Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Roustabout]

Which naturally would lead to the alternative that a "supreme being" designed this.

Wow. Talk about a consequential fallacy.
Restated: "It must be wrong, because the results would undermine my worldview."

That is exactly the same as a Christian saying Darwinism is false because it undermines their worldview.
Pathetic.

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?

MG, the short answer is, yes. Intelligence is intelligence.

 

[VOLatile]

Fallacy this, fallacy that. This is what the discussion has become.

 

[Roustabout]

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

Here we go again regarding the meaning of words.
Guided. What you are doing here is smuggling in the notion of intelligence. It's a bit of reificiation don't you think? NS is not a thing. It isn't a biological process. It is a term used to explain the effects of pressures that occur in nature.

In natural selection, what is actually being selected for? If you are going to say that NS is guiding, then I want you to provide the mass and, or weight of NS. Where does it exist? Since it is actually guiding something, then you should be able to provide some evidence that it is a thing that exists? You can't. Because It (NS) is a human concept to describe effects we see in nature. Maybe you don't understand cause and effect, but effects do not produce causes. Darwinist want to ascribe a type of intelligence to an effect, and then put a bow on it and claim victory. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

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.

You are attempting to argue common ground that we all agree on. It is not the evidence in question but the interpretations. Again, this is very sad debate tactic.
You are attempting to say, "Look at all the evidece WE have."
But guess what? You don't own the evidence. The evidence is there for all. You are equivocating your interpretations of the evidence to the evidence itself. Another common fallacy that weaves throughout Darwinian evolution. And I've only met a few who will admit to it.

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.

Again you have committed the same fallacy, when you say the EVIDENCE for evolution. I promise that 90% or more of the evidence you are claiming is evidence that ID proponents do not question or dispute. It is accepted.

 

[Roustabout]

Fallacy this, fallacy that. This is what the discussion has become.

So, are you saying that when someone defends their position with fallacious reasoning that we shouldn't point it out?

Wouldn't it serve to say that when more fallacies are committed, more will be pointed out?

Only in a postmodern world would someone object to pointing out fallacies.

The hypocrisy of it all is that your statement is in an attempt to point out what you presume to be fallacious reasoning. Your thinking is that it is fallacious to point out fallacies. Wow! Bravo, you have truly out done yourself. You have taken the violation of the law of non-contradiciton to unprecedented heights.

 

[FLVOL_79]

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.

The problem I see with teaching ID in the classroom is the supernatural spin to it. I think in a K-12 education it isn't something that should be part of the required learning to graduate. Electives are fine. Once in college though open it up. I am sure ID classes (if they exist I only took chem's and biology1/2) would be popular. I would take the class as an elective.

 

[BartW]

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

Glanced at it. Their apologetics doesn’t change the fact that their stated goal is to replace evolution with creationism.

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.

In science we make a hypothesis then search for evidence to support or not support the hypothesis. That’s different than starting with a conclusion, then selectively picking evidence to support the conclusion.

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.

I can’t even tell what you’re trying to say. That Lucy is a hoax? She’s not the only australopithecus that’s been found. I would imagine that his funding went up after such a significant discovery. What’s the conspiracy?

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.

ID proponents have a conclusion, not a presupposition. If ID even had a coherent hypothesis maybe it could be tested, but since it doesn’t all ID “research” aims to do is discredit evolution.

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.

I never said I was an atheist and I don’t know what statements you’re referring to. I’ve purposefully tried to leave religion out of this so that we can discuss evolution on its own merits.

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.

I was just citing the case to explain why creationists tried to disguise their movement under the new banner of “intelligent design”. In fact you ID people in here are behind the times – since Dover v. Kitzmiller in 2011 struck down ID the new M.O. has been “Teach the Controversy”.

 

[BartW]

So, are you saying that when someone defends their position with fallacious reasoning that we shouldn't point it out?

Wouldn't it serve to say that when more fallacies are committed, more will be pointed out?

Only in a postmodern world would someone object to pointing out fallacies.

The hypocrisy of it all is that your statement is in an attempt to point out what you presume to be fallacious reasoning. Your thinking is that it is fallacious to point out fallacies. Wow! Bravo, you have truly out done yourself. You have taken the violation of the law of non-contradiciton to unprecedented heights.

