Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from kjkent1:

I'm not missing anything. You avoided my challenge and then you state as if it were self evident that "there is no way to determine probabilistically that living beings are more likely to have been a product of ignorant chance than by intelligent design."

I think you are missing something.

And, you did this immediately after I pointed you to a site where there exists a scientific proof that living beings can be produced by what you always describe as "random ignorant chance."

Because a scientist thinks something is "random" does that mean it is actually random?

Is it logically possible that there was a pattern unseen to the scientist?

It is not as if we haven't seen in the past scientist claim to not see patterns, only to learn as deeper information comes along that there was in fact a pattern all along.

If you look at a table of computer generated random numbers, that was by design.....

So, on one side of the scale we have a scientific proof of the capability of evolution to deliver the very thing that you state is impossible, i.e., complexity from disorder, and on the other side we have you and the other proponents of ID proclaiming that it is not possible, but providing no scientific proof, and merely basing their proclamation on the weight of their respective personal experiences and belief systems.

On the one side of the scale we have people believing complexity is coming from disorder, when in fact they don't know if there wasn't order underlying what they viewed as disorder.

These concept of random is a projection of the mind, and is often the result of ignorance of all data.

All available data is not the same as all data.

Evolution works and produces the desired result.

Desired result?

Who or what exactly is desiring this result you speak of?

Could God have started the process? Of course, and there's no reason why this can't be stated as an unknowable possibility.

Then start stating it today in biology classes, why not?

 

[stu]

I see no words or explanations in any quote you give, that do other than express the understandings of the people who wrote them. They do not represent whatsoever, any actual findings recorded as fact or scientific Theory, that deals with questions of creation or God or religion.
There is quite simply no reference to creation God or religion in any scientific Theory or scientific biological findings.

All those statements and sentiments reflect what those people anticipate to be the case, given the information available to them.

None of it is suitable to be taught as science or biology and indeed as far as I know, no school would or certainly should, allow anyone to teach children "Man is the result of a purposeless process". That is not biology. Neither is "Man is the result of a purposeful process" biology or science either.




ps. You are a Mod and you may know I have the highest esteem for ( i unquestioningly suck up to) Mods and Admin and if you say evolution means creation... then it does!! Merry Holiday and a Happy New Year

Quote from roberk:

Here are some quotes from leading evolutionists Stu:

T.H. Morgan thought that the “main goal of Biology was to show the invalidity of religious views of man and the universe” (T. Dobzhansky in The Evolutionary Synthesis, 1998, p.446).

Julian Huxley, at the Darwin Centennial in 1959 said there was no longer any need for man “to take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinised father-figure[God]” (Witham, 2003, p.5). Religion, according to Huxley, was only one stage in evolution and now man was at a higher level where it “rejected the supernatural idea of creation for that of material progress”(ibid, 2003, p.5). And “Darwinism removed the whole idea of god as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed” (ibid, 2003, p.7).

Daniel Dennett writes in his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: “Safety demands that religions be put in cages” (1995).

Douglas Futuyma: “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx’s materialist theory of history and society and Freud’s attribution of human behaviour to influences over which we have little control, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism – of much of science, in short – that has since been the stage of most Western thought.” (Futuyma, 1986, p.2).

Lewontin: “We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, 1997).

William Provine: “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented” (keynote address at the 1998 Darwin Day celebration at the University of Tennessee). He also suggests trying to join evolution with theology, as in beliefs that God(s) somehow started creation but is now out of the picture as being “worthless.” Those type of God(s) “don’t give life after death, they don’t answer prayers, they don’t give you foundations for ethics. In fact they give you nothing” (ibid, 1998).

Even when religion is not specifically mentioned, the conclusions of biologists are antithetical to religious beliefs:
George Gaylord Simpson: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” (1967, pp.344-345).



Jacques Monod thinks that “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution ...” (Monod, 1972, p.110); and “Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance.” (p.167).

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from energytraderus:

Postors here continue to miss the point: whether ID explains life is a matter of opinion; for those here dull, even top scientists disagree on the nature of mutation. The point here is why a federal court heard this case and--even more inportantly--why the media gave this obscure issue so much coverage. For those dull, note the chief instigator is a Jew named Rothschild. The attack on ID is a direct attack by Jews on Christian fundamentalists.

