Ben Stein shows he's no Michael Moore

[manifold]

Maybe Stein is just incomparably larger of a twat.

Or a Jew.

 

[jillian]

Or a Jew.

Your point?

 

[Diuretic]

There is no point in arguing about whether the scientists who proposed design relied on scientific methods, accepted scientific principles and provided scientific rationale, etc. or not. I've read many of the papers these scientists have written -and YOU clearly have not. Some of them -like the quantum physicist who claims that after working through a decade of formulas, proved the existence of a cosmic singularity -are beyond my level of comprehension and probably yours. But he provided all his work -and only another quantum physicist can prove his work is wrong. And NONE of them used, included or relied upon anything remotely religious in their work. They simply relied on the science to reach a conclusion that OTHER people find quite compatible with their religious beliefs.

I completely agree -theology and religious doctrine have no place in a science class. But that doesn't mean some science MUST be rejected out of hand if someone else found a particular theory to fit in well with their own personal religious beliefs -even though that scientific work did not arise from or was based on religious doctrine. That isn't the same thing.

Do you really mean to suggest that science is NOT allowed to reach certain scientific conclusions if those conclusions happen to coincide with some religious doctrine somewhere even though they did not arise from that religious doctrine? Because that is no less stupid than insisting all science must ONLY reach conclusions that always agree with a particular religious doctrine. Whether or not some religion finds a particular scientific theory more in line with their religious doctrine, or whether the nonreligious dislike a particular theory because it doesn't fit in nicely with their atheist beliefs -just is not how the validity of science is determined.

You don’t know what I’ve read or not read unless you’re a mindreader. But that’s not relevant in any case. I don’t particularly care what you’ve read or not read, that’s irrelevant too. What is relevant is whether or not the scientific method has been used by the proponents of ID whom you have referenced.

Your second point about theology and religious doctrine. As I understand it a scientific theory is usually accepted after certain conditions have been met. The beliefs of the individual proposing the theory, whether those beliefs be religious or any other form, aren’t relevant to the theory being put forward for examination.

“Do you really mean to suggest that science is NOT allowed to reach certain scientific conclusions if those conclusions happen to coincide with some religious doctrine somewhere even though they did not arise from that religious doctrine?”

No and I’m surprised you’d even have to ask the question because I thought I was perfectly clear on what I was saying.

The Catholic Church dealt with that in Vatican II. It accepted the the theory of evolution wasn't incompatible with the theology of the Catholic Church. And in so doing Blessed John XXIII brought back into the Church the late Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (sadly posthumously).

But in the meantime the world outside of the Catholic Church, particularly the worldwide scientific community got on with its research and solidly accepted prevailing theory.

Let me reiterate my position:

Religion shouldn't affect science and religion shouldn't pretend to be science.

 

[frazzledgear]

Some of that stuff that you think that I said... I didn't say. Who cares? Accuracy is a bitch. Otherwise...

Cool. By your own admission, both Darwin and the rest of the scientific community have not been resting on Darwin's laurels. Ain't progress grand? I guess you have nothing to bitch about.

You must have missed it, but I've been arguing all along for the need for MORE scientific research, the production of MORE theories, the testing of MORE theories. Not less. Only evolutionists who insist it is proven "fact" are insisting we stop looking for the answers. And they do because they are politically invested in evolution. Those who are politically invested in a scientific theory don't care AT ALL about scientific accuracy. What they FEAR is that further research might show their pet theory is all wrong. But the ONLY way scientific theories are proven to be true -is by trying to prove they are false. They don't want scientists trying to prove it wrong -in case it IS proven wrong. The politically invested believe that if their pet theory is later proven to be wrong, THEY stand to personally lose something -whether their loss is political power, financially, leverage or authority -or just lose face and that feeling of "superiority" they tied to that theory.

You can always spot those who have politically invested themselves in a scientific theory. They are always the first ones to insist that scientific truth is actually determined by a popularity vote -and demand that the work of any scientist who challenges their pet theory be ignored. And then when it is ignored, they insist THAT somehow "proves" that scientist's work is all wrong. Which is exactly what happened to Aristarchus, a Greek who first theorized that the earth revolved around the sun and put all the planets in the correct order from the sun. But ALL other scientists said that the sun and planets revolved around earth. All other scientists just "knew" this to be true. So his work was ignored -for more than 1,500 years. Turns out that every scientist BUT Aristarchus wrong -and they were ALL wrong for more than 1,500 years. So scientific consensus and a popularity vote can NEVER determine scientific truth.

Sounds like the very same tactics used by the politically invested with regard to yet another scientific theory, doesn't it? But the fact remains true -the only way to prove a scientific theory to be correct is by trying to prove it false. Therefore demands that scientists NOT try to prove a pet theory wrong, and NOT challenge that theory with one of their own, is behavior that is detrimental to human knowledge and a disservice to scientific discovery.

