higher Cause.

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

Mensa, that's just my interpretation.

 

Yes. And it's wrong. I am able to turn back your argument (leaving you with "that's just my interpretation") because it is wrong.

 

 

 

Shapiro also mentions Darwinists....and Darwinists have extensively criticized creationists. You must love Alice in Chains....because you're the man in the box.

 

Are you illuminating some sort of revelation here? That's exactly why I believed that what he was doing is attempting to find common ground between the two: he's attempting to draw those Christians who reject Evolution in whole cloth and those Darwinists who refuse to consider that random isn't how Evolution really works together.

 

Since I was never in either camp as described above, I've said that what Shapiro's research supports IMO is my position: that Evolution was a created process, and - as such - is intelligently administered.

 

Which is exactly what appears to be the case.

 

 

In which box do you belong then?

 

Asked, and answered above.

 

Also, people might not misinterpret your crap if you came up with something tangible....oh, and if you didn't make up sh!t either. That'd help too.

 

What'd I make up, exactly?

 

Like when they make up quotes? Is that being dishonest? Or is it just being dumb?

 

Make up quotes? I used "quotations" instead of ' ' - my mistake. Obviously what I wrote wasn't verbatim, or you could have found the verbatim quote. Again: my mistake.

 

And you claim to argue to learn????? You're the one interpreting all the evidence in light of a priori beliefs. I think you confuse arguing for proselytizing. You're no different than that cooky focker preaching on the University commons across America....telling us all we're going to hell....through an interpretation of somebody else's words....without the slightest bit of proof to back your claims.

 

Fail.

 

What am I proselytizing, exactly? I've supported ID with scientific practice. There is nothing wrong with pursuing ID in the manner described in the link I provided. My guess is that you know that, and it may be why you haven't been able to assail it. Frank has conjured an entire argument based upon intentional misimpressions - and that's the strongest argument anyone has been able to muster.

 

Nothing has said that the Scientific practices that ID employs have to be earth-shattering. They are very basic, as is the theorem of ID itself.

 

Since all of Science can only operate based upon what we can observe, ID limits itself in an equivalent manner. We all know that if we're testing the contention of Intelligent Design, we start with what we know is Intelligently Designed, and then look to those things which we don't know are - living things in Nature - and determine if there are parallel characteristics (what IDers call 'high CSI') to establish the theorem itself.

[The Next Generation 11]

If this topic had nothing whatsoever to address to Creationists, he wouldn't have mentioned Creationists in his writings. He mentions Creationists because of their criticisms of Darwinism. He understands the issues. He believes that his research illuminates the validity of one of the criticisms of Darwinism that Creationists level: that Random Mutation is not a sufficient explanation of Evolutionary advance (a stance with which I agreed before I heard of his research).

 

Why did I disagree? Because it diminished my personally held belief that our reality was designed and purposeful. Darwinian thought literally holds that it is all an accident.

 

That is the same core of dissention between Atheist and Christian. Like it or not, Shapiro's research forces changes to Darwinian modelling that Creationists support.

 

Shapiro's work absolutely has to do with Creationists as it does neo-Darwinists and everyone in-between.

 

However, the bolded part of your post is absolutely false. Creationists support that God created everything. Darwinists support, as you have said, that random mutation is the cause for evolutionary advancement. Shapiros has stated that his work supposrts something in-between:

 

"However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

 

A sounder perspective on the history of science would be very helpful to all concerned. For example, a parallel has been drawn by Allen Orr and others between criticisms of Darwinian orthodoxy and assaults on the Law of Gravity, presenting them as equally deplorable examples of anti-science obscurantism. Yet, if truth be told, gravity is far from a settled matter. The relativistic Law of Gravity at the end of the 20th century is not the same as the classical Law of Gravity at the end of the 19th century, and discovering how the continuous descriptions of

general relativity can be integrated into a single theory with the discrete accounts of quantum physics is still an active field of research. From a scientific point of view, then, the Law of Gravity has quite properly been under continuous challenge. Dogmas and taboos may be suitable for religion, but they have no place in science. No theory or viewpoint should ever become sacrosanct because experience tells us that even the most elegant Laws of Nature

ultimately succumb to the inexorable progress of scientific thinking and technological innovation. The present debate over Darwinism will be more productive if it takes place in recognition of the fact that scientific advances are made not by canonizing our predecessors but by creating intellectual and technical opportunities for our successors."

