Reduce Spending and Raise Taxes?

[sirkickyass]

You still refuse to either learn what ID is or honestly represent it. ID is no more religious than Darwinism.

Are you familiar with the "Wedge Document" from the Discory Institute, i.e. the main proponent of ID?

The very first sentence of that document, designed to be a strategy for pushing ID as an alternative to established scientific principle, explicitly equates ID with neo-creationism.

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

The topline premise of ID posits a designer. That designer is obviously a euphamism for God. By definition it is more religious than any evolutionary theory of biology.

Consensus isn't science. The consensus in America is that there is a God. The consensus among Darwiniacs is that there isn't a God so we must have come from ape-like ancestor despite lack of proof.

ID could just as easily be the "origin of all life on earth" consensus among scientists that it used to be without Darwiniacs infesting the public school systems and insisting on their religious dogma be promoted at the exclusion of all others.

False equivalence.

 

[PearlWatson]

This argument of consensus being bad again? Really? You have to realize there is a huge difference between scientific consensus and popular opinion (unfortunately) in that scientific consensus requires evidence and such whereas popular opinion can just be just about anything. For example the huge chunk of people, you included, questioning the POTUS' birthplace.

I'm saying a majority of scientists accepting Darwiniac dogma doesn't make it science.
Evidence? Are you hiding the missing link in your closet?
There are too many hoaxes perpetrated in the name of Darwinism to take their "evidence" seriously.

 

[PearlWatson]

The very first sentence of that document, designed to be a strategy for pushing ID as an alternative to established scientific principle, explicitly equates ID with neo-creationism.
The topline premise of ID posits a designer. That designer is obviously a euphamism for God. By definition it is more religious than any evolutionary theory of biology.

So there is no mention of 6,000 years or "fully formed" humans? That is where your intellectual (assuming you believe in intelligence) dishonesty stems from.

What ID scientists say is that Intelligence is a force in the universe (an anti-entropic force)...much like gravity is a force. Both forces are invisible.

Where did the first single-celled organism come from? The belief that it randomly popped into existence is no less religious (or more scientific) than the belief in an intelligent force.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

I'm saying a majority of scientists accepting Darwiniac dogma doesn't make it science.
Evidence? Are you hiding the missing link in your closet?
There are too many hoaxes perpetrated in the name of Darwinism to take their "evidence" seriously.

See this is why i don't like for scientists to get involved in this thing. Let them teach intelligent design in schools if they want, as long as they also teach that the majority of scientists believe in evolution.

But if scientists get caught up in, and take sides in this ridiculous culture war, the result is going to be that scientists get attacked by the other side.

And thats how you get NIH funding on a GOP hit list.

 

[One Brow]

You still refuse to either learn what ID is or honestly represent it. ID is no more religious than Darwinism.

ID is a metaphysical position on the existence of an overall designer; designed as a "big-tent" strategy to appeal to young-earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, and anything inbetween; justified by some of the traditional anti-evolution arguments gussied up in new language; politicized in order to bypass the scientific community and go directly to legilators and school boards, so far with disastrous results where sucessful; and characterized by a fundamental disconnect between its goals and its methodology. That is, if you are looking for an honest appraisal.

Consensus isn't science.

Lot's of things aren't science. "Designer did it" is not science. Getting a legislature to pass laws, or a school board to adopt a text, because you can't convince experts you have a valid position isn't science. Inventing new scientific laws from thin air (like the Law of Conservation of Information) is not science.

On the other hand, you build a consensus among scientists by doing science and bring them around. Lynn Margulis was laughed at 30(?) years ago for her notion that mitochondria were originally separate organisms (endosymbiosis), it's now in textbooks. It didn't get there because she went ot legislators or school boards, she conceived interesting, replicable experiements, got funding, and published (you know, science). By contrast, there is no pro-ID research, only a smatering of research to show evolution did not happen in a specific fashion.

The consensus among Darwiniacs is that there isn't a God

I don't know what a "Darwiniac" is supposed to be, but the vast majority of people who accept evolution also believe in God.

so we must have come from ape-like ancestor despite lack of proof.

What level of proof do you think we should have?

... Darwiniacs infesting the public school systems and insisting on their religious dogma be promoted at the exclusion of all others.

The ones who don't believe in God? I should be so lucky that atheists were powerful enough to even be able to influence a school board, much less be able to infest one and insist on their dogma.

