ID/Creationism challenge

[randman]

`Now, evos show your true colors: abject paranoia that God could be an idea in science through ID, and your paranoid belief that constitutes a theocracy.

It's not science for you guys. That's why you have such problems looking at the data objectively. It's a political, social, ideological pseudo-religious movement for you guys.

 

[Dinwar]

One possible correction to your otherwise accurate summary: If you're talking about what is said in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, that was not said openly. The Discovery Institute never intended for that document to become public; it was leaked (or stolen, according to one of the DI's co-founders). The leaked document was marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."

You are correct, and I really should know better. Thanks.

Now, evos show your true colors: abject paranoia that God could be an idea in science through ID, and your paranoid belief that constitutes a theocracy.

As usual, completely wrong, and your errors have been demonstrated in this thread. ID is NOT a scientific belief, but a vehicle for wedging religion into science, and from there into the schools, and from there into politics, as per the Discovery Institute's own statement. I'm just taking them at their word.

As an aside, it's hillarious that the Disco Tute can say "We're after a total theocracy in the USA!" and you don't bat an eye. However, when I say "They said they wanted a total theocracy!" you start howling about showing our true colors.

 

[brainmeat]

Are there any testable (falsifiable and reproduceable) predictions in ID that model anything in any quantitative way? I don't mean a bullet point list of apparent weaknesses in opposing theories, but a set of specific, testable claims concerning ID mechanisms.

 

[Dinwar]

Nope. That's why IDiots never state the nature of the designer--if they never porvide a testable prediction, their possition can never be falsified.

 

[randman]

Are there any testable (falsifiable and reproduceable) predictions in ID that model anything in any quantitative way? I don't mean a bullet point list of apparent weaknesses in opposing theories, but a set of specific, testable claims concerning ID mechanisms.

Yes, but I am not going to waste my time posting them again. Look at some of the papers of the Discovery Institute. Doesn't take long. Start with those that are peer-reviewed.

You can also consider a variety of papers confirming a subset of ID, front loading, where evolutionist predictions proved wrong and the astonishing claims of front loaders proved correct. It is considered by some based on the latest studies, for example, that the last common ancestor(s) that gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes than are available to plants and animals today. All the gene families were already there, as front loaders predicted and evos predicted otherwise.

There's a ton of specific claims where evos have been wrong. This has resulted in evos usually belatedly trying to find a way to explain the data with a revision of evo theory. The fossil record is a classic example. Evos finally, after decades, admitted creationists and others such as saltationists were correct about what they predicted and showed as far as the data in the fossil record. Evos came up with a theory, PE, to try to explain it in the 70s.

Same with the emphasis on darwinian mechanisms.....science is now more and more moving away from the emphasis on natural selection and discussing evo-devo, neutralism, neo-Lamarckian mechanisms such as epigenetics and chromosomal mechanisms long championed by salationists and some others. Evos were wrong, and IDers were right.

Pierre Grasse was correct to say biologists were wrong to suggest macroevolution was an easily understood and explained process via NeoDarwinian mechanisms; that it was a myth to insist simple allelic mutation and natural selection, etc,.... were a viable means of macroevolution.

 

[Halfcentaur]

`Now, evos show your true colors: abject paranoia that God could be an idea in science through ID, and your paranoid belief that constitutes a theocracy.

It's not science for you guys. That's why you have such problems looking at the data objectively. It's a political, social, ideological pseudo-religious movement for you guys.

The only reason you think having your religious ideas taught to students in school as well as being injected into the politics of a nation would not be theocratic is because you think your religion is true, and thus is science.

You're just asserting once again your religion is the one true religion, "the bible trumps science". That you would be so arrogant as to present your religion as a fact in an open forum is troubling. It's amazing you don't even have the presence of mind to realize how intolerant your claims are, and then you accuse others of this intolerance, as if it's a misrepresentation of your desire to have your religion instructed to children in public school.

But this is all excusable, as long as the religion is the true one?

This sort of thinking is a medieval relic.

 

[randman]

Dinwar, I don't know how this works, whether you can tell, but I have you on ignore and cannot actually see your posts.

 

[randman]

WD, you know something is wrong with evolutionism when it has to rely on the courts to silence dissent.

 

[Olowkow]

Look at some of the papers of the Discovery Institute. Doesn't take long. Start with those that are peer-reviewed.

