Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[GDon]

You keep missing the point. Getting published, even in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make something 'science' if the researchers and readers refuse to acknowledge the hypothesis failed.

Yes it does. Science is self-correcting. Sometimes the scientific consensus is wrong.

Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific hypothesis because the research to confirm it failed.

I agree. Science works!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Sure! This is the link: https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

This is the first four entries. I'd already checked them and they seem legit.

But acbytesla is right. Those publications were respectable, right up until they published creationist 'science'.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Yes it does. Science is self-correcting. Sometimes the scientific consensus is wrong.

Yes, but it's never wrong about the supernatural.

The more Science learns, the smaller God gets. Currently He's about the size of the Planck constant.

 

[Leumas]

Sure! This is the link: https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

This is the first four entries. I'd already checked them and they seem legit. Please let me know what your own investigation shows.

* Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004)

* Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

* Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

* Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

I doubt you have read any of those.

I doubt you have the ability to begin to understand them if you tried to read them.

I doubt you have looked into those journals and whether they are legitimate or not.

I doubt if you had looked into who the reviewers were.

And...

Even if it is all legitimate... as usual... the risible irony of apologetics....

Do you think some christian scientist eg. Francis Collins publishing a paper about the human genome project and having it peer approved has any relationship whatsoever to his christian views?

Did the peer review process review his views on Jesus' resurrection and approve that by approving his human genome paper??

What do you think of a christian apologist who harps on and on about Francis Collins having had peer reviewed papers in a discussion about Jesus' resurrection and tells us that Jesus' resurrection is science because Francis Collins has had science papers peer reviewed and published???




.

 

[Leumas]

Yes it does. Science is self-correcting. Sometimes the scientific consensus is wrong.

I agree. Science works!

Yes... but theism is ALWAYS wrong...

And when scientists find out they were wrong they admit it and publish about it.

Theists never admit they were wrong and lie and lie and lie about it to hide and hoodwink and befuddle and obfuscate.

Imbecilic Design is one of those things and so is its propaganda apparatus the DiscoveryHoodwinking Institute For Hawking Jesus.

 

[Leumas]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Identity theft is not flattering at all... when perfidious charlatans start promulgating pseudo-science in the guise of scientists they are not flattering they are flimflamming.

Imitating science is an admission that it is superior and their faith is on shaky ground.

And the numerous religious organizations with billion$ can afford to finance and deploy and employ and train hordes of religious zealots and charlatans to lie for Jesus as Paul taught and Martin Luther sanctified... and to do Concern Trolling and Fly Trapping and... to launch full out propaganda INSTITUTES and fake journals and buy corrupt scientists and purchase venal judges and bribe authorities etc. etc.

• 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; ... To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak. I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some peddle Jesus. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with hawk Jesus to you.
• Martin Luther -- "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes it does. Science is self-correcting. Sometimes the scientific consensus is wrong.

I agree. Science works!

If you agree what the heck are you on about trying to argue there is any kind of evidence behind Intelligent Design?

Yes, the scientific consensus can be wrong. It took a decade before medical practitioners back in the 1800s recognized cholera was caused by water contaminated with a bacteria and not by "bad air". It took a while before medical scientists recognized H-pylori's role in stomach ulcers.

And there are other examples. One thing all of these examples have in common is the amount of actual scientific evidence supporting the slow-to-catch-on consensus.

That is not the case here, it's the other way around. The evidence is against irreducible complexity. No evidence supports it that hasn't been contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

There is something else here that fits a pattern: yet another person has come around to school us in some thing they have discovered they don't believe we have seen before, or they don't believe we have seen the 'science'.

But we have. That's why I know about Behe, his claim bacterial flagella had no precursor organelle, the genetic evidence of a precursor intracellular transport system, and it's why I have been to the Discovery Institute more than once to see what they had to offer.

 

[GDon]

But acbytesla is right. Those publications were respectable, right up until they published creationist 'science'.

Yes, at least one of them copped a lot of flak for publishing an article ostensibly supporting ID that passed peer review. More credit to them. That's science.

It's one thing for someone to claim that "science doesn't work". That person is definitely anti-science. But nobody, not even the most ardent creationist claims that.

It's another thing for someone to claim that "the science consensus on subject X is wrong" and then be called "anti-science" because of that. Surely we've had enough examples of that over the last three years to realise the danger of that.

ID ideas have passed peer review. Doesn't make the ID hypothesis correct. Science involves the questioning of the scientific consensus. I think some people here are confused between "science" and "scientific consensus". Science is about questioning the scientific consensus. Religion is about not questioning religious consensus. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Yes, it is the "science is a religion for some atheists" trope. Apologies for that.