 

[Shogun]

but beautiful thing about SCIENCE is that were creationists to put forth something beyond an obvious attempt to wrap evidence around their dogma they would have the voice that they are crying that they dont have now.

anyway, maybe next time.

 

[manifold]

Your point?

Was it really that thickly veiled???

How about the ID nutjobs aren't real crazy about Jews either.

 

[jillian]

Was it really that thickly veiled???

How about the ID nutjobs aren't real crazy about Jews either.

I didn't know what you meant. That's why I asked.

And ID nutjobs love us when we're fighting the anti-Christ.

 

[manifold]

I didn't know what you meant. That's why I asked.

And ID nutjobs love us when we're fighting the anti-Christ.

Really???

I thought they loved Dick Cheney.

 

[jillian]

Really???

I thought they loved Dick Cheney.

heh... they do! ;o)

 

[Shogun]

I didn't know what you meant. That's why I asked.

And ID nutjobs love us when we're fighting the anti-Christ.

After you kill the antichrist and hand evangelicals to keys to heaven I bet you can't wait to get your "perfected" on, eh?


christians..

 

[frazzledgear]

You don’t know what I’ve read or not read unless you’re a mindreader. But that’s not relevant in any case. I don’t particularly care what you’ve read or not read, that’s irrelevant too. What is relevant is whether or not the scientific method has been used by the proponents of ID whom you have referenced.

Your second point about theology and religious doctrine. As I understand it a scientific theory is usually accepted after certain conditions have been met. The beliefs of the individual proposing the theory, whether those beliefs be religious or any other form, aren’t relevant to the theory being put forward for examination.

“Do you really mean to suggest that science is NOT allowed to reach certain scientific conclusions if those conclusions happen to coincide with some religious doctrine somewhere even though they did not arise from that religious doctrine?”

No and I’m surprised you’d even have to ask the question because I thought I was perfectly clear on what I was saying.

The Catholic Church dealt with that in Vatican II. It accepted the the theory of evolution wasn't incompatible with the theology of the Catholic Church. And in so doing Blessed John XXIII brought back into the Church the late Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (sadly posthumously).

But in the meantime the world outside of the Catholic Church, particularly the worldwide scientific community got on with its research and solidly accepted prevailing theory.

Let me reiterate my position:

Religion shouldn't affect science and religion shouldn't pretend to be science.

Sheesh, you are missing my point. I couldn't care less if the Catholic Church likes the theory of evolution or not -or any other religion. The opinion of the Catholic Church is entirely irrelevant to anything I was saying or in determining scientific facts and scientific discovery. My question is -do we automatically throw OUT scientific work because it HAPPENS to agree with some religious doctrine? For some people, that answer is clearly YES -and they want to do it without bothering to see if that scientific work even has ANY validity or not. The mere fact it HAPPENS to agree with some religious doctrine is enough for them to demand it be ignored and tossed out. That is no less stupid to me than throwing out scientific work because it happens to contradict some religious doctrine. Science is what it is -and the religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs of OTHER individuals who personally just don't happen to like the scientific conclusions reached based on scientific work -is irrelevant.

I also responded specifically to a question about whether scientists who have proposed ID as the most scientifically accurate answer for a particular question in their field of science relied on accepted scientific principles and methods or not. I said based on the papers I have seen -the answer is yes. I haven't seen a single one that had anything in it referring to anything religious, that was based or relied on anything religious or from some religious doctrine or trying to make it fit some religious doctrine. They all involved scientific work relying on scientific principles and scientific reasoning. Their PERSONAL religious beliefs are irrelevant as long as their work is based on sound scientific principles, work and reasoning and NOT on some religious doctrine. But you are wrong assuming every scientist who has proposed the theory is religious -several are agnostics. Their work simply left them with no other scientific conclusion after excluding random chance, (and when appropriate for the particular question) and a natural event or causation. That just doesn't leave them a lot of wiggle room for naming what has been shown to be the most likely scientifically accurate answer then. Does "The Theory of Not Random After All" really cover that in such instances?

A good example I read is coming up with a scientific explanation or theory for the appearance of both the Rocky Mountains and Mount Rushmore. They have a lot of characteristics in common, share many of the same traits, but there are also some stark differences. Following NOTHING but scientific knowledge, reasoning and scientific principles, it would be scientifically sound to propose a theory of a natural process for the appearance of the Rocky Mountains. But is that also true of Mount Rushmore? Or does sound scientific knowledge, reasoning and principles REQUIRE that we rely on those same scientific principles in order to recognize what makes Mount Rushmore different from the Rockies before reaching or rejecting that same conclusion?

