Cryptozoology forums > Debates > Evolution vs. Creationism > view thread

Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Smacks posted Tue, Nov 3 2009, 2:46pm  "Evolutionists hacked the web site and phone lines of the organization sponsoring the event, trying to prevent people from registering to attend. Guess laws guaranteeing free speech only apply to people who agree with evolution." Bad apples in every bunch. Besides, where did you get the information? I didn't see it in the article. How were the beliefs of these hackers made known? "There is a link to a rather long list of peer-reviewed articles on ID. If ID were not based on science, this list would not even exist." First of all, by your logic, evolution is based on science, even more so than ID. Even if all of those were "peer-reviewed articles", that would only be 46 publications. How many biological publications have been produced that support evolution in the same time frame? 80,000+ (just from a single publisher.) If we included all publishers of scientific journals, it would probably be around 200,000. So, 46 vs 200,000. (THIS IS SPARTA!!!!) Keep in mind, I don't necessarily think that that raw fact means as much as it appears, but apparently "peer-reviewed articles" proves a scientific basis, so, really, evolution is 4300 times more scientific than ID. Second, that list is highly deceptive. I read scientific papers and journals literally every day, and I only recognize three of those journal names, out of probably at least a hundred that I've read from. Why don't I recognize the others? Because they are not biological journals, for the most part. I see math and engineering in there - that's fine for what it is, but a math or engineering publication does not have to contain information relevant to actual biological systems. Many of those papers are in philosophical journals - a fine outlet for this discussion, but not scientific. Another significant portion of the articles are from books or articles specifically discussing the debate - that doesn't demonstrate that academic culture supports the ID view, just that in order to have the debate you must allow ID proponents to speak. Out of the actual biological articles, most of those are from disreputable foreign journals . The few published in legitimate, biological journals, have been dealt with on a case by case basis - either being misinterpreted, published under dubious circumstances, or lacking any actual data. I think you should stick to the argument that they aren't getting published because "the man" is keeping them down, not your new argument that ID scientists DO publish. "For the record, David Berlinski is an excellent read. And also for the record, he is not a Christian YEC. He is an agnostic Jew." He's an odd duck; says he doesn't believe in God, but in interviews he claims the superiority of a theistic worldview. I can't figure out if he a) believes and pretends like he doesn't or b) is unconvinced by his own arguments or c) needs to more clearly articulate himself. Peace. P.S. I know it was a long post and it was a few days old, but I was a bit disappointed you never responded to my questions on that human evolution thread. I put a lot of work into that... Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Hootowl posted Tue, Nov 3 2009, 3:11pm  "Bad apples in every bunch. Besides, where did you get the information?" See my link in response to N. Mihalos above. "First of all, by your logic, evolution is based on science, even more so than ID." Evolution theory is based on science, I have never disputed that. I just think it is very poor science, and believe it is driven by atheistic ideology as much, if not more than, any search for scientific knowledge. "So, 46 vs 200,000. (THIS IS SPARTA!!!!)" Debatable totals. but even if true, science progressives by facts, not popularity contests. I could say there are 200,000 articles in the Republican National Congress archives supporting the Republican party, and only 46 saying kind things about Democrats. Do the numbers imply Republicans are correct, and Democrats wrong? It brings us right back to the materialistic ideology debate. If the standard operating procedure for scientific peer reviewed articles is "anything is good, as long as it is scientific and does NOT postulate intelligent design", then it is a miracle any articles get past the "evolution only" censors. None of this proves ID is not scientific. It's just not the "right" kind of scientific for a community of scientists heavily leaning towards an atheistic world-view. "P.S. I know it was a long post and it was a few days old, but I was a bit disappointed you never responded to my questions on that human evolution thread. I put a lot of work into that... " Must have slipped through the cracks. I noticed a couple replies I posted a few days ago have disappeared. There was nothing bannable in them so I have no idea what happened. I'll see if I can find your post and respond. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Smacks posted Wed, Nov 4 2009, 7:37am  "See my link in response to N. Mihalos above." I read the link. No where was that claim supported. They never found who did it and no one ever claimed credit. The only thing that supports "the Darwinists did it" is paranoia. "Debatable totals." To a degree. But almost every biological publication incorporates some notion of evolution (phylogeny, optimization, etc.), and there are hundreds of journals printing hundreds of papers each year. I think the comparison is qualitatively legitimate. "but even if true, science progressives by facts, not popularity contests." I made the same point that it was not a popularity contest, which was just to show that your logic of "Look, they've published, therefore it is based on science" doesn't work. More interesting is that it didn't look like ID scientists published a single paper based on actual laboratory/field research. Primarily because ID is not amenable to such tests, which is another reason it is kept out of journals. Supernatural intervention is out of the realm of science; it may not be out of the realm of reality, but for now it cannot be mentioned in scientific journals because it is not scientific (repeatable, observable, etc). This is not an atheistic bias, but a scientific one. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Hootowl posted Wed, Nov 4 2009, 4:15pm  "I read the link. No where was that claim supported. They never found who did it and no one ever claimed credit. The only thing that supports "the Darwinists did it" is paranoia." How is it paranoia to suspect that Darwinists, who are virulently opposed to ID and creationism, would be the most likely perpetrators? They are the ones with the strongest motive. Can you think of a more likely group? "To a degree. But almost every biological publication incorporates some notion of evolution (phylogeny, optimization, etc.), and there are hundreds of journals printing hundreds of papers each year. I think the comparison is qualitatively legitimate." We can agree to disagree. I have seen well-substantiated cases of bias against ID in scientific journals. The bias is philosophically and politically motivated, not theologically. ID theorists do not postulate the nature of the designer. Their premise is that some biological structures and processess are best explained by intelligent design. