Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[rjd970]

And still nothing.

I'm also disappointed I never got an answer to this one.

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.

 

[Septic]

This thread goes hard.

We might not all agree on the origins but we're still all Vols.

Going hard is how we roll.

 

[Roustabout]

I'm also disappointed I never got an answer to this one.

And to be honest, I doubt you will. I linked a reply, but you don't seem satisfied that your question is a double edged sword. It cuts both ways.

Is ID Falsifiable? Of Course It Is. Its Falsification Is Darwinism - Evolution News & Views
Is Intelligent Design Testable?: Dembski, William A.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm also disappointed I never got an answer to this one.

I answered this. I told you how it cold be falsifiable. For some unknown reason, you took issue with the fact that the example of falsification would come through Darwinian methods.

 

[Septic]

I have shown on multiple occasions that creationism and ID research are NOT the same thing. Your evidence is to just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. I have linked info that shows ID research utilizing the multiple competing hypothesis method which is certainly a scientific process.
I have given examples of the hypocrisy of allowing Darwinist presuppositions while denying ID presups that actually comply with objective observation.

You're 'smuggling in' assertions to an argument I haven't disputed. In fact the statement you're arguing against (e.g. creationism and ID are not scientific theory's) wasn't addressed by you, at least in this response.

There is an indoctrination and sadly we have many here who are unknowing victims of being brainwashed to adhere to postmodern philosophy and actually advocate logic that encourages fallacious reasoning to support one's worldview. You need to equally apply your skepticism.

I grew up as a "brainwashed" believer and as a product of the southern baptist convention. I've seen and "felt" both sides of the argument. My skepticism has been equally applied. My view has evolved from being told what to believe to weighing the evidence and and relying on the scientific method.

I agree in one sense that bringing Hovind into the equation is a terrible mistake. Still, I've heard on more than one occasion you and others argue about not being lumped in with this or that. Or, you getting upset about what someone thinks about your worldview. Fine, but you are nothing less than a hypocrite to turn around and do the exact same thing.

My recent comments to marcus were in response to his posts, I've not lumped anyone else in with him in those responses- save for Obsessed and BOT, who've both argued for his position. If I've been hypocritical, point it out with specifics - I think you'll find that my positions have been consistent.

 

[VOLatile]

Do you realize you just made a faith statement?

You have muddied the very meaning of 'fact', and have suggested that schools be able to teach secular humanism as a fact. Do you really think people like Dawkins just think that science should be presented objectively to unsuspecting students?

Oh gee, I made a faith statement? Please explain oh holy god of fallacies.

 

[Roustabout]

You're 'smuggling in' assertions to an argument I haven't disputed. In fact the statement you're arguing against (e.g. creationism and ID are not scientific theory's) wasn't addressed by you, at least in this response.

I'm not following your explanation. Either you are asserting that they are the same thing, or that they are not.

I grew up as a "brainwashed" believer and as a product of the southern baptist convention. I've seen and "felt" both sides of the argument. My skepticism has been equally applied. My view has evolved from being told what to believe to weighing the evidence and and relying on the scientific method.

The problem is this. The tenets of Christianity do not advocate this. I know believers who grew up Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, etc.
My point is that the postmodern world is telling you what to believe. I strongly doubt you are much different than anyone else. Did you watch TV as a child? Read secular books, etc. Did you listen to secular music? How much time did you spend being 'indoctrinated?'
I can tell you from my own childhood in the SBC, that they do a poor job of indoctrinating anyone. At most a child is at church 4 hours a week, and I'd say less than 2 of those hours involves any real teaching of any sort.

 

[rjd970]

I answered this. I told you how it cold be falsifiable. For some unknown reason, you took issue with the fact that the example of falsification would come through Darwinian methods.

Why don't you just come right out and say ID isn't presenting any tenet on its own that would make it falsifiable? Same with Roust, who's link said the exact same thing you did?

And save me the nonsense of arguing wording and fallacies.

Is ID falsifiable on its own? This is very simple.

 

[BartW]

Discovery Institute

So?

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.

If you have a competing hypothesis spit it out.

