quote:

quote:

At least you admit evolution is dogma. That is a step in the right direction.

No, I have inversely-contrapositively indicated that anti-evolution is not non-dogma.

quote:

But you can't deny the relationship between eugenics and Darwin, though many are horribly ignorant on the subject.

quote:

The article did not indicate that there is a renaissance of Hitler-esque eugenics, but rather indicated why such a thing should not happen.

quote:

You completely ignored everything that I pointed out about non-Downs cases, didn't you.
Why am I not surprised?

quote:

Most any theory or philosophy can be twisted, cherry-picked, or warped to favor the worldview of individuals in charge of its doctrine.

quote:

Secondly, the main reason why Ben Stein and his film are taking such a public beating is that he fails to provide a shred of scientific data proving ID, which is why the theory (and calling ID that is indeed generous) is dismissed by science in general.

ID is not testable. Period.

quote:

If eugenics and atheism are a 'twisting' of evolution...then it appears to have been 'twisted' by it's primary proponents, which seems odd.

quote:

Well, ID is positively demonstrated, and has a straight forward falsification schema; how much more can it tested?

quote:

Come again?

Who has ever claimed that atheism is a direct result of Darwin? Not me, per our discussion. The same goes for eugenics, which is really an archaic load of bunk anyhow.

As for Stein's doltish claim that Darwin was the inspiration for the Nazi's Final Solution, one only needs to read 20th century European history to see how Hitler used the Jews as a financial scapegoat to explain Germany's economic ruin post-WWI and rise to power under a hyper-nationalist politic.

quote:

Demonstration (which is subject to differing interpretation) and testable, repeatable forms of proof are two different concepts.

ID has never been able to provide the latter. Where's the data?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Calling eugenics bunk doesn’t change it’s connection to evolution, and the fact that you, a non-scientist, deny the connection between evolution and atheism does nothing to change the fact that evolutionary scientists like Dawkins et. al claim a direct connection.

quote:

And yet when we point out that the nearly sum total of support for the ID movement is from creationists (see the several on this board always in constant defense of ID) and the primary figure head institute's sole mission is not to further scientific discovery but to turn it into a theological enterprise, we are off base? You are always quick to respond that we need to judge the theory on its merits.... perhaps you could do the same for evolution?

quote:

Calling eugenics bunk doesn’t change it’s connection to evolution, and the fact that you, a non-scientist, deny the connection between evolution and atheism does nothing to change the fact that evolutionary scientists like Dawkins et. al claim a direct connection.

quote:

It has regularly and repeatedly been demonstrated; on a daily basis in fact.

quote:

Oh, I see. I cannot disagree with Dawkins because I don't have a biology degree. How wonderfully elitist.

Secondly, read what I said earlier about any theory or concept being vulnerable to being selectively cherry-picked for content that favors another deliberate position.

quote:

You are not listening to me, Jack. The scientific method turns on repeatable, and testable data - not demonstrations alone.

How is ID testable? Where is the data?

How do you prove a supernatural entity is responsible for biological creation, then go back to Square One, and mechanically repeat that proof?

For example, you can prove the existence of gravity via the repetition of experiments with identical results, and/or breaking down gravitational variables via hard equations.

How do you use the same method to mechanically prove a supernatural force is responsible for the creation of a giant squid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

And yet when we point out that the nearly sum total of support for the ID movement is from creationists (see the several on this board always in constant defense of ID) and the primary figure head institute's sole mission is not to further scientific discovery but to turn it into a theological enterprise, we are off base? You are always quick to respond that we need to judge the theory on its merits.... perhaps you could do the same for evolution?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word s 'merits'.

quote:

Err, ok.... What, pray tell, are you getting at here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Oh, I see. I cannot disagree with Dawkins because I don't have a biology degree. How wonderfully elitist.

Secondly, read what I said earlier about any theory or concept being vulnerable to being selectively cherry-picked for content that favors another deliberate position.

So, if noted scientific leaders of the evolutionary community are 'cherry-picking' evolutionary theory, how are we supposed to know when they are legitimately speaking about the theory, and when they aren't?

quote:

You are not listening to me, Jack. The scientific method turns on repeatable, and testable data - not demonstrations alone.

How is ID testable? Where is the data?

How do you prove a supernatural entity is responsible for biological creation, then go back to Square One, and mechanically repeat that proof?

For example, you can prove the existence of gravity via the repetition of experiments with identical results, and/or breaking down gravitational variables via hard equations.

How do you use the same method to mechanically prove a supernatural force is responsible for the creation of a giant squid?