.

 

[Orange_Crush]

.

The "fallacy fallacy" is to say someone's conclusion is wrong due to their use of fallacious arguments. It is not a fallacy to say that someone has not proven their argument due to the use of fallacious arguments.

 

[Roustabout]

Glanced at it. Their apologetics doesn’t change the fact that their stated goal is to replace evolution with creationism.

Discovery Institute

In science we make a hypothesis then search for evidence to support or not support the hypothesis. That’s different than starting with a conclusion, then selectively picking evidence to support the conclusion.

If that is what is happening then yes, I agree. So, you have reviewed the multiple competing hypothesis?
Presuppositions ALWAYS lead us to our investigation. To say otherwise is not being intellectually honest.

Like I mentioned, I don't see you, talk origins calling out the Dawkins and Provines of the world, who are making ideological claims that EVOLUTION says this or that. They author books with the intention to disprove a creator and then overlay the evidence in an attempt to back up their conclusions. All I'm saying is that you and others are not being honest when you fail to do otherwise. You can rant and rave all you want about Discovery. The fact is that this is epidemic on your side and don't seem to want to admit this is the case.

I don't agree with most of your criticisms of ID, and i see a rampant hypocrisy at work at the same time.

I can’t even tell what you’re trying to say. That Lucy is a hoax? She’s not the only australopithecus that’s been found. I would imagine that his funding went up after such a significant discovery. What’s the conspiracy?

I can give you plenty of examples how Lucy evidence has been doctored artistically to present a CONCLUSION, but that's another story. The point is, what was the intention of the expedition in the first place? Are you suggesting that they didn't INTEND to find something. I'm sure that putting on a lab coat makes one infallible, lack any presuppositions or motive.

ID proponents have a conclusion, not a presupposition. If ID even had a coherent hypothesis maybe it could be tested, but since it doesn’t all ID “research” aims to do is discredit evolution.

Based on your comic book post (which was funny btw) I can only assume that fallacious reasoning isn't a concern to you. If so, then there is no point in having a discussion. I know, I know, scientist want to thumb their noses at philosophers; I've been down that road too many times. But the fact is you can't even engage in the scientific method without it. And if your logic is corrupt......? Darwinian thinking is laced with question begging, reification and numerous other problems. Now, if I just make a claim of fallacy, fine. But when I actually explain and give examples, and you dismiss it, then the problem is on you.

It seems that some want to avoid dealing with some of the issues brought forth by simply attacking the notion of fallacies. That really shows intelligence.

I never said I was an atheist and I don’t know what statements you’re referring to. I’ve purposefully tried to leave religion out of this so that we can discuss evolution on its own merits.

And I've done the same in regards to ID. So, what gives?
And please share, what are you?

I was just citing the case to explain why creationists tried to disguise their movement under the new banner of “intelligent design”. In fact you ID people in here are behind the times – since Dover v. Kitzmiller in 2011 struck down ID the new M.O. has been “Teach the Controversy”.

Your responses and those of several others should explain the why.
Actually I have my own problems with ID. Their focus tends to be on irreducible complexity, which I do not think is necessary to demonstrate design. Function does not require complexity. Scissors function and you cannot find a simpler device. To infer that scissors are the product of time mixed with NS, mutation, etc. is absurd. The design is apparent.
Men like Newton were led to their discoveries because they viewed the universe as intelligible. Hard to believe, but you would be making these same accusations against him.

 

[VOLatile]

So, are you saying that when someone defends their position with fallacious reasoning that we shouldn't point it out?

Wouldn't it serve to say that when more fallacies are committed, more will be pointed out?

Only in a postmodern world would someone object to pointing out fallacies.

The hypocrisy of it all is that your statement is in an attempt to point out what you presume to be fallacious reasoning. Your thinking is that it is fallacious to point out fallacies. Wow! Bravo, you have truly out done yourself. You have taken the violation of the law of non-contradiciton to unprecedented heights.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that all you're displaying is that all it seems like you've studied are the definitions and examples of each fallacy.

I'd like to see someone say something scientific about intelligent design or creationism or whatever you want to call it now.

 

[Obsessed]

How is this relevant? I highly doubt he exists.

It's very relevant.

