Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Steve]

ID was torn apart, showing it had no validity.

"have no validity" = not science. No science was done in preparation of the paper you reference.

 

[wareyin]

Thanks for the correction. I've argued a lot against creationists in the past, so I had the impression that Michael Behe developed the idea of IC which is supported by an old earth. It was one of the arguments I used against them -- if a creationist pointed to ID, I pointed to Behe and support for an old earth.

If you have info showing that Creationists actually created ID to try and fool people into thinking it wasn't creationism, I'd love to see any links you have on that!

Holy crap, you've argued with creationists against ID, and yet have never heard of the Wedge Document or Kitzmiller v Dover?

Wait, were you arguing against ID in the same vein as your current defense of ID as science where you claim that by including ID as science you're actually promoting science? i.e. doing the opposite of what you claim?

 

[Dr.Sid]

What form will we take in the afterlife? We know we exist now, because of electricity moving around our brains. Without that, what?

But why does the electricity move in our brains ? Jesus raised from the dead, so clearly there must be more to it !

 

[Olmstead]

No, that's painting with way too broad a brush, in my opinion (fair enough if you disagree). Someone who fiddles the books doesn't reject book-keeping. They may well be happy with the process and practice of book-keeping. You'd have to elevate the term "book-keeping" to some abstract ideal in order to turn it into "rejecting book-keeping".

Strange analogy, since someone who fiddles the books does it for underhanded reasons. And yes, someone who "fiddles" science data in order to advance their preferred theory doesn't reject science. They are just a con artist, so it isn't strange that they accept the scientific method in all other aspects of life.

The comment I was reacting to originally earlier on this thread was "They'll attack evolution and science which amuses me since, they use computers, cars and cell phones." Attacking the scientific consensus on a subject doesn't mean one can't accept the use of computers, cars and cell phones. And it went from there!

It's not simply attacking the consensus if they reject the very foundation of scientific inquiry. Observation. Question. Hypothesis. Experiment. Result. One doesn't simply start at the result stage. This scientific method was central in the development of such things as computers and cars, and the theory of evolution itself was central in the development of procedures in criminal investigation and medicine.

For example, phylogenetic analysis has contributed to some vaccines, and creationists don't reject ... wait, never mind, I might need a drink for this one.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Strange analogy, since someone who fiddles the books does it for underhanded reasons. And yes, someone who "fiddles" science data in order to advance their preferred theory doesn't reject science. They are just a con artist, so it isn't strange that they accept the scientific method in all other aspects of life.



It's not simply attacking the consensus if they reject the very foundation of scientific inquiry. Observation. Question. Hypothesis. Experiment. Result. One doesn't simply start at the result stage. This scientific method was central in the development of such things as computers and cars, and the theory of evolution itself was central in the development of procedures in criminal investigation and medicine.

For example, phylogenetic analysis has contributed to some vaccines, and creationists don't reject ... wait, never mind, I might need a drink for this one.

If they reject etc.

If I submit research for peer review which covers some or other vital component of my perpetual motion machine, everyone and their grandma knows the perpetual motion machine is phoney baloney ********, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with the science or engineering in my trojan horse submission.

 

[acbytesla]

There is a "3 page" sweet spot to threads. They nearly always derail after the 3rd page.


The statement that started this for me personally was "They'll attack evolution and science which amuses me since, they use computers, cars and cell phones."

But that is conflating "science" with "science consensus". Someone arguing against consensus in an area is EXACTLY how science advances. But just because someone argues against the consensus in a certain area doesn't mean they are "rejecting science". It's dangerous to paint things that way, since that leads to orthodoxy. "Question X? You are rejecting science!" No good will come from it.

And fair enough too.

Depends on how do it. If you're only attacking the consensus "just because" it doesn’t fit with your fairy tale, you're not doing science. There is a distinct difference between science and science sophistry.

Evolution is probably the most proven theory in science. It is foundational to biology and medical science. Our understanding of evolution is used as a tool to create vaccines, medicines, and better plants. It is so well supported by 200 years of science, that arguing against it is ridiculous.

That isn't to say that there may be aspects of it that we may be wrong about. But evolution itself is settled science.

 

[Leumas]

I know that Creationists were certainly using ID as a Trojan Horse. That much is not in doubt. What I'd like to understand is whether Behe was in on it, as you say. According to Behe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

...
If those are the words of a Creationist, that would be an amazing own-goal. The old earth of ID and "micro evolution" (which Creationists already agrees is a process, so extend that over time and you get -- evolution!) is already a useful argument against Creationists. So anything in those documents that would support that view, that Behe was a young-earth Creationist who didn't believe in the idea of common descent, would be very interesting.

