Trek
Registered Senior Member
He doesn’t have a comprehension problem, he is a skeptic. He has stated what he is skeptical about. So I will ask for the third time
What would you say to that scientist to make him understand how wrong he is?
Intelligent design redux
- Thread starter Pinball1970
- Start date
What would you say to that scientist to make him understand how wrong he is?
Trek
Registered Senior Member
What is your point?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:
To quote that site:Why Is Darwinian Evolution Controversial? – Dissent from Darwin
dissentfromdarwin.org
" 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”:
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.
- 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.
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.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Do not take that tone with me.
Posters have asked you multiple questions and you have just ignored them so don't do that.
It is not my job to convince a "skeptic" as you put it regarding main stream verified science.
If there is a specific part of the Theory a person does not accept then I can present evidence.
"I am skeptical" is not an argument it is a position.
"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends, I have developed a strategy for doing this... We call our strategy the 'wedge' ".
Naturalism, of course, refers to a real world based approach to science. Science was originally called "natural philosophy" in the days of Aristotle (300BC or so) and was called that until the 1800's, to distinguish it from all the theology-based philosophical systems of the time.
Not at all. Someone who studies political science, for example, is a scientist. It does not mean they know anything about biology, though - and if they decide that creationism is real I would give their opinions no more validity than, say, a priest studying the subject in a seminary.
And to answer the second question, if someone who studies political science does not accept evolution, it doesn't mean he's not a scientist. It just means that his field of study does not equip him to have any specific understanding of biology. If he DOES claim that his background as a scientist qualifies him to bloviate about evolution, then he is being dishonest about his status.
We see the same thing in "petitions" that disagree with climate change all the time. When you look into the "climate scientists" who have signed such documents you find economists, political scientists, petroleum engineers, physical therapists etc. They are trying to use their title/job description to confer authority to their opinions where no such authority exists.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
This is completely wrong. The ERV content in our genome is about 5%. There is nothing intelligent about it, some ERVs just sit there, some make copies and others are implied in some cancers.
They do demonstrate common ancestry however.
Yep.
I found it hilarious that Trek here was baffled by the concept of "microerosion" vs "macroerosion" given that he has based so much of his argument on the difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution."
Trek
Registered Senior Member
Still not seeing where ID wants to sneak Creationism as science to teach school kids. Remember that’s the claim. Please show.
Naturalism : the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes,
Anyway go on…
And now it is making a resurgence with ID, because knowledge cannot be obtained fully without the inclusion of metaphysics.
Trek
Registered Senior Member
Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it, otherwise you come across as weak and pathetic
And yet no one has answered one question during the entire thread. You are the worst. One question 5 back to back responses, all nonsense.
The Wedge report says nothing about teaching creationism as science, yet you act as though it does.
That wasn’t the point, and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.
No you can’t.
You can barely answer simple questions like the one I have been asking for multiple times.
You only think you can because you are dogmatic.
Stop wasting time, nobody said it was. Plus his skepticism is not an argument.
Trek
Registered Senior Member
Are you a biologist?
Trek
Registered Senior Member
Who mentioned “political science”?
So a biologist who is skeptics of (neo) Darwinism. Is he a real scientist?
Trek
Registered Senior Member
So all he has to do is study the ERV content a d is skepticism will cease to exist?
The author:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools. . . . So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. "
And since you will purposely misunderstand this as well - "academy" means "school."
No, but my wife is. We talk about it quite a bit.
I did. It's a rhetorical device called an "analogy." You can Google it if you like. If not, just accept that you won't understand.
Exactly. Science, in other words. The opposite is religion - the belief that everything arises from supernatural causes.
Trek
Registered Senior Member
All I could find on this quote, is this quote. Do you have the whole dialogue, or the radio show it was quote mined from?
Here is a more accurate description of the goal of the ID movement. No Trojan horse in sight. Maybe a battering ram or six…
Most school districts today teach only a one-sided version of evolution which presents only the facts which supposedly support the theory…
…But most pro-ID organizations think evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned.
One thing I will say, there is no mention of science classes, or creationism. This is why the context of the discussion is needed to validate the paranoia
So you’re not a biologist.