 

[GDon]

If you agree what the heck are you on about trying to argue there is any kind of evidence behind Intelligent Design?

I'm not. I'm just making the correct claim that some ID articles have passed peer review, and that is a credit to science. The worst thing for science would be to reject an idea simply because it disagreed with the scientific consensus. That would be anti-science.

 

[Leumas]

I'm not. I'm just making the correct claim that some ID articles have passed peer review, and that is a credit to science. The worst thing for science would be to reject an idea simply because it disagreed with the scientific consensus. That would be anti-science.

Would you say the same about a Flat Earth article if its writers managed to hoodwink or purchase venal scientists to publish their article about how Flat Earth is a valid scientific theory?

Come on... would you even for a second congratulate the bamboozled "journal" for being brave to publish the Flat Earth article???

I challenge you to answer the above question.... I will bet anything you will not answer.

 

[Leumas]

...

ID ideas have passed peer review. Doesn't make the ID hypothesis correct.

It has passed peer review of Imbecilic Design peer reviewers... not scientists.

Science involves the questioning of the scientific consensus.

Do you think scientists should be questioning the Solid Dome Firmament Theory too??? Scientific consensus says it is a theistic imbecility just like the Imbecilic design theory.

Do you think there should be more journals brave enough to publish the Dome above the flat earth theory too???

I think some people here are confused between "science" and "scientific consensus". Science is about questioning the scientific consensus. Religion is about not questioning religious consensus. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Yes, it is the "science is a religion for some atheists" trope. Apologies for that.

Yes... I told you that is what your are doing pages back... you are incessantly and indefatigably promulgating the CONCERN about how atheism is a religion too and how atheists should be more open minded to Imbecilic Design and Flat Earth and Jesus' resurrection and talking donkeys and walking snakes so as to not be dogmatic about atheism as theists are about Imbecilic Design and Jesus' resurrection.

In other words your CONCERN is about science and how it should be corrupted by Imbecilic ideas in order to not be dogmatic about REALITY.




.

 

[Leumas]

ID ideas have passed peer review. Doesn't make the ID hypothesis correct....

I think you do not understand what the scientific peer review process entails or what it is there for in the first place.

Hint: It is not there to say "ah this sounds possible let's just publish it anyway even though we have no idea if it has any validity at all and despite there being many publications proving its invalidity already."

 

[Leumas]

... The worst thing for science would be to reject an idea simply because it disagreed with the scientific consensus....

Again... I think you do not know what scientific consensus is either...

Imbecilic design is not rejected because of scientific consensus... it is rejected because it is (1) not science it is creationism... (2) its pseudo-science is fake science... (3) its arguments have been debunked and PROVEN incorrect.

Evolution is not accepted because it is scientific consensus... despite what you think... it is accepted because (1) it is science... (2) it has been ratified by numerous experiments and scientific discoveries... (3) its RESULTS are numerous and have made you able to be alive today promulgating CONCERNS about its validity.


Hint: scientific consensus is about the latest and most valid scientific findings based on the latest data gleaned from the latest research and ongoing concerted efforts of scientists around the globe.

Hint: theological consensus is about blind faith in bronze age tribal fairy tales with excommunicating anyone who disagrees with the central infallible divinely ordained authority on those myths.

 

[Leumas]

... I think some people here are confused between "science" and "scientific consensus".

No they are not... you are the only one who is.

And this statement of yours proves it...

Science is about questioning the scientific consensus.

Any person who knows what science is knows that the above statement is arrantly wrong.

Religion is about not questioning religious consensus.

And ironically... any person who knows anything about religion knows that the above statement is arrantly wrong too.... as evinced by the gazillion cults and sub-cults and sects and sub-sects and branches and sub-branches of almost every religion there is.

I think you can see where I'm going with this. Yes, it is the "science is a religion for some atheists" trope. Apologies for that.

You ought to apologize... based upon the facts shown above of you not knowing what science or scientific consensus are... and also clearly not understanding what atheism is either.

Hint: An atheist may not even have an inkling what science is or what the consensus is.... but knows that a Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial voodoo rituals commanding ethnic cleansing slave mongering bronze age tribal myths is antithetical to REASON and REALITY.



.

 

[bruto]

I suspect that any creationist babble that passed peer review did so mistakenly or dishonestly, and probably not for long.

Nothing is perfect, and just about everything has some residual noise. That's not the place to be looking for wisdom, though.

 

[GDon]

I suspect that any creationist babble that passed peer review did so mistakenly or dishonestly, and probably not for long.