Exists? Or existed?

Personally I think he existed at some point in time. Why not? A slow evolution form of us as humans. We came from monkeys right? What if Bigfoot is the half way point? If one is going to believe evolution in its fullest then why is it hard to fathom a Bigfoot?

 

[Obsessed]

There have been more eyewitness claims to bigfoot than to the resurrection of jesus.

I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin'

No body asked you LG.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Disprove Santa. It should be easy for you since he doesn't exist....just to make sure, you don't believe in Santa also, right?

If you can do that I'll disprove god for you.

Naturally you didn't read the paper. What a shock.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

So what would be the problem with teaching Creationism and Evolution in schools? Present the theories and let people decide for themselves.

 

[iVol4Life]

So what would be the problem with teaching Creationism and Evolution in schools? Present the theories and let people decide for themselves.

My opinion is that Creationism shouldn't be taught as science. It simply isn't science. I'm not against religious education independent of science as religion has shaped the world around us for most of our history, but giving it any credibility from a scientific point of view is ridiculous.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

My opinion is that Creationism shouldn't be taught as science. It simply isn't science. I'm not against religious education independent of science as religion has shaped the world around us for most of our history, but giving it any credibility from a scientific point of view is ridiculous.

Seems unfair. Both are competing theories. Evolution cannot explain everything so why not teach other theories that have been postulated? Just because the scientific community says Creationism isn't science, that is just an opinion that cannot be proven. There are mountains of evidence for Creationism, the scientific community just doesn't recognize it as such.

I think people who believe Creationism should not be taught are somewhat afraid of kids becoming independent thinkers. I mean whats wrong with kids making their own choices and decisions? Also what would be wrong with people choosing Creationism over Evolution? Would that make them lesser members of society? Would it mean they are dumber? The answers are absolutely no.

 

[Roustabout]

My opinion is that Creationism shouldn't be taught as science. It simply isn't science. I'm not against religious education independent of science as religion has shaped the world around us for most of our history, but giving it any credibility from a scientific point of view is ridiculous.

Define creationism. I'd like to see you say something scientific. I kid.
I do not believe creationism should be taught as science. And, I don't think anyone has proposed such.

 

[Vol8188]

Naturally you didn't read the paper. What a shock.

I did read it. But you have still yet to disprove Santa

 

[Obsessed]

I did read it. But you have still yet to disprove Santa

Why are you ignoring my questions?

Damn Santa. Let's deal with evolution and wether or not Bigfoot or the like was/is possible.

 

[Septic]

It's very relevant

Exists? Or existed?

Personally I think he existed at some point in time. Why not? A slow evolution form of us as humans. We came from monkeys right? What if Bigfoot is the half way point? If one is going to believe evolution in its fullest then why is it hard to fathom a Bigfoot?

It's clear you don't grasp the theory of evolution if you're asserting evolutionists believe that we "came from monkeys". I suppose it should come as little surprise that this is what you've been indoctrinated to believe.

We are cousins to monkeys, we share a common ancestor. There are no missing links.

Your Bigfoot argument is unquestionably the worst argument is 80 pages of this thread.

 

[Septic]

No body asked you LG.

?

 

[Obsessed]

It's clear you don't grasp the theory of evolution if you're asserting evolutionists believe that we "came from monkeys". I suppose it should come as little surprise that this is what you've been indoctrinated to believe.

We are cousins to monkeys, we share a common ancestor. There are no missing links.

Your Bigfoot argument is unquestionably the worst argument is 80 pages of this thread.

Try again

 

[Obsessed]

?

You heard me

 

[Septic]

Seems unfair. Both are competing theories. Evolution cannot explain everything so why not teach other theories that have been postulated? Just because the scientific community says Creationism isn't science, that is just an opinion that cannot be proven. There are mountains of evidence for Creationism, the scientific community just doesn't recognize it as such.

I think people who believe Creationism should not be taught are somewhat afraid of kids becoming independent thinkers. I mean whats wrong with kids making their own choices and decisions? Also what would be wrong with people choosing Creationism over Evolution? Would that make them lesser members of society? Would it mean they are dumber? The answers are absolutely no.

W the actual F?

 

[Septic]

Try again

Go read a book and stop embarrassing yourself.