Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[painted wolf]

Judges are NOT scientists. Court cases are argued by lawyers, not scientists (scientists act as expert witnesses), and have been lost before only to be reversed years later when new justices became members, so a legal opinion is NOT a scientific opinion. While many scientists reject ID, many more support it, regardless of any legal opinion. This is the situation at the present time.

True, but the judge made his ruling based on months of testimony by scientists.... including some of the authors of the book. The authors did not do a good job of defending their work... going so far as to admit that using their definition of "science" you would have to also teach Astrology and Alchemy as valid.
However he ruled primarily on the constitutionality of the book.

You should look into the Dover trial... you can read full transcripts of the testimony and there are some good shows that sum up the trial and why the judge came to his decision.

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

While many scientists reject ID, many more support it, ...

"Many more" than what?

 

[camanintx]

I said that some scientists claim that the values of the constants of physics must be just what they are in order for the Universe and life to exist and provided some sources that support their assertions. I don't know the answers to your questions, I have not thought about them and I am not going to speculate, so I will not answer.

And you have also said that these constants of physics couldn't be any different, so exacly how does this support Intelligent Design? If there is no room for variability then there is no room for design, intelligent or not.

 

[Alceste]

"Many more" than what?

Perhaps he comes from that tribe that has no numbers beyond "one", "two" and "many", and he means many more than zero.

He'd still be wrong, I think.

 

[painted wolf]

They also have the ratio backwards... it should read: "while some scientists support ID, many more reject it."

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Keep telling yourself that. I know scientists who'd say otherwise.

Really? You know a Biologist who doesn't accept the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? What a rare bird. What is his or her name?

 

[Autodidact]

Simple logic and experience; the inanimate cannot give birth to the animate. There has never been a scientific experiment that produced living matter from dead matter - never

You didn't say give birth. You said life can only come from life. You say this is supported by logic and experience. What logic? What experience? No one's talking about "dead matter." Are you familiar with the recent research into abiogenesis? Pretty interesting.

 

[Jose Fly]

So Sandor's argument seems to be...

"ID creationism is accurate because these guys wrote some books that have math in them. Now, I can't/won't answer any questions about the material in them, even when it's pointed out that the stuff I'm quoting says the opposite of what I think it does. Good day."

Not much there to discuss, eh? We basically have someone who's arguing via footnote and won't answer basic questions.

So Sandor, is there anything more to your argument other than "these guys wrote books and they have math in them"?

 

[sandor606]

True, but the judge made his ruling based on months of testimony by scientists.... including some of the authors of the book. The authors did not do a good job of defending their work... going so far as to admit that using their definition of "science" you would have to also teach Astrology and Alchemy as valid.
However he ruled primarily on the constitutionality of the book.

You should look into the Dover trial... you can read full transcripts of the testimony and there are some good shows that sum up the trial and why the judge came to his decision.

wa:do

Yes, I am aware that ID lost the first test primarirly on constitutional grounds and also that the scientists did not do a good job at defending their view. I followed the trial and I was particularly disappointed by Michael Behe's testimony who offered a weak defense of his "irreducuble complexity" theory in support of ID. Darwin's evolutionary theory also lost the first test at the Scopes Trial in 1925 that prevented its being taught in schools. However, it has now been taught for years, which means that the views have changed. In time, the legal opinion on ID will also change.

Be as it may, the science on ID remains unchanged, with an increasing number of scientists supporting it, though quietly in many cases because of the ridicule and vitriol they get from their Darwinian colleagues. One good case in point in John A. Davison who authored the Prescribed Evolutionary Theory and has been the butt of jokes at the University of Vermont. (I posted an excerpt from his paper in my first post.)

 

[sandor606]

"Many more" than what?

Correction: many support...

 

[Jose Fly]

One good case in point in John A. Davison who authored the Prescribed Evolutionary Theory and has been the butt of jokes at the University of Vermont. (I posted an excerpt from his paper in my first post.)

OMG!!! Davison? I debated him for a very short period on an MSN group but was quickly banned because I was putting ol' John on the spot. Even the rest of the creationists gave the manager of the group a hard time about it.

Davison is an outright nutball....borderline insane. The fact that you would cite him at all makes me wonder if you're not a troll. I mean, come on....the Shroud as your avatar, citing Of Pandas and People and John Davison....you're just having us on, aren't you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Be as it may, the science on ID remains unchanged, ...

