Intelligent design redux

Trek said:
With all this stuff about “proper scientists” and peer reviewed scientists being the cream of the crop. I’m going on a search to find out what makes a scientist a scientist, or a good scientist. And to see if being peer reviewed makes for a more advanced scientist. So far I have come up with these descriptions…

What makes a scientist a scientist?

Curious. Scientists are curious about their world. They want to know why things happen and how things work.
  • Patient. Scientists are patient as they repeat experiments multiple times to verify results.
  • Courageous. Scientists work to discover answers often times for years and with numerous failures. They recognize that failed experiments provide answers as often as successful ones.
  • Detail-oriented. In science, answers are built upon observations and collected data. Close attention to details is important in the development of science theories. Detailed observations in one experiment could also lead to answers in another.
  • Creative. Contrary to popular opinion, scientists must be creative, able to think outside the box and envision things that cannot be seen.
  • Persistent. Scientists recognize their work may take decades, and that their approach may be wrong and their work could be proven false by future scientists.
  • Communicative. Scientists need good communication skills. They may need to work as part of a team, share information with the public or collaborate with colleagues around the world.
  • Open-minded and free of bias.Scientists need to suspend judgment so they can continue to observe and collect data while searching for the best possible solution. Even though they’re working with a hypothesis in mind, they must remember there are many more hypotheses.
  • Critical thinkers and problem-solvers.Scientists need to analyze information and make critical decisions to solve experimental problems or world problems.
A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.

There are many traits that are important for scientists to have. Some of the most important ones include careful observation, curiosity, logic, creativity, skepticism, and objectivity.
Click to expand...
Do not forget the scientific organizations they belong to and what they have to say on the Theory of Evolution. Consensus is important. This is what the current experts in the field think about a particular theory.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is the world's largest general scientific society.

The AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals.

Has this to say on the TOE

“there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution.
The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."
 
Trek said:
What makes a scientist a scientist?
Click to expand...

You mean like these guys?

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology The ASBMB is a scientific and educational society representing 12,000 biochemists and molecular biologists. ""Intelligent design" is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. ..."intelligent design" might be appropriate to teach in a religion or philosophy class, but the concept has no place in a science classroom and should not be taught there."

All reputable scientific organisations say similar with respect to ID and around 98% of scientists accept the TOE via common descent via natural selection.
 
Trek said:
What makes a scientist a scientist?
Click to expand...
Occasionally one of the reputable organisations will employ one of the 2% like Michael Behe

That University released a statement

Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.[8]
Click to expand...
 
Trek said:
“I discovered a lot of loose ends in Darwin’s theory,” Johnson said. “And I’m the kind of person who, when I see a loose end, I have this irresistible desire to pull on it.” Johnson’s “pulling” led to a paper that eventually became the draft of his first book “Darwin on Trial,” and the movement known as intelligent design was begun…
Click to expand...
That is your scientific citation?

A creationist lawyer with no formal training in biology?
 
Pinball1970 said:
Do not forget the scientific organizations they belong to and what they have to say on the Theory of Evolution. Consensus is important. This is what the current experts in the field think about a particular theory.
Click to expand...
I was talking about what makes a good scientist.
Why bring neo/Darwinism into the pic.
Pinball1970 said:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science is the world's largest general scientific society.

The AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals.

Has this to say on the TOE

“there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution.
The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."
Click to expand...

Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as Over 1000 Scientists From Around the World Declare Their Doubts About Darwinism​


“As a biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information,” said Dr. Marcos Eberlin, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences in Brazil.”

Now if 10 scientists (who are good scientists) doubt Darwinism, it should be cause for concern, let alone over 1000.

From the link I posted it has been suggested that some scientist fear coming out as a dissenter so they remain silent.

You have to be a dogmatist to to still think that neo Darwinism is not in doubt.
 
Last edited:
Trek said:
I was talking about what makes a good scientist.
Why bring neo/Darwinism into the pic.


Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as Over 1000 Scientists From Around the World Declare Their Doubts About Darwinism​


Now if 10 scientists (who are good scientists) doubt Darwinism, it should be cause for concern, let alone over 1000.

From the link I posted it has been suggested that some scientist fear coming out as a dissenter so they remain silent.

You have to be a dogmatist to to still think that neo Darwinism is not in doubt.
Click to expand...

What is that as a %?

That's why we have consensus and that is also why those scientists are free to express their view just like Behe, they can and join ICR or DI and publish what they want where they want.

They have 1000 opportunities to overturn Darwin and collect the Nobel. over 100 years it has not happened.
 
Pinball1970 said:
What is that as a %?

That's why we have consensus and that is also why those scientists are free to express their view just like Behe, they can and join ICR or DI and publish what they want where they want.

