Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[Annie]

It isn't science. Why should something non-scientific be in a science medium. Would you expect to learn about auto-repair on a cooking show?

No, but as someone who often reads historical journals, I am appalled at the number of Holocaust deniers or apologists, yet would be more surprised to have their entries deleted and the editor fired.

 

[Annie]

It isn't close minded to keep non-science out of a science class. Science isn't a forum for the debate of every idea under the Sun - its a forum for the debate of SCIENCE. ID, as a theory, is unscientific. It is experimentally unverifiable as well as unfalsifiable.


Suppose I proposed to you this theory - that the entire universe was created 5 minutes ago and all of our memories implanted in our heads to make it seem as if we've been around longer. Try as you might - you couldn't prove me wrong! In fact, it would be impossible to prove such a theory either right or wrong, making it not a scientific theory. The same applies to ID.

But this wasn't a 'science class' this was a professional journal, read by professionals that not only can read, but can analyze. They might also enjoy turning a grad student onto testing. What is it you don't get about academic research?

 

[Powerman]

No more along the lines that the editor's credentials, along with the writer's were sufficient to be in the journal. It's what is often done in academic journals, proposing alternative venues for study. That doesn't mean that ID belongs in the science curriculum, but the unwillingness to even allow alternative theories, no matter how 'unproven' is against all scientific basis.

But Kathy ID isn't a science period. I've tried to hammer that point home plenty of times. If ID isn't science then it doesn't belong in the science realm. It's theology or perhaps philosophy.

 

[Annie]

But Kathy ID isn't a science period. I've tried to hammer that point home plenty of times. If ID isn't science then it doesn't belong in the science realm. It's theology or perhaps philosophy.

Your 'hammering it home' does not preclude those that wish to 'test' with whatever means they so choose and publish their studies and results. Once again, I do NOT think it belongs in a science curriculum for compulsory education. That does NOT preclude anyone who wishes to from setting up published methodologies and results, then letting others go to it.

Again I ask, what part of academic research do you all fail to understand?

 

[Powerman]

Your 'hammering it home' does not preclude those that wish to 'test' with whatever means they so choose and publish their studies and results. Once again, I do NOT think it belongs in a science curriculum for compulsory education. That does NOT preclude anyone who wishes to from setting up published methodologies and results, then letting others go to it.

Again I ask, what part of academic research do you all fail to understand?

What part of you can't actually test ID do you not understand? Maybe you can tell me how we are supposed to scientifically test whether some invisible God created us or not. I'm even considering the possibility that it is what actually happened. Even if it is what happened we have no way of testing it.

 

[Annie]

What part of you can't actually test ID do you not understand? Maybe you can tell me how we are supposed to scientifically test whether some invisible God created us or not. I'm even considering the possibility that it is what actually happened. Even if it is what happened we have no way of testing it.

I did not say YOU. Anyone who thinks they can 'prove' their theory, is welcome to try. You want to close off the discussion, which is just wrong, in any field.

As for YOU. If you are involved in reading academic journals and are so closed minded, skip them for pity's sake.

 

[Powerman]

I did not say YOU. Anyone who thinks they can 'prove' their theory, is welcome to try. You want to close off the discussion, which is just wrong, in any field.

As for YOU. If you are involved in reading academic journals and are so closed minded, skip them for pity's sake.

If this guy actually claims there is a way to test ID then I'd at least hear what he has to say. I don't see how we as humans can measure supernatural events though. Seems rather far fetched. We wouldn't have a basis for comparison. For example we would need something that we knew had no supernatural influence and one that we knew didn't. I don't even know what I mean by that actually. Pretty much back at square one. How do you scientifically observe the supernatural?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No more along the lines that the editor's credentials, along with the writer's were sufficient to be in the journal. It's what is often done in academic journals, proposing alternative venues for study. That doesn't mean that ID belongs in the science curriculum, but the unwillingness to even allow alternative theories, no matter how 'unproven' is against all scientific basis.

You're right, ID doesn't belong in a science curriculum, and those who claim ID is scientific have no business teaching science.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No, but as someone who often reads historical journals, I am appalled at the number of Holocaust deniers or apologists, yet would be more surprised to have their entries deleted and the editor fired.

What if they were to suggest history never happened and we were all created by God 10 years ago with the memories and historical records to match the history we happen to have? Can't prove them wrong, can you? Wouldn't want to exclude any ideas, woud you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

But this wasn't a 'science class' this was a professional journal, read by professionals that not only can read, but can analyze. They might also enjoy turning a grad student onto testing. What is it you don't get about academic research?

It was a professional scientific journal. Last I checked, scientific journals are for science.


Turn a grad student onto testing what? You can't test ID, so what are they going to test?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Your 'hammering it home' does not preclude those that wish to 'test' with whatever means they so choose and publish their studies and results. Once again, I do NOT think it belongs in a science curriculum for compulsory education. That does NOT preclude anyone who wishes to from setting up published methodologies and results, then letting others go to it.

Again I ask, what part of academic research do you all fail to understand?

Its not a testable theory. That's why it isn't science. What don't you understand?

 

[Hobbit]

Its not a testable theory. That's why it isn't science. What don't you understand?

Neither is evolution. Every time I bring this up, people claim it's testable, but I have yet to see somebody tell me how evolution can be tested. The fossils sure as hell don't do the trick. Sure, this fossil may look like a cross between two animals, but a platypus looks like a beaver and a duck and isn't every geographically close to either.

And even if the fossil record showing that "animals are similar" is a valid test, then isn't the conjecture of irreducable complexity along with the complexity of all animals also a valid test?

And don't give me the moths in England thing, either. I'm talking about species jumping evolution.