So your incessantly concerned defenses of Behe is that creationists believe in young earth and Behe accepted old earth and thus could not have been a creationist....

Well... yet again you fail...

Have you heard of the Catholic Church declaring acceptance of Evolution since the 1950s.

Have you ever heard of Old Earth Creationism?

So Behe could be an old earth creationist or an accepter of evolution ala Catholic model... or even an avower of THEISTIC Evolution as it is called... or even evolution but God shoving in created souls at some stage.

HOWEVER... again as is always the case with the risible irony of apologetics... Behe could be whatever he could be and he is LYING and dissimulating (ala Paul)... you are taking Behe's words at face value.

Have you considered that he is just a liar and pretender dissimulating being a Theistic Evolutionist just so that he would not get summarily laughed out of any discussion regarding anything to do with what he was trying to peddle and pretend is science while espousing young earth creationism??

And... all this has already been proven in courts and he admitted to it.... so he was a liar and admitted it.

There is a psychological phenomenon known as Cognitive Dissonance which compels cult members to refuse to believe their cult leader is a liar and mountebank even after he is proven to be one and even if he admitted it himself.

Just the other day I had a guy tell me that Iraq had WMDs... I told him that George W. Bush himself said on the news that there were none.... he retorted that Bush was lying because he was forced by the deep state to say so. So the guy believed Bush when he lied about the WMDs and when Bush admitted on TV that it was a lie... this guy opts to believe that the admission of a lie is the lie not the original lie which the liar himself admitted was a lie.

 

[Leumas]

I know that Creationists were certainly using ID as a Trojan Horse. That much is not in doubt. What I'd like to understand is whether Behe was in on it, as you say. According to Behe:...

Here are some facts proving Behe is a Liar For Jesus...

Michael Behe

Personal life

Michael Behe is a devout Catholic.​

John E. Jones III, the judge in the case, would ultimately rule that intelligent design is not scientific in his 139-page decision, citing Behe's testimony extensively as the basis for his findings:

• "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
  
  
• "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."
  
  
• "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."
  
  
• "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems.... among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."
  
  
• "Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. ...

Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns

Behe received $20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns. The case was filed by Association of Christian Schools International, which argued that the University of California was being discriminatory by not recognizing science classes that use creationist books..... Behe's expert witness report claimed that the Christian textbooks, ... are excellent works for high school students. He defended that view in a deposition.​

 

[bruto]

Of course if you finagle your terminology, all sorts of things can be redefined.

Young earth creationism and old earth creationism are not quite the same but the do share a rather important qualifying word, don't they?

You can say ID doesn't deny evolution in the same outright way young earth creationism does, but only by redefining evolution to mean something it means only in ID. If you really think about it, the main difference in ID, in which we have something that looks like evolution but isn't, is that not only is science wrong, but it's wrong because the god of ID is a liar whose sport is to deceive us with false appearances.

You don't have to read Behe's mind or parse his thought processes to note that ID is meant to deny the scientific findings of evolution, and the very idea of science itself, and to open up the school system to the denial of evolution and the teaching of religion. Belief in a creator god is a non-negotiable condition of ID.

Maybe it's better than young earth creationism in the same way it's better to cut off your hands than to cut off your head, the same old right wing definition of compromise: between unspeakable crime and no crime is a measured amount of crime.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course if you finagle your terminology, all sorts of things can be redefined.

Young earth creationism and old earth creationism are not quite the same but the do share a rather important qualifying word, don't they?

You can say ID doesn't deny evolution in the same outright way young earth creationism does, but only by redefining evolution to mean something it means only in ID. If you really think about it, the main difference in ID, in which we have something that looks like evolution but isn't, is that not only is science wrong, but it's wrong because the god of ID is a liar whose sport is to deceive us with false appearances.

You don't have to read Behe's mind or parse his thought processes to note that ID is meant to deny the scientific findings of evolution, and the very idea of science itself, and to open up the school system to the denial of evolution and the teaching of religion. Belief in a creator god is a non-negotiable condition of ID.

Maybe it's better than young earth creationism in the same way it's better to cut off your hands than to cut off your head, the same old right wing definition of compromise: between unspeakable crime and no crime is a measured amount of crime.

There's a multi-part series on YouTube called "Exposing the Discovery Institute. It methodically shows how Behe, Meyer and other members of the Discovery Institute don't practice science. It shows the Institute attacking Evolutionary science not through additional science, but blatant dishonesty.

