The only thing proved is you all know politics. Please address the science, thank you.

Return to topic. ;-)

Why don't you start this thread in the Science corner then?

I did. People who know nothing about science had it moved by Red X. They did so just to up-set me, it can be called entrapment. Then as you can see after my topic post---bait.

As long as its here people think they can only address the politics. That is wrongful thinking, it's a science paper. LOL, so people just don't know science here it would seem. LMAO! It would seem lots and lots of people don't know what is and is not science. ;-)

Considering several actual scientists have told you here again and again that its not science, it is quite apparent that you are the one that does not know what is and is not science.

---

Reality Internet Personality

To be honest I've gone from holding a position much like yours to actually finding the whole concept of religion offensive.

Not agreed. Then I'm thinking of Sister Theresa, the Dalai Lama and other people who brought a lot of wisdom to this world!

If you are talking about Mother Theresa, she wasn't quite the Saint she was made out to be. She did cause the poor in her mission to suffer more than they needed to because she thought it bought them closer to Jesus.

I am sure though that people can bring lots of Wisdom the world without being religious.

Academics suggest Hitch called it right on Mother Teresa
The article they refer too, Mommie Dearest

The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.

Slightly sorry for being off topic, but disagree with originator of this sub-topic

To be honest I've gone from holding a position much like yours to actually finding the whole concept of religion offensive.

Not agreed. Then I'm thinking of Sister Theresa, the Dalai Lama and other people who brought a lot of wisdom to this world!

If you are talking about Mother Theresa, she wasn't quite the Saint she was made out to be. She did cause the poor in her mission to suffer more than they needed to because she thought it bought them closer to Jesus.

I am sure though that people can bring lots of Wisdom the world without being religious.

Very true but you can't say that Religion hasn't brought us wisdom at all! Without the Bible, Quoran, Bhagavad gita or other similar books a lot of people would already be lost in this world. Not everyone is a scientist or has an inquisitive nature. I do respect your opinion Es:)

Just wondering.

If all the people of the world only followed two Biblical Precepts:

1 - Jesus of Nazareth Sermon on The Mount.

2 - Ten Commandants

Would be a much better world.

If this happened: I would speak nicely of Commandant #1, and eagerly follow Commandant #4.

Which #1 would that be? and which #4? There is some difference in numbering depending on your sect. I assume you will all be getting rid of your pictures of Jesus seeing as you aren't supposed to be worshipping any graven images?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Ah, I see! I was blind and NOW I SEE! My science is better then your science! Ummmm, isn't that science? Just saying...

---

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

ID will you respond to brendan's post?

FYI: Neo-darwinism and darwinism are not terms used by evolutionary biologists. We refer to it as evolutionary theory. The theory has evolved in many ways since Darwin first proposed it.
FYI: Proponents of ID have failed to provide experimental proof or data to support the ID hypothesis. All of their publications are based on re-interpretations of other peoples data. The paper which forms the basis for this thread is a classic example of this. Until ID "scientists" participate in science and actually carry out some experimental work and create data like we evolutionary biologists do, we can safely ignore them. In science, it is required that the person proposing a new hypothesis provides new data to back it up!
____________

---

Get your so called science openly peer reviewed and things may change, if you're brave enough. ;-)

Cheers.

Ah, I see! I was blind and NOW I SEE! My science is better then your science! Ummmm, isn't that science? Just saying...

Is this you? My made up thing is better than your actual thing

---

Reality Internet Personality

FYI: Neo-darwinism and darwinism are not terms used by evolutionary biologists. We refer to it as evolutionary theory. The theory has evolved in many ways since Darwin first proposed it.

Not true. A red herring.

You may not use them but they still exist as viable and correct lables for the people who do your work.

Neo-Darwinism: chance did it.

Darwinism: from not sure, to Causal Agent.

FYI: Proponents of ID have failed to provide experimental proof or data to support the ID hypothesis. All of their publications are based on re-interpretations of other peoples data. The paper which forms the basis for this thread is a classic example of this. Until ID "scientists" participate in science and actually carry out some experimental work and create data like we evolutionary biologists do, we can safely ignore them. In science, it is required that the person proposing a new hypothesis provides new data to back it up!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.html



question: How would you go about testing for the existence of a designer? What is the research program?

Phillip Johnson :I'd like to start with the first question. It is sometimes said that the hypothesis that there is a designer is untestable. This is false. It is testable, and the test is Darwinian evolution. The claim of the evolutionary biologists is that unintelligent causes did the whole job. If they can prove it, then the counter-hypothesis that you need intelligence has been tested, and it has been shown to be false.

But what I concluded after reading the literature was that the claim that unintelligent processes have been shown to be capable of doing all the work of creation, from the simplest creatures to the more complex ones, is unsupported. The evidence for it lies somewhere between very weak and nonexistent. When you try to get proof, you get stories about microevolution.

Instead of getting evidence of a creation story, what we're getting is evidence of temporary variation in the size of finch beaks.


question: But they're not talking about great transformations taking place all at once. They're talking about something happening very gradually over a huge amount of time. Why couldn't that be the case?


Phillip Johnson :Well, why couldn't it? Often when one asks for a demonstration of the evolutionary changes that Darwinians claim, the answer that they always give is, "Well, it's done very gradually" and "This takes an enormous amount of time, millions of years, whereas we only live to be 100 if we're very long-lived, so it is quite impossible for the evolutionary change to occur in our time limits. That's why we don't see it."

