Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#1,154
#1,154
Vol8188 said:
If an alien species seeded the entire earth with millions of seperate species, how could you possibly not consider that supreme?
Click to expand...

We obviously aren't using the same definition of "supreme". lol Hint: Highly advanced != "God".

I find it odd that you are trying harder than ID scientists to attribute theological significance to their theory.

I find it odd that that you would rather limit scientific pursuits due to philosophical implications.

I find it odd that you consider "this was unguided and completely naturalistic" an appropriate scientific claim while not allowing its opposite claim as scientific.
 
#1,155
#1,155
Vol8188 said:
If an alien species seeded the entire earth with millions of seperate species, how could you possibly not consider that supreme?
Click to expand...

Oh, and ID agrees that evolution has happened. It just disagrees with Darwinian mechanisms as sufficient to explain what we see in nature. You seem to be equating "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,156
#1,156
Orange_Crush said:
We obviously aren't using the same definition of "supreme". lol Hint: Highly advanced != "God".

I find it odd that you are trying harder than ID scientists to attribute theological significance to their theory.

I find it odd that that you would rather limit scientific pursuits due to philosophical implications.

I find it odd that you consider "this was unguided and completely naturalistic" an appropriate scientific claim while not allowing its opposite claim as scientific.
Click to expand...

Someone seems a little tense today.

1. Clearly intelligent design requires a supreme being to design it. That's the entire premise behind intelligent design. Something greater than ourselves made all this $h!+.

2. Teaching intelligent design would be the most worthless thing ever. What is there to teach? "Some people believe a supreme being may have created all of this, class dismissed". Sounds like a tough midterm ahead for those kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,157
#1,157
Orange_Crush said:
Oh, and ID agrees that evolution has happened. It just disagrees with Darwinian mechanisms as sufficient to explain what we see in nature. You seem to be equating "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design".
Click to expand...

Which naturally would lead to the alternative that a "supreme being" designed this.
 
#1,158
#1,158
Vol8188 said:
Someone seems a little tense today.

1. Clearly intelligent design requires a supreme being to design it. That's the entire premise behind intelligent design. Something greater than ourselves made all this $h!+.

2. Teaching intelligent design would be the most worthless thing ever. What is there to teach? "Some people believe a supreme being may have created all of this, class dismissed". Sounds like a tough midterm ahead for those kids.
Click to expand...

I'm not tense at all. I'm copacetic, bro.

Intelligent Design, as I am speaking to, talks to biological systems, not "all of this". The "ancient aliens" guy would disagree that seeded biological systems needs a supreme being.

You are obviously woefully ill-informed on the theory you claim is "worthless". Good day.
 
#1,160
#1,160
Orange_Crush said:
ID says, "We theorize a designer had to have done this." The refutation would obviously be to show that a designer was not needed to accomplish the evidence that the claims for design are made about. Evolution claims that DE is by purely natural forces and completely unguided-- to be honest, I'm not sure how one would disprove that except to prove that a designer was at work.
Click to expand...

First off, it isn't "unguided", natural selection of mutated genes is the "guide".

Fossil records work.....aka...the "precambrian rabbit" example...

If it could be showed that gene mutation does not occur or that such mutations are not passed to offspring, or shown that adaptation is favored over reproductive success. It could also be falsified (and likewise provide evidence for ID) by finding life not based on DNA or RNA for coding.

I'm not going to argue ID, but I will state simply that theory of evolution does not depend entirely on a competing theory to falsify it. While a competing theory maybe could, it stands on its own just fine. Such a theory would have to be pretty big and stand the rigor of evidence for evolution, but it could in theory I guess.

Standing on its own, which parts of ID could be falsifiable? Since it is being offered to be taught along side evolution, I am genuinely curious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,161
#1,161
Orange_Crush said:
I'm not tense at all. I'm copacetic, bro.

Intelligent Design, as I am speaking to, talks to biological systems, not "all of this". The "ancient aliens" guy would disagree that seeded biological systems needs a supreme being.

You are obviously woefully ill-informed on the theory you claim is "worthless". Good day.
Click to expand...

Someone as copacetic as yourself should have no problem explaining this. Why are you being so vague? What about biological systems?

What would be in this curriculm?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,162
#1,162
Orange_Crush said:
That does not logically follow from the premise. (But that is anything but surprising coming from you.)
Click to expand...

Resulting to personal attacks, that's adorable. You've still answered nothing. How does intelligent design work? Since you believe this should be taught in schools, surely you can explain what it is and how it doesn't require a supreme being.
 
#1,163
#1,163
Roustabout said:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2101


Sorry Bart buy you only confirmed the point I was making.
I almost mentioned talk origins in my prior post. Talk about pot calling kettle.

So, does TO address the actual contwnt of study. Not really. They criticize papers because they don't actually mention design. Well, showing the problems with traditional Darwinism may not necessarily mention an alternative theory.
Also they criticize no new data. Are ID proponents suggesting new data? No. They are revealing that existing data can be interpreted differently. Its refuting reification that is epidemic. We could just as easily criticize Darwinist presuppositions. For example was Johanson funded NOT to find a missing link? I think funding would be a great subject. Discovery's funding is all private. Darwinist are spending the people's dime to enter research with the motive to support existing presuppositions. Do I really need to link someone like Dr. Bill Provine who claimed evolution as evidence against human life having intrinsic value and stating that evolution proves there is no foundation for ethics.
Click to expand...