I highly recommend it.

Exposing the Discovery Institute
https://youtu.be/HRxq1Vrf_Js Part One. Casey Lufkin

https://youtu.be/HRxq1Vrf_Js Part Two: Stephen Meyer

https://youtu.be/MVQGQz-0Xeo Part Three: Michael Behe

https://youtu.be/NFPHvvJWVAk. Part Four: Gunter Bechly

 

[GDon]

Holy crap, you've argued with creationists against ID, and yet have never heard of the Wedge Document or Kitzmiller v Dover?

No, I argued against creationists by using ID. If Creationists pointed to ID to justify Creationism, I would point to ID proposing an old earth and common descent. Yes, I've heard of the trial and the Creationists' use of ID as a Trojan Horse, but I didn't realise the claim was that ID itself was created by Creationists. For me, ID had always been something external to Creationism that Creationists had picked up to use as a Trojan Horse, even though ID itself is at odds with much of Creationsim. I'd be interested if that wasn't actually the case.

Wait, were you arguing against ID in the same vein as your current defense of ID as science where you claim that by including ID as science you're actually promoting science? i.e. doing the opposite of what you claim?

My claim is that ID proponents have had articles published in peer reviewed journals, they have had all their points refuted, and that is "science at work". (Best to read what I've written rather than what people have claimed I've written. I know its shocking to think this happens on the Internet but occasionally, very occasionally, one's points get misread. )

 

[Leumas]

Of course if you finagle your terminology, all sorts of things can be redefined.

Young earth creationism and old earth creationism are not quite the same but the do share a rather important qualifying word, don't they?

You can say ID doesn't deny evolution in the same outright way young earth creationism does, but only by redefining evolution to mean something it means only in ID. If you really think about it, the main difference in ID, in which we have something that looks like evolution but isn't, is that not only is science wrong, but it's wrong because the god of ID is a liar whose sport is to deceive us with false appearances.

You don't have to read Behe's mind or parse his thought processes to note that ID is meant to deny the scientific findings of evolution, and the very idea of science itself, and to open up the school system to the denial of evolution and the teaching of religion. Belief in a creator god is a non-negotiable condition of ID.

Maybe it's better than young earth creationism in the same way it's better to cut off your hands than to cut off your head, the same old right wing definition of compromise: between unspeakable crime and no crime is a measured amount of crime.

The apologists for Imbecilic Design argue that the "scientific consensus" needs to be more open minded and admit "peer reviewed" pseudo-science because otherwise science is more of a religion.

But Behe was presented with

Here are some facts proving Behe is a Liar For Jesus...

Michael Behe

....

• "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."

And yet he did not change HIS consensus for his lies and god and pretenses.

And that is exactly what all this is about... CONCERN TROLL that science needs to be open minded so as to avoid being dogmatic like the "bad" theists.... all the while the theists are using this "open mind" to shove in their lies and hawking for their gods.

Lies and pretenses and subterfuge and dissimulations and chicanery and shenanigans backed up by BILLION$$$ in funding in order to beguile and deceive and cajole and inveigle and dupe.

And it is all part of a long held and extolled and sanctified tradition of lying in order to hawk and proselytize for Jesus as they have been commanded in the New Tall tales and as they have learned from Jesus himself and Paul and all the founding mountebanks of the cult and its sub-cults.

 

[GDon]

Strange analogy, since someone who fiddles the books does it for underhanded reasons. And yes, someone who "fiddles" science data in order to advance their preferred theory doesn't reject science. They are just a con artist, so it isn't strange that they accept the scientific method in all other aspects of life.

Thank you! Exactly.

 

[Leumas]

No, I argued against creationists using ID. If Creationists pointed to ID, I would point to ID proposing an old earth and common descent.

No you have not.

Yes, I've heard of the trial and the Creationists' use of ID as a Trojan Horse, but I didn't realise the claim was that ID itself was created by Creationists. For me, ID had always been something external to Creationism that Creationists had picked up to use as a Trojan Horse. I'd be interested if that wasn't actually the case.

So you have not done even the slightest bit of reading or researching on it... because had you done so you would have not escaped the GLARING FACTS that are everywhere about the reality about Imbecilic Design being a pseudo-science and a RUSE and a LIE FOR JESUS.

My claim is that ID proponents have had articles published in peer reviewed journals, they have had all their points refuted, and that is "science at work".

And you very evidently have not done the slightest bit of research about science or how science "works" either.

(Best to read what I've written rather than what people have claimed I've written. I know its shocking to think this happens on the Internet but occasionally, very occasionally, one's points get misread. )

I think you have not read what you have written... or you have written it without knowing what it is you were writing.