 

[One Brow]

I'm saying a majority of scientists accepting Darwiniac dogma doesn't make it science.

You are absolutely correct, and every scientist I've read on the subject would agree. The cause-and-effect is reversed. Being accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists doesn't make it science. That is is science is the basis for being accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists.

Evidence? Are you hiding the missing link in your closet?

Define what a "missing link" is. After all, maybe it's not missing anymore.

There are too many hoaxes perpetrated in the name of Darwinism to take their "evidence" seriously.

In the past 150 years, there have been a handful. None of them were accepted as mainstream science. All of them were exposed by other scientists. Because in science, they don't tend to trust each other, they prefer to verify. The overwhelming majority of the fossil discoveries have survived this vetting process while the hoaxes were thrown out.

 

[One Brow]

What ID scientists say is that Intelligence is a force in the universe (an anti-entropic force)

No, they don't. They don't claim there is any sort of force at all associated with intelligence, much less something anti-entropic (which would violate the Laws of Thermodynamics). Rather, they claim that certain structures are too complex and too specified (and/or irreducible) to have arisen without intelligence.

Where did the first single-celled organism come from?

Kansas. that's why when we say there's no place like home, we mean Kansas.

The belief that it randomly popped into existence is no less religious (or more scientific) than the belief in an intelligent force.

A single-cell organism randomly popping into existence would be a miracle, and is actually very compatible with ID (the randomenss could be factored into the intial set-up of the universe). it's certainly not the positon of the people who oppose ID.

 

[PearlWatson]

See this is why i don't like for scientists to get involved in this thing. Let them teach intelligent design in schools if they want, as long as they also teach that the majority of scientists believe in evolution.

But if scientists get caught up in, and take sides in this ridiculous culture war, the result is going to be that scientists get attacked by the other side.

And thats how you get NIH funding on a GOP hit list.

Darwiniacs can't give up on influencing impressionable young minds who are unable or unwilling to question their dogma.

I don't care whether schools teach ID; my main complaint is that they continue to publish Darwiniac hoaxes in biology text books and disallow scientific criticism/evidence against the theory. They treat the ridiculous stories like bears falling in the ocean and becoming whales as if they are scientific fact. They are corrupting science in order to push their cult dogma.

 

[GVC]

They treat the ridiculous stories like bears falling in the ocean and becoming whales as if they are scientific fact.

I must have cut class that day...

 

[One Brow]

... they continue to publish Darwiniac hoaxes in biology text books ...

Name two.

... and disallow scientific criticism/evidence against the theory.

Name one.

... bears falling in the ocean and becoming whales ...

Are you sure you don't mean hippos?

At times like this, you have to start wondering whether to pull the Poe card.

 

[sirkickyass]

Apparently this bears into whales thing is based on this passage from Origin of Species:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

A number of issues with the characterization:

1) It's obviously framed as speculation;
2) It's obviously not exactly state of the art, even if it was not framed as speculation;
3) He speculates about a creature that does not exist that would hypothetically become as monstrous as a bear rather than asserting that bears turned into whales;
4) The speculation is full of qualifications and caveats, acknowledging an extreme case and allowing for factors such as food availability and the presence of other animals occupying the niche.

In other words, it's about as accurate as most things Millsapa parrots.

 

[PearlWatson]

Apparently this bears into whales thing is based on this passage from Origin of Species:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

A number of issues with the characterization:

1) It's obviously framed as speculation;
2) It's obviously not exactly state of the art, even if it was not framed as speculation;
3) He speculates about a creature that does not exist that would hypothetically become as monstrous as a bear rather than asserting that bears turned into whales;
4) The speculation is full of qualifications and caveats, acknowledging an extreme case and allowing for factors such as food availability and the presence of other animals occupying the niche.

In other words, it's about as accurate as most things Millsapa parrots.

LOL! The entire Darwiniac bible is nothing but speculation about how there would be no "difficulty" for one type of species to randomly mutate into another more complex species. It takes more faith to believe in this ridiculous speculation than to believe in God.

 

[babe]

LOL! The entire Darwiniac bible is nothing but speculation about how there would be no problem for one type of species to randomly mutate into another more complex species. It takes more faith to believe in this ridiculous speculation than to believe in God.

I've read the book, and even keep a copy in my library, whereever that has been stashed by the moving crew.

