Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[archangel]

This is all nonsense and douchebaggery. You do not understand that a theory in science is different than just some theory that you make up. If you've got a theory you're doing really well. It's not the same as a hypothesis.

"Theory without fact is hypothesis-fact without theory is chaos"

A hypothesis is nothing more than a educated guess thus equals theory!

To say ones theory is greater than anothers is just pure arrogance!

Theory on any level is just that a theory...means very little until proven!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

"Theory without fact is hypothesis-fact without theory is chaos"

A hypothesis is nothing more than a educated guess thus equals theory!

To say ones theory is greater than anothers is just pure arrogance!

Theory on any level is just that a theory...means very little until proven!

Technically, theory and hypothesis are not the same thing. Scientificaly speaking, of course.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

"Theory without fact is hypothesis-fact without theory is chaos"

A hypothesis is nothing more than a educated guess thus equals theory!

To say ones theory is greater than anothers is just pure arrogance!

Theory on any level is just that a theory...means very little until proven!

And I believe the actual quote is:

"Theory without fact is fantasy, fact without theory is chaos" yes?

 

[archangel]

And I believe the actual quote is:

"Theory without fact is fantasy, fact without theory is chaos" yes?

Depends on who you quote I suppose...in my case I quoted a Medical research doctor at a cancer research facility...whom I submitted a theory on cancer cell formation in my first year of college...he was kind enough to reply to my theory with this quote.... :huh:

 

[5stringJeff]

There's a huge fallacy in this thread that has not been addressed.

People keep saying "ID isn't science (or is not scientifically provable); therefore, ID isn't true." This is scientism at its best - the belief that "science alone can render truth about the world and reality." And the more I see certain posters repeat "ID isn't science, ID isn't science," the more dogmatic in their scientism they become, IMO.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

There's a huge fallacy in this thread that has not been addressed.

People keep saying "ID isn't science (or is not scientifically provable); therefore, ID isn't true." This is scientism at its best - the belief that "science alone can render truth about the world and reality." And the more I see certain posters repeat "ID isn't science, ID isn't science," the more dogmatic in their scientism they become, IMO.

Intelligent Design is scientific then? Or the dismissal of it is not scientific?

 

[no1tovote4]

Intelligent Design is scientific then? Or the dismissal of it is not scientific?

The belief that science is the only answer that can provide truth is what is dogmatic about floccinaucinihilipilificating ID.

It is basically stating, "It isn't science and it is therefore worthless!" Just because it does not follow scientific process does not necessarily mean that it is worthless, illogical, or even necessarily based on irrational ideas.

 

[5stringJeff]

Intelligent Design is scientific then? Or the dismissal of it is not scientific?

ID uses philosophical and logical arguments about scientific facts to prove its point. The error of scientism is the claim that science (or the scientific method) is the only valid way to ascertain truth, ignoring other means (like logic and philosophy).

 

[The ClayTaurus]

ID uses philosophical and logical arguments about scientific facts to prove its point. The error of scientism is the claim that science (or the scientific method) is the only valid way to ascertain truth, ignoring other means (like logic and philosophy).

Ah.

So it's not the "ID isn't science" part, it's the "therefore it isn't true" part.

 

[Hobbit]

Ah.

So it's not the "ID isn't science" part, it's the "therefore it isn't true" part.

Mostly. ID does have scientific principles, but most evolution/spontaneous creation advocates will not accept it as anything other than religious fanaticism because part of scientism is that everything must be assumed to be non-existant if its existance has not been supported by scientific evidence. People who strongly believe scientism do not believe in concepts such as souls, an afterlife, ghosts, or any other spiritual force because of this, and most go to the lengths to say that all of these things are childish and stupid.

