An interesting stance on ID and science:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/is-intelligent-design-science/

Thank you Julie for that mind expanding article. I'm sure there are others sitting in silence who appreciate you pointing this out also.

You're welcome Guy:)

If you look at the author's "about me" page at http://www.frame-poythress.org/about/john-frame-full-bio/, it states very clearly their bias in favor of religion, which explains why they view ID as science and evolution as religion.

It's these kinds of personal bias that prevent these people from being published in any kind of reputable scientific journal. They don't come from a neutral standpoint and don't even attempt to.

In other words, it's just one religious person's opinion. His opinion is most certainly not proof enough that ID is a science or that evolution is a religion. As Mr. Kevvy said above, the opinion is targeted at people who don't understand the foundation of science, it's naturalistic and neutral position in explaining the Universe, and therefore only reinforces (gives ammunition only to) those that are predisposed to believing that their theology is a science.

An interesting stance on ID and science:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/is-intelligent-design-science/

Thank you Julie for that mind expanding article. I'm sure there are others sitting in silence who appreciate you pointing this out also.

You're welcome Guy:)

If you look at the author's "about me" page at http://www.frame-poythress.org/about/john-frame-full-bio/, it states very clearly their bias in favor of religion, which explains why they view ID as science and evolution as religion.

It's these kinds of personal bias that prevent these people from being published in any kind of reputable scientific journal. They don't come from a neutral standpoint and don't even attempt to.

In other words, it's just one religious person's opinion. His opinion is most certainly not proof enough that ID is a science or that evolution is a religion. As Mr. Kevvy said above, the opinion is targeted at people who don't understand the foundation of science, it's naturalistic and neutral position in explaining the Universe, and therefore only reinforces (gives ammunition only to) those that are predisposed to believing that their theology is a science.

I don't think this man thinks of himself as a 'scientist' though. It was an interesting read I thought.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

At the most obvious level, science presupposes many things that it cannot prove, but must take on faith: the uniformity of nature, the correspondence of thought with reality, the universality of physical laws, the values required for the honest pursuit of truth. Indeed, their ideas and methodology presuppose Christian theism, though not all of them are willing to admit it.

Really? really really. Sooo once again a non scientist insists that the lack of proof is evidence against Evolution. Evolution theory and other theory accept that there are gaps in information. Lacking the letter m from the alphabet doesn't mean we won't eventually find it. M there I found it.
Evolution like all other legitimate theories require input and data. Mathematicians work on formulas for decades attempting to prove the theorem incorrect. Evolution scientist do the same. Their main problem is that the data fits so nicely into where they think it should. That's not making data to fit the theory thats finding data the fits it.

Evolution in it essence has not changed at all. Darwin was incorrect that all evolution is a slow process. However, his observations still work today. With ever increasing amounts of data and discoveries about ancient and extinct animals we are seeing the gaps being filled.

Despite the uncertainty of much science, there is also a sense in which science, like religion, imposes “orthodoxy” on its participants.

there's a very good reason for science to impose the non religious orthodoxy on students of science. Until otherwise found evolution is the best we have at describing how animals develop into what they are today. BTW that word Orthodoxy is a splendid word to convey religion upon science. The last I checked I've not been asked for 10% of my wages or congregate on sunday mornings for science.

---

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

And so it remains a point of discussion...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

An interesting stance on ID and science:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/is-intelligent-design-science/

Thank you Julie for that mind expanding article. I'm sure there are others sitting in silence who appreciate you pointing this out also.

You're welcome Guy:)

If you look at the author's "about me" page at http://www.frame-poythress.org/about/john-frame-full-bio/, it states very clearly their bias in favor of religion, which explains why they view ID as science and evolution as religion.

It's these kinds of personal bias that prevent these people from being published in any kind of reputable scientific journal. They don't come from a neutral standpoint and don't even attempt to.