It's amazing that Kicky can't recognize that I've borrowed Darwin's writing style, which is perhaps whimsical in its more basic elements. Perhaps we should discuss the random possibilities of human thought, as a fine example of erudition.

A human with a desire to form a neural buzz system that "feels good" can very quickly adapt the connections to "make sense" of anything. Some would (snicker snicker) imagine this to be the very definition of Intelligent Design.

 

[PearlWatson]

No, they don't. They don't claim there is any sort of force at all associated with intelligence, much less something anti-entropic (which would violate the Laws of Thermodynamics). Rather, they claim that certain structures are too complex and too specified (and/or irreducible) to have arisen without intelligence.

Life violates the laws of thermodynamics.

The irreducibly complex "claim" is based on a biochemist's refutation of Darwinism on Darwin's own terms.

Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Biochemist: I can produce thousands of discoveries in microbiology since Darwin's day to "absolutely break down" his theory. Even a simple mechanism like a bacterial motor can't have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications because it depends on the coordinated interaction of 30 complex protein parts. If any of those parts were absent the flagellum would be useless. I haven't even got to the blood clotting mechanism and the eye (just to name a few.)

Bye Bye broken down, busted theory. Hello Darwiniac cult refusing to accept the demise of their prophet's ridiculous theory.

 

[PearlWatson]

I've read the book, and even keep a copy in my library, whereever that has been stashed by the moving crew.

It's amazing that Kicky can't recognize that I've borrowed Darwin's writing style, which is perhaps whimsical in its more basic elements. Perhaps we should discuss the random possibilities of human thought, as a fine example of erudition.

A human with a desire to form a neural buzz system that "feels good" can very quickly adapt the connections to "make sense" of anything. Some would (snicker snicker) imagine this to be the very definition of Intelligent Design.

That I didn't know.

I've missed you, babe.

 

[babe]

That I didn't know.

I've missed you, babe.

Actually, Darwin was a tedious nineteenth century writer who demanded extreme patience from his reader. I think that style was meant to intimidate the casual critic with sheer verbiage. Like the "speculation" about the bear who somehow got confused and started diving for insects instead of salmon, nineteenth century writers were great at making great monsters of gnats and missing the significant sources of intelligence.

Anyone who has read Darwin and seriously argues that that is "Science" is an idiot.

As an erudite English gentleman pampered by the hired sailing outfit in fine style, I doubt he got his toes in any sand on any islands. Galapagos or otherwise. The basics of his speculations were not original, they had all been put to print decades before, but by mere "cranks" with no financial backers.

The "Origin of Species" was a project conceived and backed by purposeful puppetmasters of the world stage with the deliberate intent to discredit religion on a "scientific" pretext. But Darwin grew reluctant to hatch the egg and more or less sat on his "golden" egg and milked his backers for more than a decade before his gave his backers what they paid for. His reluctance to take a strident anti-religious tone came out in some comments buried about 80% of the way through the literary bog, where most likely few of the "enthusiasts" for disbelief or his backers would notice. He said his work had no relevance to the existence of God and no bearing on anyone's religious faith.

Darwin's unoriginal theory, so launched by the erudite elitists who wanted to carve the ground out from underneath the feet of religionists, received contrived rave reviews in the press and high honors from the intellectual establishment. But the "findings" so published and heralded are nothing more than a collection of casual observations selected to conform to a pre-conceived conclusion.

Does anyone here know what "anecdotal" evidence is? Or why in many scientific disciplines it is just not good enough?

 

[babe]

Popular speculations in the name of science are numerous.

When you observe "scientists" holding forth on opinions/beliefs that lack actual data or that are, so far, beyond our reach in time/space that nobody has yet been able to set up a definitive experiment that competently tests the hypothesis, what you are seeing is likely some form of modernist substitute for "religion".

People talking about the "Big Bang" really have little better information than people who talk about God speaking a word. What went before, in both cases, is just a blank.

If we are happy to extrapolate from scientifically demonstrated processes of adaptions in living systems producing varieties in species to conclude that this "answers" all the questions and affirmatively disposes of any possibility of "God", it only shows we just don't want to be "religious".

But in fact we are all "religious" in some way or another. Any time we allow our minds to wander beyond our power of proof/fact we are prone to be dreamers in search of "answers" that just meet our need somehow.