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’ll agree Dawkins comes off as an ass, I don’t know and don’t care to look up Provine. What’s your point? They’re not trying to get atheism into the school curriculum. DI is still a fraud.

cdesign proponentsists

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.

Don't really care, but sure let’s hear your great Lucy conspiracy theory.

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

This thread is about evolution, by all means, spit it out.

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.

I have no idea where you’re taking this

 

[BartW]

And to be honest, I doubt you will. I linked a reply, but you don't seem satisfied that your question is a double edged sword. It cuts both ways.

Is ID Falsifiable? Of Course It Is. Its Falsification Is Darwinism - Evolution News & Views
Is Intelligent Design Testable?: Dembski, William A.

Evolution is falsifiable on it's own. Many examples have been provided in this thread.

The only way to falsify ID is to 'prove' evolution? Lolwut?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Why don't you just come right out and say ID isn't presenting any tenet on its own that would make it falsifiable? Same with Roust, who's link said the exact same thing you did?

And save me the nonsense of arguing wording and fallacies.

Is ID falsifiable on its own? This is very simple.

I just don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. Sorry. Perhaps you can be more clear. ID says that design can be shown in biological systems. If one shows that (for instance) irreducibly complex systems are not irreducibly complex, then it is refuted. Simple.

Darwin knew this. He said that the easiest refutation to his theory would be to show irreducibly complex systems (i.e. indicating design).

So, is the marker for 'scientific' now, "Can be refuted, but not by using an opposing theory to do so.' ?

William Dembski proposed his mathematical formulas for a design inference. If they can be mathematically refuted, then his theory is falsified. Many claimed to have done so, yet he has defended the formulas and (last I read), they are still valid. The point being that many/most in the scientific community view them as falsifiable.

 

[MG1968]

some things that an "intelligent" designer should have thought twice about

1. Human bodies are relatively frail and are no match, physically, for apex predators in the animal kingdoms.

2. Humans need clean water. A dog can drink out of a mud puddle that horses have shat in and keep right on going.

3. Our eyes are weak, our noses are weak and our hearing is sub-par.

4. Humans' only advantages are opposable thumbs and sentience. Neither of which count for much if we're freezing, starving or drowning.

So if we are truly the products of "intelligent design", the joke is clearly on us.

 

[Roustabout]

some things that an "intelligent" designer should have thought twice about

1. Human bodies are relatively frail and are no match, physically, for apex predators in the animal kingdoms.

2. Humans need clean water. A dog can drink out of a mud puddle that horses have shat in and keep right on going.

3. Our eyes are weak, our noses are weak and our hearing is sub-par.

4. Humans' only advantages are opposable thumbs and sentience. Neither of which count for much if we're freezing, starving or drowning.

So if we are truly the products of "intelligent design", the joke is clearly on us.

Huh?

 

[MG1968]

Huh?

I used small words so even LG could understand.

Is there something else that confuses you?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Huh?

Interpretation: Things couldn't have been designed because he's the harbinger of how it should have been done. You know... Kind of like my car wasn't designed because I'd rather have more cup-holders.

 

[MercyPercy]

If ID was scientific in any way whatsoever the scientific community wouldn't have a problem with it being taught in schools. It's just the paranoid stricken crazies who think they have this terrible anti-god agenda and their life purpose is to rid all youth of any faith, probably because Satan or something. Lol.

 

[MG1968]

Interpretation: Things couldn't have been designed because he's the harbinger of how it should have been done. You know... Kind of like my car wasn't designed because I'd rather have more cup-holders.

huh?

 

[Orange_Crush]

huh?

I used small words so even LG could understand.

Is there something else that confuses you?

 

[MG1968]

I used small words so even LG could understand.

Is there something else that confuses you?

I never held myself up as any great example of human evolution. I merely pointed out some of what I think are design flaws.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I never held myself up as any great example of human evolution. I merely pointed out some of what I think are design flaws.

I pointed out a few of flaws in your thinking:

To judge a design, you must first understand the designer's intent, as well as the combinations of constraints that he/she was designing against.

Quality of design does not negate design. Even the yugo was designed.

To judge a design, one must understand the intricacies of the systems involved.

Edit: Oh, and an understanding of the environment that the design was designed for. /Edit

Your post was little more than an under-informed, illogical, hack job.