In other words, it's just one religious person's opinion. His opinion is most certainly not proof enough that ID is a science or that evolution is a religion. As Mr. Kevvy said above, the opinion is targeted at people who don't understand the foundation of science, it's naturalistic and neutral position in explaining the Universe, and therefore only reinforces (gives ammunition only to) those that are predisposed to believing that their theology is a science.

I don't think this man thinks of himself as a 'scientist' though. It was an interesting read I thought.

But if he's a non-scientist, why does that qualify him to comment expertly on the matter? Or a better question would be why do people use him to backup their position on Intelligent Design as a science if he is not a scientist?

And so it remains a point of discussion...

Truly there is no discussion to be had. Intelligent Design starts with it's conclusion (i.e. that all life started with a Creator/Designer) and then simply uses scientific findings put out by actual scientists and critiques them in ways that scream out the person advocating Intelligent Design doesn't understand a thing about actual science, and no amount of correcting or explaining will get through to advocates of Intelligent Design because they hold their opinion in it so strongly so as to reflect their faith in their religion and their God - which ultimately brings us back to no real discussion to be had if they're unwilling to understand where they went wrong and why.

And so it remains a point of discussion...

So what? Denying the holocaust remains a point of discussion to holocaust deniers, the earth being flat remains a point of discussion to flat-earthers.

This proves nothing of the validity or evidence behind their arguments, only of the tenacity of humans to cling to discredited and disproven ideas contrary to the best available evidence for ideological purposes.

---

And so it remains a point of discussion...

So what? Denying the holocaust remains a point of discussion to holocaust deniers, the earth being flat remains a point of discussion to flat-earthers.

This proves nothing of the validity or evidence behind their arguments, only of the tenacity of humans to cling to discredited and disproven ideas contrary to the best available evidence for ideological purposes.

Just that I don't like discussions too much, that's all, but you certainly have a point there.

The author probably knew he was going to be critizised, writing the article...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

And so it remains a point of discussion...

So what? Denying the holocaust remains a point of discussion to holocaust deniers, the earth being flat remains a point of discussion to flat-earthers.

This proves nothing of the validity or evidence behind their arguments, only of the tenacity of humans to cling to discredited and disproven ideas contrary to the best available evidence for ideological purposes.

Just that I don't like discussions too much, that's all, but you certainly have a point there.

The author probably knew he was going to be critizised, writing the article...

It was clearly his intent to get IDS once again in a paper somewhere. This is just a means of keeping ID in the discussion no matter the relevance.

---

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

Why not just send in the Asgardians to use Thor's hammer against those non-believers. :-D

Cheers.

Why is this link in the science thread? It is not science to attack anothers belief in science. This has been posted here for only one reason to attack my belief which most of you don't believe is science. So, you post this in the science thread and it gets to stay here while my science, that is really science gets move to politics.

You all seem disingenuous and hypocritical and neither can be called science.

Move this thread to politics where it belongs....

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It is not science to attack anothers belief in science... This has been posted here for only one reason to attack my belief which most of you don't believe is science... my science, that is really science...

Ah... your science is really science and all those silly old scientists are wrong. How modest.

Here is one of the world's leading organizations of those silly old scientists.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research.

And here is what they have to say about Intelligent Design:

"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence... the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology... In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy... Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested... That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence... The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science... Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes...."

Please read the original so it doesn't appear that any of those statements are out of context.

Since the world's leading scientific organization has determined that Intelligent Design is non-scientific, I don't think we're attacking anything agreeing with them. You and other Intelligent Design advocates and supporters should be pitching to them to convince them why they are incorrect, not in internet forums.

You do have a valid point that it probably would be better to keep anything about ID in Politics though.

---

It is not science to attack anothers belief in science... This has been posted here for only one reason to attack my belief which most of you don't believe is science... my science, that is really science...

Ah... your science is really science and all those silly old scientists are wrong. How modest.

Here is one of the world's leading organizations of those silly old scientists.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research.