I consider religion to be a separate human capacity from knowledge or "science", much like developing a business enterprise is a separate talent from being about to keep a set of books to record expenses and income.

Scientists are the tedious little beancounters who glory in the task of making our thinking square up with facts. As smart as some scientists are, it is their passion to satisfy the human mind with self-sufficiency just like it is the passion of many old-style religionists to satisfy the human heart/mind/soul with "meaning" or "understanding" of some transcendent sort.

I think self-sufficiency is a dangeous illusion for humans to believe in. Well, about as dangerous as other illusions we love to believe in. . . .

 

[One Brow]

LOL! The entire Darwiniac bible is nothing but speculation about how there would be no "difficulty" for one type of species to randomly mutate into another more complex species.

Why would there be difficulty in mutating into a more complex species?

 

[One Brow]

Life violates the laws of thermodynamics.

In what way? Please take any law you think is violated, lay it out in reasonable detail, and show the violation.

The irreducibly complex "claim" is based on a biochemist's refutation of Darwinism on Darwin's own terms.

Dr. Behe was a very good biochemist. However, he has not been a good evolutionary biologist. He has no objectively applicable standard for an irreducibly complex system. Every example he has put forward for irreducibly complex systems have turned out to have reduced, effective, contemporary counterparts in the biological world within a ten-year timeframe. I am sure he will eventually come across one that no reduced, effective, contemporary counterparts; merely reduced, effective, historical counterparts; as even the blind squirrel finds the occasional nut. Meanwhile, as a theoretical position, irreducible complexity is undercut by the mechanism of coaptation and also the process of the Muellerian two-step, rendering it basically a non-starter.

If any of those parts were absent the flagellum would be useless.

You have confused the notion of "useless" with "useless as a flagellum". The actual count is 20 parts, by the way. Just because the other 19 parts can['t make a flagellum doesn't mean those 19 parts have no use at all. In fact, in contemporary bacteria, 18 of those parts are already known to have uses that are not related to being a flagellum. Giving that mixing-and-matching parts almost randomly is a common activity in bacterial genomes, and billion years of history for just one of the other two parts to have possible been used, the creation of the flagellum is not any sort of mirabcle at all. Nick Matzke has gone into considerable detail on one particular pathway for it's creation, but it's hardly the only possibility.

I haven't even got to the blood clotting mechanism and the eye (just to name a few.)

Feel free to go there. Do you think both notions may have been discussed before? That the reason scientists have disagreed with the positon these systems are irreducibly complex is because there are contemporaneous simplificaitons of each?

Bye Bye broken down, busted theory. Hello Darwiniac cult refusing to accept the demise of their prophet's ridiculous theory.

What's a "Darwiniac cult"?

It's perfectly natural that since many people take their version of biological origins on faith, they assume that biologists do this as well. It's hard for those who use faith in that way to understand the skepticism others bring to almost every claim. However, science runs on this skepticism, not on faith in Darwin nor anyone else.

 

[One Brow]

Actually, Darwin was a tedious nineteenth century writer who demanded extreme patience from his reader.

I've never read more than snippets of Darwin, but that sounds like a lot of scientists when wrtiing about science.

Anyone who has read Darwin and seriously argues that that is "Science" is an idiot.

In the sense that books are not science, sure. Darwin discusses science in his book, but he would not be able to perform science in them.

As an erudite English gentleman pampered by the hired sailing outfit in fine style, I doubt he got his toes in any sand on any islands. Galapagos or otherwise.

There are witnesses otherwise. Not to mention all the work he did in his own yard. I have no doubt he was eridite, English, and pampered, but he was also willing to get in the dirt.

The basics of his speculations were not original, they had all been put to print decades before, but by mere "cranks" with no financial backers.

As with many great scientists, Darwin did not originate ideas, but brought them together in a way that made sense of things. Natural selection, random variation, inheritence of traits, and species differentiation had all been observed before, but Darwuin was the first to being them together in a systemic manner using the first three to explain the latter.

Conspiracy stuff snipped.

Does anyone here know what "anecdotal" evidence is? Or why in many scientific disciplines it is just not good enough?

Yes, I know. In fact, I even know the difference between anecdotal evidence and epidemilogical evidence. Do you think you can make an argument that Darwin, in particular, relied on anecdotal evidence for what he said where firm conclusions? That would be fun to read.