 

[Annie]

What if they were to suggest history never happened and we were all created by God 10 years ago with the memories and historical records to match the history we happen to have? Can't prove them wrong, can you? Wouldn't want to exclude any ideas, woud you?

Excuse me, but that is pretty much what they are doing. In France they may go on trial, in the US they are allowed to publish and be laughed at for the most part.

As for not excluding any ideas, why bother? Those forums are open debate societies and it's what leads to new ideas, including ways to 'experiment.'

 

[Powerman]

Neither is evolution. Every time I bring this up, people claim it's testable, but I have yet to see somebody tell me how evolution can be tested. The fossils sure as hell don't do the trick. Sure, this fossil may look like a cross between two animals, but a platypus looks like a beaver and a duck and isn't every geographically close to either.

And even if the fossil record showing that "animals are similar" is a valid test, then isn't the conjecture of irreducable complexity along with the complexity of all animals also a valid test?

And don't give me the moths in England thing, either. I'm talking about species jumping evolution.

The problem with ID is that there is zero evidence. There is nothing that you can possibly test that would lead you to believe that there must be an intelligent designer. Even if you were right you couldn't scientifically prove it.

But moving along. Can you test continental drift? No but we all know that it happened. If evolution didn't happen then maybe you can explain to me how according to all geological evidence that we have to date life over time has become more complex. Also why over such time periods do we see transitional forms of creatures that get closer and closer to us and eventually we get to us?

If evolution didn't occur then there must be some explanation for these fossils which no longer have living members. There must also be an explanation of why there are no human fossil remains that predate or coexist with the oldest hominids. There is a lot more explaining needed on the anti-evolution side than the evolution side. Only a fool would disagree. All of the evidence we currently have points towards evolution.

 

[dmp]

The problem with ID is that there is zero evidence.

I only got as far as that line...

The translation for that line is:

"I refuse to give ID an honest shake. I want ID to be False SO BADLY I dismiss any evidence because it conflicts with my opinion"

By the way, 'zero' evidence makes very little sense. Could somebody have 'three' evidence? or 'seventeen evidence'?

 

[Hobbit]

The problem with ID is that there is zero evidence. There is nothing that you can possibly test that would lead you to believe that there must be an intelligent designer. Even if you were right you couldn't scientifically prove it.

But moving along. Can you test continental drift? No but we all know that it happened. If evolution didn't happen then maybe you can explain to me how according to all geological evidence that we have to date life over time has become more complex. Also why over such time periods do we see transitional forms of creatures that get closer and closer to us and eventually we get to us?

If evolution didn't occur then there must be some explanation for these fossils which no longer have living members. There must also be an explanation of why there are no human fossil remains that predate or coexist with the oldest hominids. There is a lot more explaining needed on the anti-evolution side than the evolution side. Only a fool would disagree. All of the evidence we currently have points towards evolution.

Look at the bolded portion. Just look at it. That is why you get flamed so much. I was thinking out a civil response right up until I saw that, but I won't bother, knowing that if God himself dropped out of the sky and showed you, step by step, exactly how he created the Earth, you'd just sit there and gripe his ear off about fossil record this and mutation that and how he's such an idiot for believing anything else.

 

[Powerman]

Look at the bolded portion. Just look at it. That is why you get flamed so much. I was thinking out a civil response right up until I saw that, but I won't bother, knowing that if God himself dropped out of the sky and showed you, step by step, exactly how he created the Earth, you'd just sit there and gripe his ear off about fossil record this and mutation that and how he's such an idiot for believing anything else.

Dude I'm not saying that God didn't create the Earth and life. It's quite possible. But we know for a fact that life wasn't complex from the beginning. And we know that it is more complex now. So either God decided every couple million years that he would completely destroy all life and come out with a new more complicated batch or we evolved. Which one seems more likely to you?

 

[dmp]

Dude I'm not saying that God didn't create the Earth and life. It's quite possible. But we know for a fact that life wasn't complex from the beginning. And we know that it is more complex now. So either God decided every couple million years that he would completely destroy all life and come out with a new more complicated batch or we evolved. Which one seems more likely to you?

...except we do NOT know for a fact life wasn't created complex. That's the part you refuse to admit - there's no proof-of-beginning-of-life...all we have are people making guesses as to how things started. Guesses you tout as proof, brother.

 

[Powerman]

...except we do NOT know for a fact life wasn't created complex. That's the part you refuse to admit - there's no proof-of-beginning-of-life...all we have are people making guesses as to how things started. Guesses you tout as proof, brother.

I never claimed that we have proof of HOW life started. But we do know that the first life on this planet consisted of very simple single celled organisms. This isn't a guess. We have proof of this in the fossil record. And if you think that we don't have proof of single celled organisms in the fossil record that are billions of years old then you need to do some research. These are the facts. Not guesses. What we don't have is complex fossils that coexist during this time. The earliest hominids that we have found to date did not come until much later. It's not a "guess" that life was much simpler. There is plenty of evidence to support that claim and absolutely none whatsoever to refute it.

 

[dmp]

I never claimed that we have proof of HOW life started. But we do know that the first life on this planet consisted of very simple single celled organisms. This isn't a guess. We have proof of this in the fossil record. And if you think that we don't have proof of single celled organisms in the fossil record that are billions of years old then you need to do some research. These are the facts. Not guesses. What we don't have is complex fossils that coexist during this time. The earliest hominids that we have found to date did not come until much later. It's not a "guess" that life was much simpler. There is plenty of evidence to support that claim and absolutely none whatsoever to refute it.

Untrue. Simply untrue. Evidence? There is evidence the Eagles are a better team than the Seahawks. Just doesn't make sense. Nobody with a lick of sense can think life 'just happened' after millions of years of sitting around, chemicals just sorta collided into life. Doesn't pass the 'common sense' test, does it?