Repeating errors over and over will not make them not errors.

You have now been shown all the facts that Behe is a LIAR FOR JESUS... are you going to admit that Behe has duped you and stop this indefatigable concern for defending him and his pseudo-science and his lies for Jesus?


Note: I will bet anything that you will not.

 

[Leumas]

Strange analogy, since someone who fiddles the books does it for underhanded reasons. And yes, someone who "fiddles" science data in order to advance their preferred theory doesn't reject science. They are just a con artist, so it isn't strange that they accept the scientific method in all other aspects of life.

Thank you! Exactly.

Exactly what??

So do you admit that Behe is a well funded and backed LIAR FOR JESUS???

 

[GDon]

You don't have to read Behe's mind or parse his thought processes to note that ID is meant to deny the scientific findings of evolution, and the very idea of science itself, and to open up the school system to the denial of evolution and the teaching of religion.

Right. So if someone believed they'd made observations incompatible with evolution, and they'd formed a hypothesis around it (not ID obviously, so some other theory!), what would be the best way for them to overturn evolution in your opinion? How would that person go about it?

 

[Leumas]

Right. So if someone believed they'd made observations incompatible with evolution, and they'd formed a hypothesis around it (not ID obviously, so some other theory!), what would be the best way for them to overturn evolution in your opinion? How would that person go about it?

Careful... you are exposing their AGENDA... and going about overturning evolution is not "doing science"... it is doing RELIGION.

Right. So if someone believed they'd made observations incompatible with evolution, and they'd formed a hypothesis around it ....

And they have been shown by scads of data that their belief is wrong and based upon faulty and incomplete observations and that their formed hypothesis is faulty and not at all derivable even from the limited and faulty observations.

So what now.... what should this person do with his BELIEF???

Just use more money and more chicanery and subterfuge to keep trying to peddle his BELIEF... or admit his error and try harder to improve his observations and collect better data and formulate better hypotheses in the light of the previous errors that led him to the faulty BELIEF???

What would be the HONEST thing to do???

What would be the LYING FOR JESUS thing to do???

[imgw=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512824eb208ba1a6e6.jpg[/imgw]​

 

[Pixel42]

Right. So if someone believed they'd made observations incompatible with evolution, and they'd formed a hypothesis around it (not ID obviously, so some other theory!), what would be the best way for them to overturn evolution in your opinion? How would that person go about it?

The proponents of Intelligent Design did not make observations incompatible with evolution and then form an hypothesis around it. They decided what they were going to believe, imagined the kind of evidence that would be required to support it, and then went looking for something - anything - which they could misinterpret as such evidence.

 

[bruto]

Right. So if someone believed they'd made observations incompatible with evolution, and they'd formed a hypothesis around it (not ID obviously, so some other theory!), what would be the best way for them to overturn evolution in your opinion? How would that person go about it?

Science might be a start. If their observations were true and repeatable then the people making them would be relieved of the necessity to "overturn evolution." It would happen properly, based on evidence rather than the usual religious notions. Evolution (or at least the currently prevalent theory of how it works) would go the way of phlogiston, N-rays and luminiferous ether.

In the mean time, since you yourself consider ID to be "obviously" not such a hypothesis, we can just wait to see if something shows up. I don't think it has so far.

e.t.a. As Leumas and Pixel42 and probably others have pointed out, your hypothetical situation, while it might be interesting, has nothing really to do with ID or with any creationist ideas as far as I can tell. They all start with the hypothesis and then select what is thought to be evidence to support it. This is backwards, and it is not science, and please remember (as so many seem to forget) that this would be the case even if creationism were true!

 

[acbytesla]

Right. So if someone believed they'd made observations incompatible with evolution, and they'd formed a hypothesis around it (not ID obviously, so some other theory!), what would be the best way for them to overturn evolution in your opinion? How would that person go about it?

You're not going to overturn evolution. Not because it is dogma or some kind of sacred cow. It is proved thousands of times a day. At best, you might correct a tiny aspect of it. Although, even that is unlikely.

Evolution is the genetic change in species or populations over time. We see this in real time with viruses, bacteria, dogs cows, wolves, foxes, tomatoes, potatoes, corn, tulips as well as humans. And countless other species too numerous to count.

Evolution is a fact. Not accepting it is like not accepting gravity. We can see the evolutionary process not only in the geological record, but in the genetics.

One might have been able to suggest that the fossil record depends too much on inferences. But now that we are able to look at the genetic record, there is no room for dispute.