They have 1000 opportunities to overturn Darwin and collect the Nobel. over 100 years it has not happened.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter about %, that is merely an appeal to popularity.

“As a biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information,” said Dr. Marcos Eberlin, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences in Brazil.”

These are some the concerns that seem to instill doubt in scientists.
 
Please do not troll. It is implausible that the meaning of TOE was not clear to you from the context.
Pinball1970 said:
I refer to TOE, it has changed since 1859. We keep pointing this out but you keep ignoring it.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep referring to “The Theory of Everything (ToE)?
If you are mistakenly referring to “The Theory of Evolution”, then that is Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism…

“This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor ,and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a 'Single origin o f life on earth. “
 
Trek said:
biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information,” said Dr. Marcos Eberlin
Click to expand...
Great, so what has he refuted?
 
Trek said:
Why do you keep referring to “The Theory of Everything (ToE)?
If you are mistakenly referring to “The Theory of Evolution”, then that is Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism…

“This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor ,and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a 'Single origin o f life on earth. “
Click to expand...
Just an abbreviation, I'm on a tablet
 
Pinball1970 said:
That is your scientific citation?

A creationist lawyer with no formal training in biology?
Click to expand...
It’s not a citation.
It shows that you people conspiracy theory that the big bad ID movement is nothing but a Trojan horse to teach lil kiddies creationism as science :D
 
Trek said:
I think biology refutes Darwinism, and that scientists quote kind of explains why.
What would you say to that scientist to make him understand how wrong he is?
Click to expand...
Origin was published 165 years ago, and it was accepted by the scientific community at the time within 15 years, this is just a fact.
All the EVIDENCE (key word here) since in terms of studies down the decades confirmed common descent and Evolution via natural selection.
165 years of it.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Origin was published 165 years ago, and it was accepted by the scientific community at the time within 15 years, this is just a fact.
All the EVIDENCE (key word here) since in terms of studies down the decades confirmed common descent and Evolution via natural selection.
165 years of it.
Click to expand...
Soooo…. What would you say to that scientist to make him understand how wrong he is?
 
Trek said:
I was talking about what makes a good scientist.
Why bring neo/Darwinism into the pic.


Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as Over 1000 Scientists From Around the World Declare Their Doubts About Darwinism​


“As a biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information,” said Dr. Marcos Eberlin, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences in Brazil.”

Now if 10 scientists (who are good scientists) doubt Darwinism, it should be cause for concern, let alone over 1000.

From the link I posted it has been suggested that some scientist fear coming out as a dissenter so they remain silent.

You have to be a dogmatist to to still think that neo Darwinism is not in doubt.
Click to expand...
Those scientist don't like the ordinary natural selection process it seems, and would like to use the word "guided."
See my bold below:
That heading above comes from an article reporting on the signing of a statement by scientist.
Here is the site of the statment itself:

Why Is Darwinian Evolution Controversial? – Dissent from Darwin

dissentfromdarwin.org dissentfromdarwin.org
To quote that site:

" What Is “Evolution?
Whenever talking about challenges to “evolution,” it’s vital to carefully define terms, otherwise confusion can result. There are three common usages of the term “evolution”:

  • Evolution #1 — Microevolution: Small-scale changes in a population of organisms.
  • Evolution #2 — Universal Common Descent: The idea that all organisms are related and are descended from a single common ancestor.
  • Evolution #3 — Darwinian Evolution: The view that an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation has been the primary mechanism driving the evolution of life.
No one doubts Evolution #1, which is sometimes called “microevolution.” Some scientists doubt Evolution #2. But the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list only concerns Evolution #3, also called Darwinian evolution or Darwinism.

The scientists who have signed the dissent statement say this:


We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

We defined Evolution #1 by equating it with “microevolution”—small-scale changes in a population of organisms. Collectively, Evolution #2 and #3 might be termed macroevolution, which is defined as follows:


Macroevolution: Large-scale changes in populations of organisms, including the evolution of fundamentally new biological features. Typically this term also means that all life forms descended from a single common ancestor through unguided natural processes.

Unfortunately, evolutionists sometimes purposefully confuse these definitions, hoping you won’t notice that they have overstated their case. They will take evidence for microevolution (Evolution #1), and then over-extrapolate the evidence and claim it supports macroevolution (Evolution #2 or Evolution #3). Indeed, sometimes evolution advocates will equate microevolution and macroevolution, the idea being that macroevolution is just repeated rounds of microevolution added up. (Such inaccurate claims are addressed at The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution.)"
I like the use of the words "Unfortunately, evolutionists sometimes purposefully confuse these definitions"


My bold above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top