If I propose intelligent design to explain those stark differences seen on Mount Rushmore that are not seen in the Rockies, am I being scientifically inaccurate or not? Is it possible that a scientist can recognize the difference between Mount Rushmore and a mountain where the natural action of water, erosion, wind etc. have left it a shape that resembles a human face by pure and meaningless chance? Of course it is -by using sound scientific knowledge, reasoning and principles.

Have I abandoned sound scientific knowledge, reasoning and principle if I propose intelligent design for Mount Rushmore while insisting that the Rockies were due to a natural process -or have I actually followed it even better than a scientist who claims Mount Rushmore is also likely the result of a natural process based on nothing but their shared characteristics with the Rockies?

So the real question is whether scientists can identify and SHOULD identify those characteristics that either point towards or away from a natural process -or is it more scientifically sound somehow to insist that scientists must always reject such conclusions and try to make all possible conclusions ONLY fit with the "PC acceptable conclusions that everything MUST be due to random, meaningless chance at all times" -even if it means they must abandon sound scientific knowledge, reasoning and principle in order to do so? And even when by closely following scientific knowledge, reasoning and principles -it actually rules OUT all natural processes? Is your answer different for Mount Rushmore than every other question or phenomenon seen in science -but ONLY because you already know how Mount Rushmore showed up and my theory of intelligent design doesn't offend your religious or non-religious beliefs? Sorry, but insisting scientists are only allowed to draw PC acceptable conclusions is just not sound science.

The same scientists that have proposed ID for one specific question are the very same ones that agree that for other specific questions, evolution IS the most likely scientifically accurate answer. But are simply insisting that for THIS particular question or phenomenon, by means of sound scientific process, knowledge, reasoning and scientific principles - makes evolution or a natural process among the LEAST likely answers. Did they follow sound scientific principles to reach that conclusion? Only way to know is for someone else to repeat their work. You can't know just because you don't personally like their scientific conclusion.

The theory of intelligent design has only been proposed as the most likely scientifically accurate answer for a handful of highly specific questions or phenomena. It has NOT been offered by ANY scientist as a broad-based total refutation of the entire theory of evolution -not once. Only creationists have done that -but NO scientist has EVER done that. Nearly every scientist that has proposed ID for a particular and specific question in their field -are in full agreement that some aspect of evolution is very likely the most scientifically correct answer to other specific questions in their field. Just not THIS particular question that scientist was looking at.

For example -the quantum physicist I mentioned earlier. He said his work proves the existence of a cosmic singularity -that everything that exists and has occurred in the universe can be traced back to a SINGLE cosmic commonality. His particular work is also lumped under "intelligent design" although he doesn't use that term at any time and refers to his conclusions as pointing towards a "cosmic singularity". But he admits he has PERSONALLY concluded that cosmic singularity is God.

He is either right or he is wrong about whether his work really does point to a cosmic singularity or not. His PERSONAL opinion that this cosmic singularity is God is irrelevant and is not any part of his actual work. And he DID publish his extensive work to back up his conclusions -pages and pages of formulas and equations. So some people don't like his scientific conclusion of a cosmic singularity -does THAT prove he is wrong? So some people don't like his PERSONAL (not scientific) opinion that this cosmic singularity is God -does THAT prove his work is wrong? No, only someone with the education and comprehension of the formulas and equations can go through this guy's work and do that. But because his PERSONAL opinion is that this cosmic singularity is God -even though totally irrelevant to his scientific work - some people have already dismissed his extensive work out of hand. Even though his scientific work and conclusions about a cosmic singularity CAN be scientifically tested.

As for some theory becoming accepted -that is only done by means of testing it for accuracy. The first step is seeing if someone else can reproduce the work and then by others trying to prove it is false. Because the theory of evolution is unlike all other scientific theories, it cannot be tested for accuracy in its entirety. It was not presented in a testable form. Scientific theories attempt to explain a single question or phenomenon. Evolution attempts to answer EVERY possible question regarding the origins of life and EVERY possible question regarding the diversity of life. So it can only be approached by trying to see if it actually answers a specific question -and that is exactly where the theory runs into trouble. Over and over again. While it holds up for some specific questions, it fails in others. And NO, intelligent design has NOT been proposed every time evolution fails to hold for a specific question -just a handful of them.

But remember -the theory was intended and proposed as the explanation for EVERY possible question. So when it holds true for some questions and fails to do so for others, that means that the theory in its entirety, as proposed by Darwin, is not correct. That means that at least THIS theory cannot possibly answer EVERY question with regards to the origins of life or EVERY question with regards to diversity of life. And that means we need MORE research and MORE theories to try and explain those questions where evolution is clearly not the correct explanation.

 

[Diuretic]

ID isn't science. That has been proven in court. ID can't be taught in public schools in the US because it's not science.