 

Like I said previosuly, he is advocating for BOTH sides to make concessions to a THIRD WAY of thinking. NOT that the 1 side, Creatonists, are correct and supported by his findngs.

[nikki2200 4]

Copping out with an illegitimate joke is just dodging what was written.

 

My conclusion is no more a joke than the conclusion in that "scientific experiment".

[nikki2200 4]

If it had facts already, it would already be proven.

 

 

I missed this little gem. No Mensa. No No No.

 

If you had facts, this actually may be a scientific hypotheses worthy of discussion and eligible to be taught as science. Without facts, it is a fairy tale and nothing more.

[Frank M 181]

You're confused; that's not what that sentence said. It is establishing a control - just like any good scientific endeavor attempts to do. It is saying that we can judge what intelligent design looks like by being able to study those things which we know were intelligently designed (read: man-made).

 

That's not the way I read it. It says" From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design."

Not man-made systems, the world.

 

You are the one who is always concerned with the way things are worded, this should give you pause.

 

No, that is not the case. See above. The items in question - that which scientists would call "natural" (read; not man-made) are being studied to determine if they contain enough parallel CSI to those things which we already know contain high CSI (read: man-made) to establish a working theorem that these things are in fact the work of an Intelligence.

 

It seems to me they've reached that point a couple of steps early.

 

Now: if your science can contest that by providing evidence that they're not Intelligently Designed, do so. Meanwhile, this should be the base theorem from which we operate.

 

Problem solved.

 

The burden of proof is not on scientists to prove that nature is not intelligently designed, it is up to those who hold that belief to prove that it is.

[nikki2200 4]

Is it me? Or is this getting crazier and crazier?

[OldMaid 2,135]

Never wrestle with a pig: You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

 

hth

 

I believe this to be closer to the truth than you might expect...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somewhere out there Mensa is sitting behind his computer with a box of tissues and some lube, formulating his responses.

[Frank M 181]

Is it me? Or is this getting crazier and crazier?

 

 

He's just flailing at this point.

[penultimatestraw 473]

He's just flailing at this point.

I think "prolapsing" is the word you're looking for

[IMMensaMind 462]

Shapiro's work absolutely has to do with Creationists as it does neo-Darwinists and everyone in-between.

 

Tell the others, who say it has nothing to do with Creationism.

 

However, the bolded part of your post is absolutely false. Creationists support that God created everything. Darwinists support, as you have said, that random mutation is the cause for evolutionary advancement. Shapiros has stated that his work supposrts something in-betwee.

 

You're misunderstanding the intent of the statement I made, and it's probably because I used the statement "Creationists" far too generally (which I'll explain in a bit):

 

Like it or not' date=' Shapiro's research forces changes to Darwinian modelling that Creationists support.[/quote']

 

However, how do all Creationists not support the changes that Shapiro is condoning are made to Darwinian modelling? Shapiro is suggesting that Random Mutation is not the primary motivator of Evolutionary advance; he's suggesting that directed intelligence is the primary cause.

 

Such a change to Darwinian modelling would be something that all Creationists support. Such a change would be something that Darwinists would squeal about.

 

If fact, there's an awful lot of squealing going on right in this thread.

 

Regardless of that segment of Creationism who flat reject Evolutionary Science completely (a sect which I find loony), the majority of those people who believe in some form of Creationism are those same people who look at Darwin's claims as suspect: the claim(s) of Evolution being a completely random process that arrives upon improvements strictly through naturally selected mutational accidents.

 

So changing that - and it is a big change - is something about which these Creationists would be in direct favor.

 

Including me.

 

Like I said previosuly, he is advocating for BOTH sides to make concessions to a THIRD WAY of thinking. NOT that the 1 side, Creatonists, are correct and supported by his findngs.