My logical reaction to that is that's perfectly accurate if you assume that the evolutionary change of this enormous amount actually occurs. Then you can give a satisfactory explanation for why we don't see it. But there is another possible explanation for why we don't see it. The other possibility is that it doesn't happen. I think maybe that's what the truth is.

question: If it doesn't happen, then where do you go from there?


Phillip Johnson :Well, if it doesn't happen, something else must have happened. The problem became clear to me as I read further and further that the one thing that evolutionary biologists are absolutely determined to support is their starting premise that all of the changes that brought about all of the different species and kinds of life on Earth happened by purely natural causes like random mutation and natural selection. So while there can be arguments over the details, there can be no argument or discussion over the fundamental principle that only natural—which is to say unintelligent—causes were involved.

The reason why that premise of natural causes has to be so inviolate and so ferociously defended is that what if something other than purely natural causes was involved? What would it be? Well, the most obvious answer to that question is it would be God. And they regard this possibility with horror, because it seems to unseat all of their science. It seems to take them back to the beginning or to the Dark Ages, as they would tend to say. You get God in there and that's the end of science, they think, so that can't be. But I wondered, maybe it could be.

I viewed myself as much more unprejudiced in that matter. I was willing to believe in a biological creation by Darwinian mechanism if it could actually be proved. But if it couldn't be proved, I thought it was quite legitimate to think of something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is a Proper Test of Intelligent Design?

---

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

(Ahem: Humblest of apologies ID, but I'm going WAY off-topic... it's like a big black hole dragging me in... :))

I was quite surprised to see her emerging from the First Class arrivals lounge at Heathrow in a flurry of blue in her own wheelchair (along with her entourage of course - one of whom, incidentally, she thumped with a walking stick... I assumed all that pampering had left her slightly miffed) this whilst my brother in law also a missionary worker had his wheelchair taken away and stuffed in the hold, presumably after it had been bent with a lump hammer rendering it unusable at his destination. Ohhhhh... maybe that's where all the money went... paying British Airways for special wheelchair priveleges :)

The argument put forward in the discussion you quoted is false. There is no either/or outcome here. Even if you could prove evolutionary theory wrong, this does not automatically prove ID is right. You are arguing from the absence of evidence. All we scientists ask is that ID proponents carry out an experiment and provide data that shows that organisms arise through ID and not evolution. Such evidence has never been produced. Until then, its just another untested hypothesis.

---

Until then, its just another untested hypothesis.

You speak well.

---

ID Phillip Johnson gives a very lame defence of the intelligent design hypothesis. His argument is pathetic.

---

OP, give us a basic scientific explanation of what the paper is about.

---

What Is a Proper Test of Intelligent Design?

Nice, while trying to correct an evolutionary biologist's "misunderstanding" of ID, the linked article states:

Behe has further written elsewhere: "if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it." The question is not "Can Darwinian evolution do anything?" but rather "Can Darwinian evolution do virtually everything, as proponents of naturalism often claim?" ID proponents want to avoid presupposing answers, and instead want to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Thus, ID might frame the question like this: "What can neo-Darwinian processes accomplish, and what is best explained by intelligent causes?"***

Perhaps you can show me where an evolutionary biologist has proposed how a four legged vertebrate could also have a pair of wings (where are the dragons?)?

The truth is that evolutionary biology places limits on what may arise through the processes of random mutation and natural selection, and the clear answer to the final question is "nothing is best explained by intelligent design, because ID explains nothing, instead it conjures up a magical being that does all the hard work" (though made stupid errors while doing so).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID explains nothing, instead it conjures up a magical being that does all the hard work"

Bobby I like the idea of magic it just has not been shown to work.

---

(Ahem: Humblest of apologies ID, but I'm going WAY off-topic... it's like a big black hole dragging me in... :))

I was quite surprised to see her emerging from the First Class arrivals lounge at Heathrow in a flurry of blue in her own wheelchair (along with her entourage of course - one of whom, incidentally, she thumped with a walking stick... I assumed all that pampering had left her slightly miffed) this whilst my brother in law also a missionary worker had his wheelchair taken away and stuffed in the hold, presumably after it had been bent with a lump hammer rendering it unusable at his destination. Ohhhhh... maybe that's where all the money went... paying British Airways for special wheelchair priveleges :)

How very unChristian! Why didn't the airway replace it!?!

---

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

No, the argument is valid as is the science.

The burden of proof, of chance, rest in your corner.

Same science, looking for different outcomes. It saddens me I have to point this basic fact out to you. Oh well...

---

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

No, the argument is valid as is the science.

The burden of proof, of chance, rest in your corner.

Same science, looking for different outcomes. It saddens me I have to point this basic fact out to you. Oh well...

ID it is clear to me that you don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

---

No, the argument is valid as is the science.

The burden of proof, of chance, rest in your corner.

Same science, looking for different outcomes. It saddens me I have to point this basic fact out to you. Oh well...

You must not be a scientist to use common sense.

I find it very fascinating that some people rely on so called "basic facts" that have no evidence to back up those so called "basic facts". :-O

All I can ever see here with this topic is "misguided belief", no "reliable facts" are at all ever included and so it's understandable that "sensible people" would not want this junk taught to their children.

Cheers.