No, it passed because it wasn't an outright rejection of evolution, but rather a "reappraisal of certain aspects of evolution". From here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/431114a

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design
...
A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. The paper appeared in a low-impact journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. But critics say that it could still be used by advocates of intelligent design to get the subject on to US school curricula (see Nature 416, 250; 2002).
...
Meyer's article has attracted a lengthy rebuttal on The Panda's Thumb, a website devoted to evolutionary theory. But Miller says that, despite criticism of the journal, versions of the theory will find their way into the scientific literature at some point. Arguments for it can be written, he says, as reappraisals of certain aspects of evolution rather than outright rejection. “Peer review isn't a guarantee of accuracy,” he adds. “That is especially true of review articles.”

 

[Leumas]

No, it passed because it wasn't an outright rejection of evolution, but rather a "reappraisal of certain aspects of evolution". From here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/431114a

The paper appeared in a low-impact journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

How much money did they take for doing that???


Also....

Would you say the same about a Flat Earth article if its writers managed to hoodwink or purchase venal scientists to publish their article about how Flat Earth is a valid scientific theory?

Come on... would you even for a second congratulate the bamboozled "journal" for being brave to publish the Flat Earth article???

I challenge you to answer the above question.... I will bet anything you will not answer.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not. I'm just making the correct claim that some ID articles have passed peer review, and that is a credit to science. The worst thing for science would be to reject an idea simply because it disagreed with the scientific consensus. That would be anti-science.

You have the wrong idea of what peer review means. It doesn't mean an hypothesis or a conclusion was supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.

Understanding Science 101 - Scrutinizing science: Peer review

Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else’s unreliable study! Peer-reviewed work isn’t necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results.

Peer review is not a statement that a researcher's conclusions are correct.
At some point an unsupportable hypothesis is discarded. You can't apply "but scientific consensus has been wrong" to any and everything you want to be science. At some point it becomes no longer valid science.
[sidetrack to address why Behe's beliefs, The Discovery Institute's mission, and Intelligent Design are not science. And irreducible complexity has been refuted by overwhelming scientific evidence]
ACLU: THE TRIAL OF KITZMILLER V. DOVER
Dover Schools were sued to stop teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classes.

"Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. ...
... Throughout the trial, witnesses both for the plaintiffs and the defendants demonstrated how creationism evolved into intelligent design. Witness testimony showed that it was precisely because of its controversial religious message that the School Board adopted intelligent design and not because of any scientific evidence to support it. ...

Another example of intelligent design proponents attempting to advance their particular religious beliefs is made very clear in the infamous wedge document produced by the Discovery Institute, the organization at the forefront of the intelligent design movement.
The strategy describes how to promote their personal religious beliefs by denigrating science and promoting supernatural intelligent design as a competing theory. School board members Buckingham and Alan Bonsell consulted the Discovery Institute before voting to change the biology curriculum.

Ignoring such statements, the defense asserted that intelligent design is rooted in science, frequently citing Dr. Michael Behe's work. In what often sounded like an advanced biology course, expert witness Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, said that, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community."

Legal findings
re Behe's testimony:

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe))

[/sidetrack, that's enough and it's getting further and further off topic]

 

[Leumas]

No, it passed because it wasn't an outright rejection of evolution, but rather a "reappraisal of certain aspects of evolution". ...

So in other words the writers of the paper yet again obfuscated their REAL AGENDA in order to befuddle and beguile and acquire an inch so as to insidiously steal the whole yard.

Their agenda is a Trojan Horse For CREATIONISM.

And then proceed to hoodwink that the designer is a celestial slave mongering voodoo rituals prescribing witches proscribing human sacrifice commanding ethnic cleansing participating bronze age tribal myth.

 

[GDon]

You have the wrong idea of what peer review means. It doesn't mean an hypothesis or a conclusion was supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.

So why the big deal about the correct claim that ID articles have passed peer review??? The ID theory is wrong AND articles promoting ID have passed peer review. Both things can be true. It's science in action.

Anyway, I've never claimed that passing peer review means being supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. In fact, I've said the opposite. This is what I wrote on the last page to acbytesla

I'll point out that this is science in action. Science is self-correcting. It can only be self-correcting if people question the scientific consensus, going through the peer review process. Passing peer review doesn't mean "it's true!" It means it is being looked at seriously. Lots of hypotheses that are looked at seriously get rejected. ID has been rejected. Seriously rejected.

Anyone who appreciates science as science should be celebrating the publication of ID articles in peer review. It's the difference between religious claims and scientific claims.

If anyone has a problem with the idea that ID claims have been published in scientific journals and have passed peer review, then they have a problem with science.