 

Maybe you're misunderstanding my position here. I've tried to explain that I wasn't in either camp he's described (by way of a somewhat misleading false dichotomy: there aren't simply two camps). I alone am evidence of that: I believe in Creationism in the sense of "God" (without addressing the nature of said God) being responsible for creating our existence - but I also am a fan of scientific advance and discovery of the nature of how things work. So I fit neither mold Shapiro describes.

 

I believe I would be properly described as being in the majority. I believe most people are 'religious' (they believe in some form of 'God') in that sense, but they also do not reject the general concept of Evolution either.

 

So: I agree with you that Shapiro is trying to get those who fit the description of the two groups he's described to make concessions to a third way of thinking; but I'm trying to further explain that the concessions he's requesting are emblematic of a position that I - and the majority - already hold.

 

He's just filling in the Scientific support legitimizing the view.

[IMMensaMind 462]

My conclusion is no more a joke than the conclusion in that "scientific experiment".

 

Simply disagreeing without formulating a good reason for disagreeing is tantamount to a temper tantrum. If it's all you have, you've lost the debate here.

 

That experiment is purely scientific.

 

All of Science operates on basic assumptions, including a presumption that this reality is real (I believe that there was another thread on this topic in this forearm not too long ago). As such, the basic assumptions argued by ID are identical to the basic assumptions employed by basic Scientific principle and Method.

[IMMensaMind 462]

That's not the way I read it. It says" From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design."

Not man-made systems, the world.

 

You are the one who is always concerned with the way things are worded, this should give you pause.

 

That doesn't give me pause whatsoever. If you have trouble with this, you could simply replace that word. "From our understanding of man-made things, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design".

 

It seems to me they've reached that point a couple of steps early.

 

You perhaps are thinking that because this concept is so utterly basic, that it should be our presumption; not the other way around.

 

The burden of proof is not on scientists to prove that nature is not intelligently designed, it is up to those who hold that belief to prove that it is.

 

Considering that the patterns found in 'natural' things mimic the form and function of those things which were man-made, I believe they already have.

 

I believe that this is why some of the most brilliant scientists in history - like Sir Isaac Newton - were so completely comfortable being both scientist and deist.

 

Only in contemporary times have people attempted to contest the legitimacy of being both.

 

And those who hold the belief of a Designer - a hypothesis (now a theory, IMO) - test it through the methodology described. If they adhere to the SM, they are scientists. And they do.

 

Now, if another scientist wants to contest this theory, they must conduct experiments to disprove the theory. Good luck with that, considering the constant - those things which we know are intelligently designed - share all the same characteristics.

[nikki2200 4]

Simply disagreeing without formulating a good reason for disagreeing is tantamount to a temper tantrum. If it's all you have, you've lost the debate here.

 

That experiment is purely scientific.

 

All of Science operates on basic assumptions, including a presumption that this reality is real (I believe that there was another thread on this topic in this forearm not too long ago). As such, the basic assumptions argued by ID are identical to the basic assumptions employed by basic Scientific principle and Method.

 

I am disagreeing for very good reason and this shouldn't have to be spelled out. I am disagreeing because the following statements are utter horseshit and have no foundation in fact or science and I know them to be false because I do not share that "understanding of the world":

 

From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

 

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

BTW.... was this an eighth grade science project? Because it kind of looks like it.

 

This debate was lost pages ago, and it wasn't by me. I have resorted to jokes, albeit relevant jokes, because the whole discussion has turned into one.

 

Here... I have a scientific experiment that can completely disprove the existence of a single Intelligent Designer using the same methods in that "experiment" you keep linking.

 

i. Observation:

People on occasion can act intelligently and make decisions, yet they behave and think very differently.

 

ii. Hypothesis:

There is not one intelligent Entity that designed all human life forms.

 

iii. Experiment:

On an internet forum called FFToday, a very lengthy discussion documents that IMMensaMind's and Nikki2200's brains do not function, process information, or comprehend the written word in an even remotely similar fashion.

 

iv. Conclusion:

It is a logical impossibility that IMMensaMind and Nikki2200 could have been designed by the same entity, and this is an undisputed fact, therefore there is no such thing as a single Intelligent Designer.