The lack of any discrenment among so many traders here brilliantly illustrates why so many quants and economists lose in markets. Warren Buffet continues to beat his head against a wall having painstakingly examined months of current account and TICS data while his long forex positions continue to lose hugely. Warren evidently never considered that now speculators might be focusing on other factors than the obvious ones. Likewise, postors here haven't considered that a federal court's decision to hear ID had nothing to do with whether ID is "scientific" or not.

So, lemme get this straight. The jews are using Federal District Court Judge John Paul Jones III (a G.W. Bush appointee, and definitely as "goy" as mayo), as a pawn to undermine the notion that Christ is Lord.

If that's your position, then I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I'm not missing anything. You avoided my challenge and then you state as if it were self evident that "there is no way to determine probabilistically that living beings are more likely to have been a product of ignorant chance than by intelligent design."

I think you are missing something.

And, you did this immediately after I pointed you to a site where there exists a scientific proof that living beings can be produced by what you always describe as "random ignorant chance."

Because a scientist thinks something is "random" does that mean it is actually random?

Is it logically possible that there was a pattern unseen to the scientist?

It is not as if we haven't seen in the past scientist claim to not see patterns, only to learn as deeper information comes along that there was in fact a pattern all along.

If you look at a table of computer generated random numbers, that was by design.....

So, on one side of the scale we have a scientific proof of the capability of evolution to deliver the very thing that you state is impossible, i.e., complexity from disorder, and on the other side we have you and the other proponents of ID proclaiming that it is not possible, but providing no scientific proof, and merely basing their proclamation on the weight of their respective personal experiences and belief systems.

On the one side of the scale we have people believing complexity is coming from disorder, when in fact they don't know if there wasn't order underlying what they viewed as disorder.

These concept of random is a projection of the mind, and is often the result of ignorance of all data.

All available data is not the same as all data.

Evolution works and produces the desired result.

Desired result?

Who or what exactly is desiring this result you speak of?

Could God have started the process? Of course, and there's no reason why this can't be stated as an unknowable possibility.

Then start stating it today in biology classes, why not?

You keep falling back on "Nobody can prove me wrong, so I can believe whatever I want." What you're missing is that it's unnecessary to prove you're wrong, i.e., that there isn't a designer in order to demonstrate that evolution works.

Evolution is proven to produce order from chaos without evoking a supernatural actor. Period.

That a supernatural actor may or may not have designed evolution is irrelevant in a science class, because such speculation is not science...it's philosophy.

If you allow your philosophy into a science curriculum, then you must permit investigation of astrology, numerology, palmistry, alchemy, etc., because all of these ancient metaphysical arts are the product of the identical philosophic view that you propose, i.e., "Nobody can prove me wrong, so I can believe whatever I want."

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

My "philosophy" doesn't exclude anything but the notion that life is the product of random ignorant unplanned chances is not supported by fact.

There is no need at all to push a particular God or particular path, just to have the kids aware that there are two possibilites, neither of which is known as fact, nor is any test known to establish such facts.

I oppose untrained indoctrinated kids embracing science as a replacement for religion because the "scientists" think that is the right thing to do, and I oppose religion restricting the job of science because that is what some religions group thinks.

And I contest your theory that "Evolution is proven to produce order from chaos without evoking a supernatural actor."

Until such time that you can exclude that a "supernatural actor" isn't behind the scenes, it just an ignorant guess. It is not a knowledgeable conclusion, it is a conclusion from ignorance.

Science has a tendency to reach its limit of knowledge and declare "Eureka, now we know it all" but history has shown the folly of this thinking perpetually.

The concept of chaos and order are directly related to the degree that man can determine order and chaos. What was once thought to be chaos in science was later discoveded to actually be an order of a deeper magnitude.

Quote from kjkent1:

You keep falling back on "Nobody can prove me wrong, so I can believe whatever I want." What you're missing is that it's unnecessary to prove you're wrong, i.e., that there isn't a designer in order to demonstrate that evolution works.