Have you read the Wedge Document? The Wedge Document explicitly states that their goal is to replace evolution with creationism. They are looking for evidence to support their presupposed conclusion. In real science we base our conclusions on the evidence. Furthermore creationism is not science because, as you admit, creationists don’t do science that supports their hypothesis of an intelligent designer (in fact, as you admit, creationists don’t do any science period). Instead they try to poke holes at evolution and create controversy where there is none.

Google discovery institute funding
 
#1,165
#1,165
Roustabout said:
Percy,
You are just regurgitating talking points from those who seek to poison the well. This only shows that you are being a religious puppet and not thinking for yourself. ID is not creationism. Creationism is teaching from the Bible or other religious text. ID is a process of examining scientific facts and evidence and offering mulitple competing hypothesis'.

Shoot, I'll just quote biologist and rabid atheist Richard Dawkins. "The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems)."

So, what we have are posters who have resorted to ad-hominem attack and think they are actually presenting an argument. Assertions are not arguments. It's certainly not 'sceintific.' Talk Origins, which I have visited for close to a decade, is a source of vitriol, with an agenda veiled in the priestly lab coats of science.
Click to expand...

Creationism and intelligent design are the exact same thing. In fact after Edwards v. Aguillard ruled "creation science" to be religion the discovery institute systematically changed all references to creationism in their texts to intelligent design. But they screwed up their quick fix and accidentally left the term "cdesign propentsists" in Of Panda's and People (often called the "missing link" between creationism and intelligent design" :))
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,166
#1,166
Orange_Crush said:
You should study more. The american "intelligent design crowd" states specifically that discussion of who the designer is should be left out of the scientific discussions. They leave it to philosophy and theology to query the implications.
Click to expand...

And that right there is the answer to intelligent design in the school systems. Let it be discussed in elective classes like Philosophy and Theology Studies, not in Earth Science or Biology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,169
#1,169
Vol8188 said:
How is this relevant? I highly doubt he exists.
Click to expand...

False:

bigfoot6cz-779878.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,171
#1,171
BartW said:
Have you read the Wedge Document? The Wedge Document explicitly states that their goal is to replace evolution with creationism. They are looking for evidence to support their presupposed conclusion. In real science we base our conclusions on the evidence. Furthermore creationism is not science because, as you admit, creationists don’t do science that supports their hypothesis of an intelligent designer (in fact, as you admit, creationists don’t do any science period). Instead they try to poke holes at evolution and create controversy where there is none.

Google discovery institute funding
Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing this up. I have already posted a link to the response. http://www.discovery.org/f/349

You say in real science we base our conclusions on evidence. It is a fact of logic that EVERYONE has presuppositions. EVERYONE. Some are honest about them, some are not. I already mentioned Johansen's exploration and his funding. He 'finds' Lucy and guess what happened to his funding? And this is certainly not the only example.
So, does that mean that every fossil find is tainted? Of course not. So, what you are saying is that pro-Darwin people can have their presuppositions, but ID proponents cannot. Why?
And guess what, if something looks designed as Dawkins and countless others have stated, then why is it an erroneous presupposition? I'll tell you why. Because you don't like the fact that the any evidence supporting design in nature supports theism.

So, it's OK for atheist to say things like evolution proves there is no God, no purpose in life and no foundation for ethics. (Dr. William Provine) But, it isn't OK to say that since things appear to be designed we shouldn't be FREE to hold this as a presupposition. You see, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want for people like Dawkins and Provine to be able to make philosphical claims such as this. But that my friend isn't science at all. It is religious ideology.

And addressing your court case. So, is that how science is done now? By a judge's verdict? Really? Bravo.

When better terminology is available, why wouldn't you amend your documents to reflect this? Certainly you aren't implying that if the term 'creationism' had been retained that you would give it more credence?

Today, creationism is used as an umbrella term that encompasses a number of views. ID has developed into a much more specialized area. So, no, they are not the same. And repeating this over and over doesn't make it so. I'd say we would see the same in a number of fields.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,174
#1,174
do the intelligent design people accept the notion that the Intelligence behind the Design may not be a supernatural and omniscient being, but rather a race of pretty smart beings who see us as little more than a science experiment?
 
#1,175
#1,175
FLVOL_79 said:
And that right there is the answer to intelligent design in the school systems. Let it be discussed in elective classes like Philosophy and Theology Studies, not in Earth Science or Biology.
Click to expand...

You make an interesting point. However, ID does not teach a religious text. And, this doesn't address the ideological areas of Darwinism and their place in the class room. It is hard for the pro-Darwin crowd to admit to this. They believe that they are completely justified to impose their secular ideologies onto the evidence.

Let's just say that a professor is teaching on genetic code. A student raises his hand and ask, "Doesn't a code or language infer design?" The teacher says, "it can't infer a design."
"Why not?" ask the student.
"Because it isn't designed," replies the teacher.
"How do we know?"
"Because it is the result of unguided processes."

That is refusing one presupposition holding to nothing more than a question begging hypothesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top