Evolution/spontaneous creation do not require the existence of any material thing that has not been observed (though it requires processes that have not been observed). ID, however, requires the existance of an entity or entities which have not yet been documented. Whether these entities are spiritual or not seems to be irrelivant to many. The fact that we haven't 'seen' them yet is enough to prove their non-existance, whether you think it's God or aliens.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Mostly. ID does have scientific principles, but most evolution/spontaneous creation advocates will not accept it as anything other than religious fanaticism because part of scientism is that everything must be assumed to be non-existant if its existance has not been supported by scientific evidence. People who strongly believe scientism do not believe in concepts such as souls, an afterlife, ghosts, or any other spiritual force because of this, and most go to the lengths to say that all of these things are childish and stupid.

Evolution/spontaneous creation do not require the existence of any material thing that has not been observed (though it requires processes that have not been observed). ID, however, requires the existance of an entity or entities which have not yet been documented. Whether these entities are spiritual or not seems to be irrelivant to many. The fact that we haven't 'seen' them yet is enough to prove their non-existance, whether you think it's God or aliens.

By definition, though, the supernatural has no role in science. It would fall under another category, right?

 

[5stringJeff]

By definition, though, the supernatural has no role in science. It would fall under another category, right?

In a sense, yes, because the science deals only with the natural world, and the supernatural is outside of the natural, by definition.

But, if the Intelligent Desginer created the laws of science, then would a study of science really be complete without mentioning Him?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

In a sense, yes, because the science deals only with the natural world, and the supernatural is outside of the natural, by definition.

But, if the Intelligent Desginer created the laws of science, then would a study of science really be complete without mentioning Him?

You could extrapolate that to all subjects then. Science. Philosophy. Math. If you thought God created everything, then why not say 2+2=4 because God created it that way. Multiplication is God's way of improving our mathematical efficiency.

There is a line where you begin to stray from the topic and just always end up with a discussion on God. If you believe that God created mathematics, fine, but math class should be about math, and some other class should be about that God created math. No? You can preface any class by saying "there is a possibility that this subject was the creation of an intelligent designer" but what service does that do for your understanding of that subject? You begin to understand less about mathematics and more that God created mathematics.

 

[Powerman]

You could extrapolate that to all subjects then. Science. Philosophy. Math. If you thought God created everything, then why not say 2+2=4 because God created it that way. Multiplication is God's way of improving our mathematical efficiency.

There is a line where you begin to stray from the topic and just always end up with a discussion on God. If you believe that God created mathematics, fine, but math class should be about math, and some other class should be about that God created math. No? You can preface any class by saying "there is a possibility that this subject was the creation of an intelligent designer" but what service does that do for your understanding of that subject? You begin to understand less about mathematics and more that God created mathematics.

That's it in a nutshell. It's a complete waste of time to be bringing in supernatural theories into science class and it is not the role of science to be pondering theology. Teach science in science class and leave all the supernatural tales to be taught at home.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

That's it in a nutshell. It's a complete waste of time to be bringing in supernatural theories into science class and it is not the role of science to be pondering theology. Teach science in science class and leave all the supernatural tales to be taught at home.

OR! In theology class.

 

[Powerman]

OR! In theology class.

True. But I don't think that most schools have a theology class. So why not just let the parents teach them whatever they believe at home?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

True. But I don't think that most schools have a theology class. So why not just let the parents teach them whatever they believe at home?

Why not have a theology class?

 

[Powerman]

Why not have a theology class?

Because there is only so much time in the day. If they wanted to make it an elective for highschool kids I could deal with that. But people need to be learning all the basic science, reading, math skills as possible.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Because there is only so much time in the day. If they wanted to make it an elective for highschool kids I could deal with that. But people need to be learning all the basic science, reading, math skills as possible.

You don't think a class about the subject that has been the cause (be it primary or secondary) of so much conflict in the world to be vital to one's education?

 

[Powerman]

You don't think a class about the subject that has been the cause (be it primary or secondary) of so much conflict in the world to be vital to one's education?

Well it would be nice to know for those purposes. But you could integrate those parts into history classes.