 

[rjd970]

I just don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. Sorry. Perhaps you can be more clear. ID says that design can be shown in biological systems. If one shows that (for instance) irreducibly complex systems are not irreducibly complex, then it is refuted. Simple.

Darwin knew this. He said that the easiest refutation to his theory would be to show irreducibly complex systems (i.e. indicating design).

So, is the marker for 'scientific' now, "Can be refuted, but not by using an opposing theory to do so.' ?

William Dembski proposed his mathematical formulas for a design inference. If they can be mathematically refuted, then his theory is falsified. Many claimed to have done so, yet he has defended the formulas and (last I read), they are still valid. The point being that many/most in the scientific community view them as falsifiable.

So your answer is no, without a competing natural theory, ID is not falsifiable?

Your going to have to explain what mathematically refuted means. Seriously man, the math is correct or it isn't. The assumptions going into the calculations is one thing, but the math is either right or it isn't.

Straight up, show the universe isn't expanding and Big Bang is falsified. Show genes advantageous to reproducibility aren't passed to offspring and evolution is falsified. These are very specific things that are observable and would falsify these theories.

If the only thing ID has to stand on is "evolution seemingly can't explain this" then it doesn't belong in a science course, at least not along side evolution. Pick me out one tenet of ID that is falsifiable on its own. You can't, and I'm going to continue to watch you and roust tap dance around this with chargers of fallacies, wording, and other philosophical nonsense.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So your answer is no, without a competing natural theory, ID is not falsifiable?

Your going to have to explain what mathematically refuted means. Seriously man, the math is correct or it isn't. The assumptions going into the calculations is one thing, but the math is either right or it isn't.

Straight up, show the universe isn't expanding and Big Bang is falsified. Show genes advantageous to reproducibility aren't passed to offspring and evolution is falsified. These are very specific things that are observable and would falsify these theories.

If the only thing ID has to stand on is "evolution seemingly can't explain this" then it doesn't belong in a science course, at least not along side evolution. Pick me out one tenet of ID that is falsifiable on its own. You can't, and I'm going to continue to watch you and roust tap dance around this with chargers of fallacies, wording, and other philosophical nonsense.

OK.

 

[rjd970]

I pointed out a few of flaws in your thinking:

To judge a design, you must first understand the designer's intent, as well as the combinations of constraints that he/she was designing against.

Quality of design does not negate design. Even the yugo was designed.

To judge a design, one must understand the intricacies of the systems involved.

Edit: Oh, and an understanding of the environment that the design was designed for. /Edit

Your post was little more than an under-informed, illogical, hack job.

What an incredible cop out. Flaws in design can be explained because we don't understand the intent? And this is supposed to be serious science?

 

[Orange_Crush]

What an incredible cop out. Flaws in design can be explained because we don't understand the intent? And this is supposed to be serious science?

"It wasn't designed because I don't like the design..." is science? Since the ID does not seek to say who or what the designer is, I'm not sure how you could consider my response an "ID scientific" response. It was my personal response showing how illogical the poster was being.

"Poor" design proved no design? Is that logical?


How can you call something a flaw when you don't know the intent? You are blind to your own inferences.

 

[Septic]

If ID was scientific in any way whatsoever the scientific community wouldn't have a problem with it being taught in schools. It's just the paranoid stricken crazies who think they have this terrible anti-god agenda and their life purpose is to rid all youth of any faith, probably because Satan or something. Lol.

I could be wrong, but I think the fundy's are concerned that dissent from faith and christianity will leave them marginalized. Much like christians have marginalized so many for so long here in the U.S.

Having the chickens come home to roost should be a very scary proposition for them. So they fervently attack in the schools, using governing platforms squash dissent and promote 'christian ideals' - which are rarely practiced but emphatically preached.

The notion that atheists are bad, morally reprehensible and can't be trusted is ingrained at a young age by all religion. The thought of burning in hell for eternity is enough to scare a six year old into doing anything their impressionable minds see as an escape.

Its funny to watch the christians among us disingenuously dance around the idea that any ID that would be taught would not be at its core the christian version of creationism.

Derp.