 

There ya go. More research.

[GettnHuge 2]

I'm sorry! I'm sorry that you are such a stupid piece of human waste. I have caught finally up in this thread andall that comes to me is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjQ98bBRWMU

Hope you die before I get to you I make no apologise

 

How did I miss this?

[nikki2200 4]

Just when I finally got that image out of my mind......

 

I'll be leaving again now.

 

 

[Yer mom 2]

This is an awesome thread, looks like were finally getting back to the Geek Club basics

 

Poster 1- States position

Poster 2- Disagrees, explains why

Poster 1- Explains why poster 2 is incorrect

Poster 2- Disagrees with poster 1 and throws a name call in his argument

Poster 1- Fires back with a name call and gets a little nastier with his insult

Poster 2- Threatens to fly out to poster 1's location and beat the chit out of him in front of family

Poster 1- Disagrees that poster 2 can kick his ass, reminds him of his size and ass-kicking abilities

Poster 2- More name calling

Poster 1- More name calling

 

MUA

[IMMensaMind 462]

I am disagreeing for very good reason and this shouldn't have to be spelled out. I am disagreeing because the following statements are utter horseshit and have no foundation in fact or science and I know them to be false because I do not share that "understanding of the world":

 

From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

 

Ok - you think these statements are bullsh!t. Fine: establish your claim. Using your "understanding of the world", name for me something which possesses high levels of CSI which isn't the product of intelligent design.

 

This statement is so basic and so true as to be unassailable; yet you are attempting to. So show me an example.

 

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

BTW.... was this an eighth grade science project? Because it kind of looks like it.

 

I'll grant you this: these concepts are so basic that a 5th grader would definitely understand it. Like I said before: did you expect something earth-shattering here? This is very basic.

 

This debate was lost pages ago, and it wasn't by me. I have resorted to jokes, albeit relevant jokes, because the whole discussion has turned into one.

 

Your opinion was formulated before you walked into this thread, so excuse me if I take your proclamation about the status of this debate with a bit of salt.

 

Here... I have a scientific experiment that can completely disprove the existence of a single Intelligent Designer using the same methods in that "experiment" you keep linking.

 

i. Observation:

People on occasion can act intelligently and make decisions, yet they behave and think very differently.

 

Okay. With this I can agree.

 

ii. Hypothesis:

There is not one intelligent Entity that designed all human life forms.

 

Okay - so you're saying here that it could be multiple Intelligent Designers which are responsible for our reality. I'm with you (but there is a problem with this which I will point out in in minute).

 

iii. Experiment:

On an internet forum called FFToday, a very lengthy discussion documents that IMMensaMind's and Nikki2200's brains do not function, process information, or comprehend the written word in an even remotely similar fashion.

 

Clearly agreed.

 

iv. Conclusion:

It is a logical impossibility that IMMensaMind and Nikki2200 could have been designed by the same entity, and this is an undisputed fact, therefore there is no such thing as a single Intelligent Designer.

 

This is where you go wrong. You cannot establish this conclusion because you cannot identify the nature of the Intelligent Designer(s). You cannot hold a theory of multiple Intelligent Designers without first documenting the notion of an Intelligent Designer; doing so is a fallacious exercise, and exactly the problem that FeelingMN ran into by demanding an understanding of the nature of a Designer before establishing the existence of a Designer.

 

In addition, if the premise of a sole Designer were established (and ID does not seek to do that), there is nothing logical that could stop one Designer from being responsible for disparate designs. You need look no farther than Ford, who makes utterly different models, but which share many similar traits.

 

Like we do, as unlike as we think.

 

There ya go. More research.

 

And there you go: refuted. You're off track.

[FeelingMN 273]

Simply disagreeing without formulating a good reason for disagreeing is tantamount to a temper tantrum. If it's all you have, you've lost the debate here.

 

Yes. And it's wrong. I am able to turn back your argument (leaving you with "that's just my interpretation") because it is wrong.

 

[nikki2200 4]

 

 

There are at least a few dozen of these in this thread. I'm just too lazy to go back and get them all.