As in nonexistent. As noted above, ID as science is every bit as laughable as is your preposterous avatar.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, I am aware that ID lost the first test primarirly on constitutional grounds and also that the scientists did not do a good job at defending their view. I followed the trial and I was particularly disappointed by Michael Behe's testimony who offered a weak defense of his "irreducuble complexity" theory in support of ID. Darwin's evolutionary theory also lost the first test at the Scopes Trial in 1925 that prevented its being taught in schools. However, it has now been taught for years, which means that the views have changed. In time, the legal opinion on ID will also change.

I strongly doubt it. The trend is the other way. That's because ID is not science.

Be as it may, the science on ID remains unchanged, with an increasing number of scientists supporting it, though quietly in many cases because of the ridicule and vitriol they get from their Darwinian colleagues. One good case in point in John A. Davison who authored the Prescribed Evolutionary Theory and has been the butt of jokes at the University of Vermont. (I posted an excerpt from his paper in my first post.)

Do they support it so quietly as to not admit their support? Sounds like you might be presuming support where it does not actually exist. If they don't say they support it, how do you know they do?
How many scientists support ID as science?

 

[sandor606]

So Sandor's argument seems to be...

"ID creationism is accurate because these guys wrote some books that have math in them. Now, I can't/won't answer any questions about the material in them, even when it's pointed out that the stuff I'm quoting says the opposite of what I think it does. Good day."

Not much there to discuss, eh? We basically have someone who's arguing via footnote and won't answer basic questions.

So Sandor, is there anything more to your argument other than "these guys wrote books and they have math in them"?

"These guys" have the highest academic credentials and would not write books and have them published that contain bunk: their reputation is on the line and they would not jeopardize their careers. In addition, these are different "guys" who arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other, so the answer is a qualified no as I also read scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

What do you have to support your case, besides your subjective, unsubstantiated opinion? Anybody can be an armchair critic, but I have still to read anything scientific from you that debunks ID. Remenber that the title of the thread is: Does DNA prove ID? Whether you agree or not, I provided proof. Where is yours?

 

[Autodidact]

"These guys" have the highest academic credentials and would not write and publish books that contain bunk: their reputation is on the line and they would not jeopardize their careers. In addition, these are different "guys" who arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other, so the answer is no.

What do you have to support your case, besides your subjective, unsubstantiated opinion? Anybody can be an armchair critic, but I have still to read anything scientific from you that debunks ID. Remenber that the title of the thread is: Does DNA prove ID? Whether you agree or not, I provided proof. Where is yours?

Nothing scientific can either debunk or support ID, because ID is not science; it's philosophy. That doesn't mean it can't be argued about, it's just not science.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., I provided proof.

Rubbish.

 

[painted wolf]

"These guys" have the highest academic credentials and would not write and publish books that contain bunk: their reputation is on the line and they would not jeopardize their careers. In addition, these are different "guys" who arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other, so the answer is no.

Unfortunately most of them stop doing science and start making a living charging tens of thousands of dollars for 'lectures' and writing pop-sci books.

The downside to this is that they become less and less in touch with modern science. Your book that you like so much left physics in the 1980's... there have been a lot of advances in physics since then.

ID has done no experimentation... no primary publication and no evidentuary support.... this makes is impossible to hold it up as a "theory" let alone a hypothesis.

What peer reviewed scientific papers have been published showing that DNA supports ID? Where is the experimental evidence? A pop-sci book is not evidence in science.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

I strongly doubt it. The trend is the other way. That's because ID is not science.


Do they support it so quietly as to not admit their support? Sounds like you might be presuming support where it does not actually exist. If they don't say they support it, how do you know they do?
How many scientists support ID as science?

ID is science: It's supported by scientists with the highest academic credentials who use information from the natural sciences to write their papers and books. I don't know the number (who cares) but have provided the names of some scientists and their books.

Since you make the claim, please provide proof that the content of any of the books I mentioned is NOT science.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ID is science: ...

It's a silly little mantra - precisely the type a drivel that one might expect from one with your avatar.

 

[Autodidact]

ID is science: It's supported by scientists with the highest academic credentials who use information from the natural sciences to write their papers and books. I don't know the number (who cares) but have provided the names of some scientists and their books.

I'm sorry, I'm too lazy to go back through the thread. Could you repeat the names of one or two SCIENCE books that espouse ID?

Not books that use science, such as Dawkin's The God Delusion (not an ID book, but a philosophy book by a scientist.)

Thanks.