Ok. Got it.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Dinwar, I don't know how this works, whether you can tell, but I have you on ignore and cannot actually see your posts.

It's a wonder you don't have the entire forum on ignore, but I suppose you need someone to assert your beliefs yet with doubts to fuel your religious persecution complex.

 

[randman]

Ok. Got it.

I got the joke but there are peer-reviewed papers there, and the list is not comprehensive. One pernicious lie promoted by evos is that IDers and others do not publish.

 

[Halfcentaur]

WD, you know something is wrong with evolutionism when it has to rely on the courts to silence dissent.

You're so full of denial you'd rather see a multinational conspiracy than consider you're wrong?

 

[Dinwar]

Look at some of the papers of the Discovery Institute.

Yes--all of them except the one where they state "We're not scientists, we're trying to turn the USA into a theocracy", apparently. The Disco Tute is an institution without credibility, and anything that it touches should be held to be HIGHLY suspect. They are not honest, and have stated (although, admitedly, not openly) that they are searching for evidence of an a priori conclusion, rather than allowing the evidence to guide them.

I'd also add that anyone who advises one to look into the Disco Tute as anything other than a "Know your foe" strategy has drank deeply of the Koolaid, and probably cannot be trusted to look at the data objectively.

One pernicious lie promoted by evos is that IDers and others do not publish.

Yet another of randman's lies. I've stated many, many times here that I've seen Creationists give talks at GSA. What they do NOT do is publish their insane ideas in reputable peer-reviewed journals. They publish OTHER ideas, and they publish their insanity in OTHER journals, but you'll never find a Creationist or ID advocate publishing such a paper in Science or Nature (as examples).

 

[Olowkow]

WD, you know something is wrong with evolutionism when it has to rely on the courts to silence dissent.

That is an astonishing statement from an apparently educated person. I have read the Dover transcript, have you? You are aware of judge John Jones' background?

 

[chipmunk stew]

I love the idea pushed by creationists (and other woo-woos) that revisions and challenges to a theory make it weaker, rather than stronger.

 

[Halfcentaur]

That is an astonishing statement from an apparently educated person. I have read the Dover transcript, have you? You are aware of judge John Jones' background?

It's as if he's unaware that they literally changed one word in their draft or he's claiming the courts fabricated this evidence.

I wonder why there's not been an appeal made. Perhaps these persecuted Christian fundamentalists just realize the futility of standing up to the godless machine. Surely this is confirmation of the end times to them.

 

[randman]

That is an astonishing statement from an apparently educated person. I have read the Dover transcript, have you? You are aware of judge John Jones' background?

His background means nothing. How much litigation have you actually been involved with? If you think the courts are an accurate means of determining the validity of scientific ideas, you are sadly mistaken.

John Edwards made a ton of money over the pseudo-scientific claim that not giving C-sections resulted in severe development deficiencies in children, for example.


The very fact this was in court is evidence against the objectivity of evolutionism. I doubt you realize that but considering Darwinism has been preached in class-rooms, TV shows, science magazines, etc,....for decades, and yet still must resort to litigation to silence dissent is astonishingly good evidence the theory has major problems and is not rooted in a purely scientific approach to data.

 

[Halfcentaur]

His background means nothing. How much litigation have you actually been involved with? If you think the courts are an accurate means of determining the validity of scientific ideas, you are sadly mistaken.

John Edwards made a ton of money over the pseudo-scientific claim that not giving C-sections resulted in severe development deficiencies in children, for example.


The very fact this was in court is evidence against the objectivity of evolutionism. I doubt you realize that but considering Darwinism has been preached in class-rooms, TV shows, science magazines, etc,....for decades, and yet still must resort to litigation to silence dissent is astonishingly good evidence the theory has major problems and is not rooted in a purely scientific approach to data.

Thanks for sticking around to post here for as long as you have.

 

[Olowkow]

His background means nothing.

His background did mean nothing. That's the point.

... If you think the courts are an accurate means of determining the validity of scientific ideas, you are sadly mistaken.

I merely asked if you had read the transcript. It really was not rocket science. Never mind.

 

[randman]

His background did mean nothing. That's the point.


I merely asked if you had read the transcript. It really was not rocket science. Never mind.

Read some of it a long time ago debating evos around the time of decision and made the same comments I am doing here.

If you understand how the law works, you wouldn't cite the decision as evidence of anything science-related.