You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from Teleologist:
So is evolution like a drunk reeling back and forth between the bar room wall and the gutter or is it like an embryological process?
Perhaps you can furnish a few examples of specific species related through the process to which you refer, to make more precise commentary possible.
Thanks.
just bumped into the Discovery Institute's Wedge document... makes everything much clearer now, the lies, the devious / moronic behaviours of zizzz, jem etc...
"GOALS
Governing Goals
. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
. To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
. To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
. To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
. To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
. To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
. To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. "
for a complete version:
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80929
science the cause of the lack of a moral compass in today's US?? cause it says man evolved from apes??
not the stupid pioneer-days relics: attachment to 1) unbridled capitalism, total disregard for both people's livelihoods and environment, and to 2) the right to carry arms anywhere without regard for other people's sense of security, and the consequences?? and the ensuing sky-high urban criminality levels, misery, solitude, racial tensions, hate speech etc... open question...
"GOALS
Governing Goals
. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
. To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
. To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
. To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
. To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
. To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
. To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. "
for a complete version:
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80929
science the cause of the lack of a moral compass in today's US?? cause it says man evolved from apes??
not the stupid pioneer-days relics: attachment to 1) unbridled capitalism, total disregard for both people's livelihoods and environment, and to 2) the right to carry arms anywhere without regard for other people's sense of security, and the consequences?? and the ensuing sky-high urban criminality levels, misery, solitude, racial tensions, hate speech etc... open question...
May I ask, finite proof is what exactly? I mean, why finite? Why not proof - without attaching an apparent unnecessary and inappropriate adjective to it?
Aren't there other descriptions similarly inappropriate such as -absolutely finite- . Why did you stop at ordinary finite?
In suggesting finite proof as opposed to proof, aren't you simply setting up some misdirection through false argument as the basis of your statement?
Also what rigor exactly is it you say parts of proof are not conformed to? It seems to me the lack of rigor would be an apt description for the non application of the scientific method and certainly not the basis of scientific proof.
Aren't there other descriptions similarly inappropriate such as -absolutely finite- . Why did you stop at ordinary finite?
In suggesting finite proof as opposed to proof, aren't you simply setting up some misdirection through false argument as the basis of your statement?
Also what rigor exactly is it you say parts of proof are not conformed to? It seems to me the lack of rigor would be an apt description for the non application of the scientific method and certainly not the basis of scientific proof.
The somewhat redundant phrase "finite proof" is for the sake of clarity. There are no infinite proofs.
Complete rigor is not humanly possible, because arbitrary assumptions proliferate at ever step in the process of any (apparent) proof. Science, like logic, must therefore be incomplete, i.e. incorporating premises taken on faith.
Complete rigor is not humanly possible, because arbitrary assumptions proliferate at ever step in the process of any (apparent) proof. Science, like logic, must therefore be incomplete, i.e. incorporating premises taken on faith.
Oh, I quite agree that certain premises must be taken on faith.
The proofs and/or conclusions though, should not be taken on faith, they should be taken as speculative and not worthy of dogmatically indoctrinating children into them.
Again, if a child is asked who their ancestors are, and the child says "apes" the child has been indoctrinated, just as much as if a child had said he came from "Jesus."
The correct response actually is "I don't know" but so and so believes __________ and I have accepted that on faith.
We don't need children to be indoctrinated into a faith in schools, we need to have them learn critical thinking, then derive their own faith, be it agnostic faith, theistic faith, or atheistic faith.
The parents of children have the right to offer their faith to children, but not the school systems funded by public money.
The proofs and/or conclusions though, should not be taken on faith, they should be taken as speculative and not worthy of dogmatically indoctrinating children into them.
Again, if a child is asked who their ancestors are, and the child says "apes" the child has been indoctrinated, just as much as if a child had said he came from "Jesus."
The correct response actually is "I don't know" but so and so believes __________ and I have accepted that on faith.
We don't need children to be indoctrinated into a faith in schools, we need to have them learn critical thinking, then derive their own faith, be it agnostic faith, theistic faith, or atheistic faith.
The parents of children have the right to offer their faith to children, but not the school systems funded by public money.
Quote from Jampilier:
The somewhat redundant phrase "finite proof" is for the sake of clarity. There are no infinite proofs.
Complete rigor is not humanly possible, because arbitrary assumptions proliferate at ever step in the process of any (apparent) proof. Science, like logic, must therefore be incomplete, i.e. incorporating premises taken on faith.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Oh, I quite agree that certain premises must be taken on faith.
The correct response actually is "I don't know" but so and so believes __________ and I have accepted that on faith.
Perfect example of why ID'ers aren't thinking scientifically. That's not how science works. Science says "We will take a hypothesis and try to falsify it and if we can't we will proceed forward on the assumption that the hypothesis is correct until we run into evidence which tends to disprove it, at which time we will either modify it or try a new hypothesis".
I think that this post clearly highlights the fundamental weakness of ID thinkers. Z says that we can do science and get information and form hypotheses, but if asked whether the hypotheses are 100% correct, we must say 'I don't know' and we must base our actions on 'I don't know'.
Well, fortunately for Z and those of his disgusting ilk, scientists, innovators, engineers, inventors, researchers and others do the exact opposite every day. They do science, or take the results of scientific inquiry, and they say 'I like it! I see enough evidence that I am going to take matters into my own hands and attempt to innovate, or attempt to solve this medical research problem, or attempt to build this machine based on the theory that it should work'. As I have said in this thread before, the arguments made by the Disgusting Troll are more than anything a condemnation of human innovation.
Does it always work? No. But this is how progress occurs.
The need for 100% certainty is.... well, it's not surprising that those who require it are the ones who indulge themselves in dogmatic thinking, exemplified by extreme religiosity. Most often, the only things we can be 100% certain about are those things which we accept on faith. Aside from death and taxes, right?
Evolution is our best explanation. There isn't a shred of proof for ID.
Case closed.