Evolution is proven to produce order from chaos without evoking a supernatural actor. Period.

That a supernatural actor may or may not have designed evolution is irrelevant in a science class, because such speculation is not science...it's philosophy.

If you allow your philosophy into a science curriculum, then you must permit investigation of astrology, numerology, palmistry, alchemy, etc., because all of these ancient metaphysical arts are the product of the identical philosophic view that you propose, i.e., "Nobody can prove me wrong, so I can believe whatever I want."

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

My "philosophy" doesn't exclude anything but he notion that life is the product of random ignorant unplanned chances.

There is no need at all to push a particular God or particular path, just to have the kids aware that there are two possibilites, neither of which is known.

I oppose untrained indoctrinated kids embracing science as a replacement for religion because the "scientists" think that is the right thing to do, and I oppose religion restricting the job of science because that is what some religions group thinks.

And I contest your theory that "Evolution is proven to produce order from chaos without evoking a supernatural actor."

Until such time that you can exclude that a "supernatural actor" isn't behind the scenes, it just an ignorant guess. It is not a knowledgeable conclusion, it is a conclusion from ignorance.

Science has a tendency to reach its limit of knowledge and declare "Eureka, now we know it all" but history has shown the folly of this thinking perpetually.

The concept of chaos and order are directly related to the degree that man can determine order and chaos. What was once thought to be chaos in science was later discoveded to actually be an order of a deeper magnitude.

You can contest my "theory" all you want, but until you falsify Schneider's mathematical model, your contest is no more viable than your horoscope in today's paper. Schneider's model proves that evolution can do exactly what you say it cannot do, produce order from chaos.

Tomorrow, someone may falsify Schneider's work, just as tomorrow someone may falsify Einstein or Heisenberg, etc. But, until that occurs, all of these scientific "theories," form the bases of modern understanding, whereas your attempt to invoke Aristotelian logic to explain the universe remains discarded on the ash heap of history.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

What you call evolution, I called the planned consequence of the organizing power of life.

I see no chaos at all, I just see an ignorance of a deeper order.

Quote from kjkent1:

You can contest my "theory" all you want, but until you falsify Schneider's mathematical model, your contest is no more viable than your horoscope in today's paper. Schneider's model proves that evolution can do exactly what you say it cannot do, produce order from chaos.

Tomorrow, someone may falsify Schneider's work, just as tomorrow someone may falsify Einstein or Heisenberg, etc. But, until that occurs, all of these scientific "theories," form the bases of modern understanding, whereas your attempt to invoke Aristotelian logic to explain the universe remains discarded on the ash heap of history.

 

[energytraderus]

"kjkent1" meant "disprove" not "falsify". Learn English; learn to think clearly. Invoking some obscure scientist named Schneider is known as "appeal to authority"--rhetorical fallacy: read Aristotle.

 

[stu]

Quote from kjkent1:
That a supernatural actor may or may not have designed evolution is irrelevant in a science class, because such speculation is not science...it's philosophy.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Until such time that you can exclude that a "supernatural actor" isn't behind the scenes, it just an ignorant guess. It is not a knowledgeable conclusion, it is a conclusion from ignorance.

Let's see
kjkent makes the point a designer is irrelevant in a science class, for the reason, any such speculation is not science.

Zzz's says, you have to put the possibility of designer in the science class because it is a possible speculation that science does not deal with.
So you have to put ID into science because it is not science and is a possible speculation irrelevant to the subject.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

What you call evolution, I called the planned consequence of the organizing power of life.

I see no chaos at all, I just see an ignorance of a deeper order.

That's fine, but it's philosophy, not science. We have no disagreement in philosophy. The disagreement is whether philosophic observations should be permitted to invade science.

I say no, because if it is permitted, then science loses the reason to continue to search for answers, because all answers are provided a priori, i.e., "God did it."

I concede, God may have done it all. But, from the perspective of science, God's presence is irrelevant, because no science can test for God's existence. At the moment that God becomes available for inspection via scientific methods, God simultaneously becomes part of the natural universe, and ceases to be God.