This subject goes round and round and ends up nowhere. I guess it does make a nice space filler. I.D. doesn't want to face up to the fact that science and religion don't mix and the rest of us will never convince him.

It does not go round-and-round. Science is well-defined. It is shown in the very first post how ID is not science.

Should I point out an inconsistency? Ok, I'll do it to make a point.

I don't see any science in here, so shouldn't this thread be moved to politics?

If you do then we'd better see a few other threads that arn't science moved there at the same time.

Cheers.

Should I point out an inconsistency? Ok, I'll do it to make a point.

I don't see any science in here, so shouldn't this thread be moved to politics?

Shall I point out that you must not have read the original post? Why, yes, I shall. Very very very much all science and nothing else. PURE and REAL science. Undeniable. You must face it.

For a number of reasons Guy, that I know you are fully aware of, I would support that view. But as Wiggo points out ID has made so many threads, that they will all have to go over.

+1

Don't even engage him. He knows full well my original post succinctly and eloquently explains what science is and why ID is not science. If he moves this thread, he will learn of the message board version of "Revelations".

PURE and REAL science. Undeniable. You must face it.

hmmmm, where and who have I seen similiar words from?

You might think it was from I.D. You'd be wrong, as I have defended what I have said, and succinctly.

Now, if you wish to truly discuss this, then point out, if you can, how I am wrong. I am pretty sure you cannot. Not because of your abilities or beliefs, but because deep down, you know I am correct. Return to topic.

I have yet to find 1 legitimate Science Organization through all my googling on a certain person's subjects that back there is any real science involved at all with intelligent design.

Intelligent design – a war on science.
The “War on Science” documentary showed that there is no real controversy within science about evolution. This battle is actually occurring in the non-scientific world – the courtrooms, school boards, politics and the battle for the hearts of minds of the non-scientific population. Robert T. Pennock, professor of history and philosophy of science at Michigan State University, USA, pointed out that “at its base [the creation/evolution debate] is about religion and it is about philosophy.”

Intelligent design/creationism may indeed be carrying out a war on science, but it is not a controversy within science. If anything it is a conflict within religion.

Cheers.

From what I can see, IDers do not perform experiments themselves, but "analyze" what researchers have published, looking for something that fits their conclusion.

ID is a subject that is being riduculed [sic] by many right now.]/quote]

You will find no ridicule in the very first post.

[quote]A quick google turns up many famous scientists who started out as crazy people as described by their peers:

Galileo Galilei (The sun is the center?)
Robbert Goddard (space travel?)
Georg Ohm (linear equation for electricity?)
Karl Jansky (radio astronomy?)
James Lovelock (CFC's harming our atmosphere?)

All absolutely crazy ideas at the time. They must be wrong. It's so obvious they were wrong at the time.

Just to name a couple. They turned out to be right after some time and someone ELSE made their discoveries also.

Many, many times people have published ideas in science that were initially rejected by their peers simply because they went against the accepted wisdom of the time. These people submitted their work to journals only to have them repeatedly rejected with comments from the referees stating that the author simply could not be right.

Phillip Johnson (not a scientist), Michael Behe and William Dembski are unjustifiably getting the same treatment right now.

The rejection put forward in the very first post is not on the grounds of "that's just so different from what we currently accept that it can't be right!" nor on the grounds of faith, religion or lack thereof. The rejection put forward in the very first post of this thread is "the term irreducible complexity assumes both the hypothesis and only one possible, desired, conclusion". This is circular reasoning. Even if they were doing experiments, the initial setup is flawed.

Well, there are still many people claiming evolution is not science either.

Evolution was not mentioned in the very first post of this thread.
One "claiming" evolution is not science would have to state the correct definition of what science is and then show how that field of study violates the long accepted tenets of what science is.

But if you look at the methods of science, you can see folks doing those steps in both evolution and in ID. They are just beginning to do those steps in ID. Why not allow them?

The term "irreducible complexity" assume both the hypothesis and the conclusion. This is circular reasoning. Just beginning? What experiments have they performed, as opposed to analyzing the research of others? Even if they performed experiments, if the base is flawed, they would be building a house of cards.

The house has already been built but with no solid foundations.

It's collapsing fast, but there are those who can't see that.

---

"the term irreducible complexity assumes both the hypothesis and only one possible, desired, [sic] conclusion". This is circular reasoning. Even if they were doing experiments, the initial setup is flawed.

Hmmm, hypothesis working towards one possible, desired conclusion...

Random chance or something (or someone) started it in motion.

You have to use doublespeak to explain doublespeak.

"Circular reasoning" is well-defined. You are engaging in baiting and sophistry.
"Random chance" and "something (or someone)" setting things in motion were not mentioned in the very first post of this thread. The flaw at the very core of I.D., circular reasoning, making it NOT science is the topic of this thread.

And all I'm doing is pointing out that:

Evolution = circular reasoning NOT = science

You should recognize it for what it is.

(Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, On Tactics, Rule #4)

You have not pointed out anything. If you had, you could defend it. You cannot.
Evolution is not the topic here.
Your very last line is a flame. You are trying to suggest I am a radical.

This subject goes round and round and ends up nowhere. I guess it does make a nice space filler. I.D. doesn't want to face up to the fact that science and religion don't mix and the rest of us will never convince him.

It does not go round-and-round. Science is well-defined. It is shown in the very first post how ID is not science.

I was not referring to the science. I am referring to the debate, which is endless and doesn't get anywhere. ID makes a post and then a certain few respond pointing out his flawed logic and then it just goes round and round and round. Nothing new is brought to the table and until the thread is locked the same arguments prevail.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Evolution is not the topic here.

Now you're using Saul Alinsky's, Rules for Radicals, Of means and ends, rule #4 against me.

Your very last line is a flame. You are trying to suggest I am a radical.

Looks like you're starting to get it. I was pointing out the Saul Alinsky rule I'm using against you. I'm the radical in this case, not you.

And now you're beginning to see that we're both radicals. Right?

The question remains, which one of us was the radical FIRST?

(Possible responses: Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, On Tactics, Rules #2, #3, #5, #12 and #13. If it were anybody except you in here, I would expect rule #5. From you I'm expecting rule #12. Are you going to take the high road or the low road?)

I am not going to follow any of your perceived rules.
Evolution was not, is not and will not be the topic in here.
Neither will faith be the topic here.

here's my biggest problem

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

This statement makes assumptions about biology that are basically flawed and erroneous.

If one take a segment out of a functioning biological process you get a non functioning cell or organ or life.
IE cancer. defects(partial or full removal or change in a gene) in genetic code are known to occur for a multitude of human diseases. How do we know? The human genome project and actual research.

The author states that a particular biological component becomes non functional without giving an example. Would a Factor VIII deficient person qualify under this premise? Hardly, we know very well what genetic marker is missing and how this disease is passed from generation to generation. Though the person has a defective gene does not incapacitate the individual completely and they don't just stop functioning. Clearly, people are born everyday with one genetic disorder or another.

I recall reading, a long time ago, that everyone is born with at least 10 changed in their code that will most likely never show. Again, that's a lot of change with very few of us actually not functioning as intended

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I'm still waiting to see 13 threads (including this 1, 12 otherwise) to be moved to a more appropriate forum category. ;-)

Cheers.