Claiming my mate or my wife is doesn’t count.
There was no need.
We could have just carried on with “scientists”.
The problem is, naturalism can only go so far.
Theism incorporates naturalism. It is due to theism we have the discipline of science.
Do you agree?
Sure. It came from American Family Radio, specifically the 10 January 2003 show.
So you now accept that the Discovery Institute was trying to teach creationism in school by using intelligent design as a "wedge?" Excellent! Progress! And now you're trying to change the subject. Fair enough.
Should we extend that to everything? Should we teach students that some say the Earth is round, but others say the Earth is flat? Should we teach students that some people believe birds are real, but others believe they are government drones?
Or is it only biology that meets that criteria, so that people like Philip Johnson can use that to inject God into schools?
I was. Sorry you didn't understand.
Neither are you. But clearly a lot of the biology we've discussed has come as a surprise to you, so perhaps more study is in order.
Naturalism describes everything in nature, so as long as you stick to science, naturalism is all you need.
If you want to teach a comparative religion class, OTOH, you don't need to involve naturalism.
And I have no problem teaching religion in a religion course. Just keep it out of science courses - even if, like Johnson, you want to "split the foundations of naturalism."
Phillip E. Johnson - Wikiquote
Trek
Registered Senior Member
Why isn’t the show available?
Why is there only that tiny excerpt quote?
It smack of Darwinian evolutionist propaganda to me.
Discovery Institute has nothing to do with Creationism. Creationists don’t even like ID movement. That’s just dogmatic paranoia and desperation for fear of becoming insignificant coming from your side
I could care less.
We’re discussing Darwinism
None of the above.
It’s just terribly outdated, stuffy, dogmatic and non dynamic. That’s why it is dying, enthusiasm like yours and Pinballs just comes across as all that and arrogant.
I understand your mentality very well.
Political science is the scientific study of politics.
Not really.
Nothing has changed in the last 20 years with regards arguments, and attitudes. It sometimes comes across a defence of a religious viewpoint than a scientific or, a philosophical argument.
Naturalism is based on assumptions, and assumptions are based on mid and intelligence.
There is a natural top down understanding of nature. That top Down is part of science too, but not through studying matter (bottom up).
Religion doesn’t have to come into it.
Discover Institute fellows don’t have to invoke religion. That is done by the by the people who understand the real science if they do choose.
That is what you folks are scared of. Becoming insignificant because of a dogmatic belief of (neo( Darwinism.
Neither do I.
You’ve yet to show where ID movement want to teach creationism as science in schools.
You need it to be specific of hat particular method. Not putting one an one together to make seven and a half
I prefer quotes where we can get the whole transcript so I can get the context. Am not into propogangaPhillip E. Johnson - Wikiquote
en.wikiquote.org
Because radio shows are . . . radio shows. They start and then they end. I am sure someone recorded it. You should track that down!
So to summarize:
You: There's no such thing as the wedge document!
Me: (quotes the wedge document)
You: It doesn't insist on replacing science!
Me: (shows the quotes where they replace 'naturalism' with God)
You: They never said it was going to go into the SCHOOLS!
Me: (shows the quotes about getting into schools and academies)
You: But that's just a radio show! It's just propaganda!
(then a few sentences later)
You: No one has shown how the ID movement wants to teach creationism as science in schools!
You're losing this one rather badly; perhaps quite while you're ahead. You are looking like either a fool or a troll.
Then by all means provide those transcripts! I'm not going to do all your work for you.
Creationism is the idea that God created everything. ID is an attempt to get God into schools through the "back door" of Intelligent Design, by dressing it up as naturalist/materialist science.
Perhaps you feel they don't have to. But they, in fact, do. That's what the wedge document describes - how they get God into schools through the Intelligent Design argument. Using it as a "wedge" in fact. Hence its name.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What's "dying" is the ID movement, now that its founder, the lawyer Philip E Johnson, is dead. Amazing you can claim, with a straight face, that the Disco 'Tute, which Johnson founded, is nothing to do with creationism, when Johnson himself admitted his objective was to get God into science (cf.post 152 and billvon's Johnson quotes ).Discovery Institute has nothing to do with Creationism. Creationists don’t even like ID movement. That’s just dogmatic paranoia and desperation for fear of becoming insignificant coming from your side
None of the above.