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 1:40am  How is it paranoia to suspect that Darwinists, who are virulently opposed to ID and creationism, would be the most likely perpetrators? So, only your suspicion, again. As Smacks wrote, there's nothing to support the claim. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Hootowl posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 5:58am  As I said, they are the most likely suspects. The police would call them "people of interest", with the strongest motive to commit the act. As I also stated, I can think of no other group that would be interested in wrecking a conference on ID. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 6:57am  Correction: you "can think of no other group" to fit your hypothesis. Such faulty logic is, after all, what helps make cryptozoology so open to ridicule :~} Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Hootowl posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 9:00am  Considering the person or persons with the most likely motive to commit a crime to be primary suspects is common practice in police investigations. Such 'faulty logic' catches a lot of criminals. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 1:05pm  Working off forensic evidence to corroborate, sometimes. Your 'faulty logic' continues to become faultier by the post. Pray continue. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 3:02pm  I can perfectly imagine an scenario, the fanatic Creat sabotaging the cenference just to claim what Hooty is claiming, that ID is such a worrying concept to Science that them "scientific atheists" must take extreme measures..hey, I know who he was ! Hooty DID IT !!!! LOL ! It could have been a prank, what?. Who deletes my most pungent posts?. Not the moderator...the web is rife with cuckoos, just look at me!. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Vila posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 6:16am  It's ok Stooshie... It's like explaining calculus to a cat. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Smacks posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 12:25pm  "How is it paranoia to suspect that Darwinists, who are virulently opposed to ID and creationism, would be the most likely perpetrators? They are the ones with the strongest motive. Can you think of a more likely group? " Why does it have to be a group? One lone nut can do anything. Even if it were Darwinists, it is a tremendous leap of logic to suggest evolutionary scientists are trying to suppress dissent. More likely it is some jerk atheist who is good with computers and hates ID people. It's not some vast conspiracy against open discussion. Just a prankster. Jeesh. I might as well say Christians are interested in using violence to suppress alternative views because of the abortion clinic bombers. " I have seen well-substantiated cases of bias against ID in scientific journals." If you read my post, I did say that that was the better argument for your side. The point I was making is that you claimed that they ARE publishing, and now it appears you've backed down to say they aren't being allowed to publish. Which is it? If I were you, I'd leave out the weaker claim that they are producing research. "The bias is philosophically and politically motivated, not theologically" How do you know this? This is my biggest problem with you, I think: you make bold, blanket statements about an area that you know nothing about. You know the motivations and intentions of people you have never met? Do you even know how the publication process works? I'd just like to see some support for your allegations, or at least some humility (call it a suspicion.) "ID theorists do not postulate the nature of the designer." But postulating a designer moves one outside of the realm of observational, physical science. You can't publish a scientific paper saying there is no designer, either. It's nothing personal to Christianity; it's just not something that goes into a scientific paper. I'm all for philosophers handling this in philosophical journals. Science can't speak on that issue - it cannot postulate causal agents outside of physical reality. Peace Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Hootowl posted Sun, Nov 8 2009, 9:18am  "But postulating a designer moves one outside of the realm of observational, physical science. You can't publish a scientific paper saying there is no designer, either. It's nothing personal to Christianity; it's just not something that goes into a scientific paper." But this is where you, and evolutionists in general, don't see the elephant in the room. Consider, just hypothetically, that it is impossible for life to arise by chance, and impossible for it to evolve in any macro sense. Consider, also hypothetically, that the God of the Bible does exist, and did, historically and factually, create life. Using that working hypothesis, how would using a purely materialistic approach to science ever arrive at correct scientific conclusions regarding the origin and development of life? Many great scientists, past and present, have had no difficulty working under this hypothesis. Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, and Wernher Von Braun are a few famous names that come to mind. Not all were involved in the biological fields, but I hope you get my point. Subject: Re: ID Conference Report From: Smacks posted Mon, Nov 9 2009, 6:18pm  As a Christian myself, I do hold that it is possible that life came about miraculously. But science cannot discover that for, as you note, it takes the approach of methodological naturalism. What else can or should science do? Its success has been derived from the process of seeking material explanations. Surely you don't see any need to invoke the supernatural in explaining 99.9% of phenomena; why must it be invoked now? Regarding your list of luminaries, many great scientists, past and present, also held the view that evolution and faith were not in opposition to one another. Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, Owen Gingerich, John Polkinghorne, Asa Gray, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Alister McGrath, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Joan Roughgarden, etc., to name a few. Peace.

Close Window