If you can show a peer-reviewed independent science journal has published a paper from an IDer seeking to attack the theory of evolution then that will go along way to establishing ID is a science.

In the meantime I'll continue to make the point that ID is not science and I'll make that claim and support it with evidence.

 

[ReillyT]

ID isn't science. That has been proven in court. ID can't be taught in public schools in the US because it's not science.

If you can show a peer-reviewed independent science journal has published a paper from an IDer seeking to attack the theory of evolution then that will go along way to establishing ID is a science.

In the meantime I'll continue to make the point that ID is not science and I'll make that claim and support it with evidence.

Do you actually read all of Fraz's posts? My head starts to drop after sentence number 2.

 

[manifold]

ID isn't science. That has been proven in court. ID can't be taught in public schools in the US because it's not science.

If you can show a peer-reviewed independent science journal has published a paper from an IDer seeking to attack the theory of evolution then that will go along way to establishing ID is a science.

In the meantime I'll continue to make the point that ID is not science and I'll make that claim and support it with evidence.

Haven't you figured out yet that spazzled is nothing more than a propaganda spammer?

I know you're a fair minded guy and all, but I think you've been giving him the benefit of the doubt for long enough now.

 

[Diuretic]

Do you actually read all of Fraz's posts? My head starts to drop after sentence number 2.

I do read every word. But I admit I keep leaving finger stains on the monitor, I read very slooooooowly

 

[manifold]

Do you actually read all of Fraz's posts? My head starts to drop after sentence number 2.

You've got me beat by at least one sentence.

 

[Diuretic]

Haven't you figured out yet that spazzled is nothing more than a propaganda spammer?

I know you're a fair minded guy and all, but I think you've been giving him the benefit of the doubt for long enough now.

It looks a bit like that. But we'll see how we go with the request for an article in a peer-reviewed science journal.

 

[jillian]

Haven't you figured out yet that spazzled is nothing more than a propaganda spammer?

I know you're a fair minded guy and all, but I think you've been giving him the benefit of the doubt for long enough now.

He gives me a headache.

 

[manifold]

It looks a bit like that. But we'll see how we go with the request for an article in a peer-reviewed science journal.

Whatever floats your boat, but I'd advise you not to hold your breath.

 

[frazzledgear]

ID isn't science. That has been proven in court. ID can't be taught in public schools in the US because it's not science.

If you can show a peer-reviewed independent science journal has published a paper from an IDer seeking to attack the theory of evolution then that will go along way to establishing ID is a science.

In the meantime I'll continue to make the point that ID is not science and I'll make that claim and support it with evidence.

You have it wrong. No scientist has offered any work proposing intelligence design with the intention of attacking evolution. Perhaps you missed it, but most of them agree that for several specific questions with regard to diversity of life, evolution IS the most likely answer. What they are saying is that for THIS particular question they are researching, it is NOT the most scientifically accurate answer. That isn't the same thing as a scientist SEEKING to attack evolution especially since nearly every scientist who has ever offered the theory of ID, also believes that evolutionary processes DO take place, it just doesn't account for EVERY question in their field.


That Tulane professor who says he proved a cosmological singularity he believes is God is not the first to suggest his math points towards such a thing. Michael Heller, a 78 yr. old Polish cosmologist who specializes in math and metaphysics, also claimed that his work through quantum mechanics, cosmology, physics and pure mathematics, including his own version of the Heisenberg equation -provided circumstantial evidence of the existence of God. He also published his work and last year he was awarded the world's richest academic prize for his work.

There is a reason why the field of science that has the greatest number of proponents of intelligent design happen to come from some field of math and physics.

As one scientist summed it up: The modern field of quantum mechanics tells us a few things about how the universe works. First, it says that there says there is a basic uncertainty about the universe. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows us that there is a fundamental limit beyond which we cannot know anything about the universe. Furthermore, quantum mechanics shows us that there is a certain indeterminism to the universe. That is, given the state of the universe, there are many possible things that could happen. Things pronounced impossible by classical physics (like say, a spontaneous parting of the red sea) are actually possible, though unlikely, by quantum mechanics.

However, we know from experience that one of these many possibilities actually happens. So, somehow one out of all the possible outcomes is chosen. Quantum mechanics is decidedly silent on how this happens.

So, according to quantum mechanics, there is some force that we can never know anything about, determines what happens for everything in the universe, and can make pretty much anything happen. And it is THIS "force" or "unknown variable" or whatever it is -that so many in the field are trying to find the answer to, never relying on a single field of math -and why there are constantly those scientists in the field who claim that their equations keep pointing towards a force that is not random and meaningless, but one with intent.

If they reach that conclusion BECAUSE of the math and physics -then that IS science.