It’s not that I am not listening to you, it’s that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If we reduce science down to only that which ‘repeatable’, then there could be no scientific theories concerning the origin of the universe, earth, life, or the origin of species, because none of those events are repeatable. Perhaps that is your point, but that would limit scientific inquiry severely.

But as far as what ID claims, ID claims intelligence is required to produce irreducibly complex and specifically complex systems and structures. And information driven nano-machines (and thus cells) are such systems.

I can demonstrate the production of a specifically complex string right now.

Here I will do it again.

Ooops, here it is once again.

quote:

It’s not that I am not listening to you, it’s that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

If we reduce science down to only that which ‘repeatable’, then there could be no scientific theories concerning the origin of the universe, earth, life, or the origin of species, because none of those events are repeatable.

quote:

Perhaps that is your point, but that would limit scientific inquiry severely.

quote:

But as far as what ID claims, ID claims intelligence is required to produce irreducibly complex and specifically complex systems and structures. And information driven nano-machines (and thus cells) are such systems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
So, if noted scientific leaders of the evolutionary community are 'cherry-picking' evolutionary theory, how are we supposed to know when they are legitimately speaking about the theory, and when they aren't?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Again, you are confusing eugenics and racism. They arn't one and the same.

quote:

I didn't ignore it; it's rather an insignificant point in light of a test that is used to identify Down's babies so 90% can be killed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Again, you are confusing eugenics and racism. They arn't one and the same.

We've already covered this. Quit dodging behind this tree.

quote:

I didn't ignore it; it's rather an insignificant point in light of a test that is used to identify Down's babies so 90% can be killed.

The kind of prenatal eugenics testing that I was addressing, and you are ignoring, can and does save lives. But you're right: it doesn't matter if all you want to focus on is death.

quote:

I know. I'm starting to feel like a bully.

quote:

We've already covered this. Quit dodging behind this tree.

quote:

The kind of prenatal eugenics testing that I was addressing, and you are ignoring, can and does save lives. But you're right: it doesn't matter if all you want to focus on is death.

quote:

You might stop cherry-picking who you listen to and consider some other opinions. Michael Ruse, for example, in Can a Darwinian be a Christian? concludes it is possible, in these words: "Being a Darwinian does not compel one to be a Christian, but, because one is a Darwinian one is opening a way for someone to be a Christian."

quote:

That's why they are theories. There is a difference between Darwinism (a theory, albeit a largely accepted one) and basic principles such as gravity. However, related methods such as paleontology and fetalogy are excellent tools to research the former. That's how we know some species of dinosaurs had feathers.

quote:

This method is intended to make scientific inquiry governed by the collection and presentation of measurable data, and thus, prevent crackpots from bellowing that (for example) the moon is unquestionably made of green cheese without providing proof of that claim.

quote:

There is such an obvious difference between artificial and biological structures that it is ridiculous. Again, if I'm wrong why isn't aeronautical engineering and biology taught in the same classroom?

quote:

Ultimately, as much as you rally around, ID ultimately fails because it cannot provide an equation that connects the creation of a snapping turtle with the (allegedly) supernatural entity that (allegedly) created it.

quote:

In other words, how do you define that God connection as a testable formula? How do you define Him as a number, and where?

quote:

Sentences don't mutate, mate and reproduce unique offspring. However, if they did, and specific and ever changing natural conditions made certain combinations of letters more likely to be able to "live" to reproduce more offspring, then your sentence might just form over time, and prove not to be so irreducibly complex.

quote:

Edit: This actually goes straight to the heart of the irreducibly complex argument, and is similar to Behe's mousetrap analogy. Yes, if you assume the final form was and is the ultimate end product and no previous forms could perform the same function or any other beneficial function than irreducible complexity sorta makes sense. But thats not how it works. When ken miller show's up for an interview with a mousetrap for a tie clip with a spring pulled out, he illustrates perfectly where irreducible complexity falls down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I'm not dodging anything; you are the one confusing them.

quote:

I am not the one focusing on death; a medical establishment sold out to the idea of culling undesirables is - I just can't figure out why you are so bent on defending them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You might stop cherry-picking who you listen to and consider some other opinions. Michael Ruse, for example, in Can a Darwinian be a Christian? concludes it is possible, in these words: "Being a Darwinian does not compel one to be a Christian, but, because one is a Darwinian one is opening a way for someone to be a Christian."

I'm not the one cherry picking; I do think a someone who accepts Darwin can be a Christian (I say this as a former evolutionist) it's Dawkins, Meyers, Harris, and the rest who insist they are incompatible - but 'Christian' evolutionists rarely criticize this bunch, even though they are the ones making the claim.