And here is what they have to say about Intelligent Design:

"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence... the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology... In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy... Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested... That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence... The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science... Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes...."

Please read the original so it doesn't appear that any of those statements are out of context.

Since the world's leading scientific organization has determined that Intelligent Design is non-scientific, I don't think we're attacking anything agreeing with them. You and other Intelligent Design advocates and supporters should be pitching to them to convince them why they are incorrect, not in internet forums.

You do have a valid point that it probably would be better to keep anything about ID in Politics though.

Excellent rebuttal of ID. Couldn't have put it better myself..

---

It is not science to attack anothers belief in science... This has been posted here for only one reason to attack my belief which most of you don't believe is science... my science, that is really science...

Ah... your science is really science and all those silly old scientists are wrong. How modest.

Here is one of the world's leading organizations of those silly old scientists.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research.

And here is what they have to say about Intelligent Design:

"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence... the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology... In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy... Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested... That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence... The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science... Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes...."

Please read the original so it doesn't appear that any of those statements are out of context.

Since the world's leading scientific organization has determined that Intelligent Design is non-scientific, I don't think we're attacking anything agreeing with them. You and other Intelligent Design advocates and supporters should be pitching to them to convince them why they are incorrect, not in internet forums.

You do have a valid point that it probably would be better to keep anything about ID in Politics though.

Excellent rebuttal of ID. Couldn't have put it better myself..

This is poltics, stay on topic.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

This is poltics, stay on topic.

Time to read the politics forum rules, I see.

Fred's msg 1349452

Regarding off-topic posts, I have instructed my moderators to allow conversations to wander like all good conversations do. If a thread owner does not wish to see off-topic posts, please state the rules for the thread in the opening post. Note that if a subject is mentioned by the thread originator and someone else comments on it, this is then considered "on topic".

Complaining in threads that posts are off topic only serves to further drag the conversation off topic. Please Red-X any posts that may be off topic for consideration, and if found off topic (as stated in the opening post's rules), it will be removed.

-Fred
SETI Forums Admin

Also, It is not your thread, so don't try defining the rules in it.

I'm following the rules to the letter of the law. As you should...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Obliged in the society we're living in.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Obliged in the society we're living in.

Ever since we started farming. Rules for living. Handed down from God when we were given a conscience. Some even use the thing called the conscience, others ignore it.

Here is someone who ignores the conscience. And is applied to me by many here...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I look at "Intelligent Design", and I see very little substantive science, but I do see a whole belief system in action. A belief system that denies both "creationism" and "evolutionism" at the same time. Now that is some feat.
Now why do I say this? The one exponent we have regular input from quite clearly states on numerous occasions that "Intelligent Design is Not Creationism" (or words to that effect). The we see a short time later Intelligent Design as being a "polar opposite" to evolution (again paraphrasing for the sake of clarity). Now given that most see evolution and creation as being opposites where does this leave "Intelligent Design", how does it relate to "Creationism" and "Evolutionism"?

Let us explore a little further...
It is most certainly not a sibling of "Evolutionism" because it describes a single designer as the design force behind each living entity.
So how does it fit with "creationism"? Quite well, because the outlined actions of the "designer" and the "creator" are very similar in that there is only one authority causing all living entities into their (near) current forms. Thus one could conclude that the belief structure around "Intelligent Design" is very similar to the belief structure around "creationism". Thus one would be quite at liberty to describe "Intelligent Design" as a branch of "Creationism", a branch in which there is a single entity called "The Designer", as opposed to say Christian-creationsim where there is a single entity called "God".

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

I'm following the rules to the letter of the law. As you should...

The Law is Fred, he say's it is alright to wander off-topic.

So wandering off-topic is allowed, therefore it is you that is not following the rules.

And I might point out, I have not gone off-topic, I have only informed you that going off-topic is allowed and that it is not your place to try and impose rules in other peoples threads. It is acts like this that are not viewed kindly by the people who post in these "political" (read - subjects that don't fit anywhere else) threads.