It’s just terribly outdated, stuffy, dogmatic and non dynamic. That’s why it is dying, enthusiasm like yours and Pinballs just comes across as all that and arrogant.
Religion doesn’t have to come into it.
Discover Institute fellows don’t have to invoke religion. That is done by the by the people who understand the real science if they do choose.
You’ve yet to show where ID movement want to teach creationism as science in schools.
I see you, as a faithful disciple, are hanging onto the "teach the controversy" game plan, adopted after the Dover School trial blew up the previous strategy. There is no controversy in science over whether natural evolution took place. Such controversies as there are, and we have reviewed some of them on this thread, concern only how the various natural mechanisms achieve it. The "controversy" the diminishing band of ID people talk about is a political one, (Disco 'Tute to the fore), to try to fool American legislators into allowing this ID nonsense to be taught as if it is science.
Trek
Registered Senior Member
I would have thought so, but why would that person, or peoples only extract that tiny snippet?
Like I said earlier, it smacks of propaganda to me.
Which isn’t in anyway surprising to me.
Wow! I can feel the desperation in your mismanagement of the truth
I’m right. It wants to challenge the oppressive darkness of materialism. A spiritually, and mentally debilitating philosophy that eventually leads you nowhere.
Another tall tale.
Naturalism is a part of the the tree of knowledge (metaphors), not the whole of it. The problem with purely naturalist thinking, that it leads to materialism, which is an oppressive philosophy by itself.
Schools is one thing. But that wasn’t the claim. The claim was that they are using ID as a Trojan horse to trick the students into learning creationism as science.
Let’s assume for a moment the paranoia is real. We both agree that teaching religion in school is ok. Right?
What you need to produce is evidence of using ID as a Trojan horse (as above). That is the claim, and the whole point of the Dover Trials.
For the 13th time, where is the evidence of that.
Not so much the “radio show”.
But why is it only that snippet (quote) that can be found. For all we know it could have been tweaked as we have no way of knowing.
But I have a quote which can be verified and put into context, from Philip E Johnson that directly contradicts the idea the Darwinists want to portray by utilising that mysterious quote
“We're not trying to prove the character of God through science. That's a bad idea. What I'm trying to do is clear away the misunderstandings, the debris that prevent people from accepting that God who wants to accept them.”
But I’m willing to bet you’re not going to use that as evidence that your paranoid, desperate use of that phrase is totally wrong at worst, and definitely misleading. Because it doesn’t suit your agenda.
You think that mysterious quote explains the “Trojan horse” manoever? Then you are more deluded than I thought.
It is hardly surprising that you don’t want to know the truth. That is one of the principles of dogmatic thinking.
Again you boldly make this claim despite being shown that it is not correct, there is nothing other than paranoia and desperation for fear of becoming insignificant, and a quote which directly contradicts the mystery quote. This type of mindset is a predominant characteristic of a lot of Darwinists, if not all.
No they don’t.
Because they don’t have to.
One only needs to see the cities, the machinery, the information that occurs in the cell to come to the conclusion of God. That is what scares you. You would prefer it if they did come out and say “God did it”. But because they don’t, you infer it.
To overthrow the darkness of materialism of which Darwinism is a big anchor.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This shows the decline in interest in ID since the high point in the early 2000s:
Figure 7 – Google search interest for the phrase 'intelligent design.' Peak searches were in 2005, with a few short bursts in 07-08, and only 1-3% interest compared to peak levels since 2014. Image taken from Google Trends, January 12, 2021.
From a PhD thesis at Duke University: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/serv.../3f33fb7f-c658-433c-8574-98b1a09af7a3/content
ID is on its way out.
Figure 7 – Google search interest for the phrase 'intelligent design.' Peak searches were in 2005, with a few short bursts in 07-08, and only 1-3% interest compared to peak levels since 2014. Image taken from Google Trends, January 12, 2021.
From a PhD thesis at Duke University: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/serv.../3f33fb7f-c658-433c-8574-98b1a09af7a3/content
ID is on its way out.