Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Revoltingest]

Nuclear fission is a proven theory [Hiroshima 150,000 death and Nagasaki 75,000 death] just like microevolution, a well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon, is a fact and not a theory, while macroevolution or ToE and eugenics were not, they still remain as theories.

All theories remain "theories".
Even those which have been repeatedly verified & found to be useful stand ready to be replaced with a better theory....even nuclear fission.
To be a "theory" is hardly a criticism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, but "macro-evolution" has long been proven beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. It is not "believed" it happened-- it has long been "known" by the scientific community that it very much has happened. Just because some will not accept known scientific axioms doesn't mean that these axioms don't exist.

This is a plausible layman's way of seeing things, but it's a scientific over-statement.
It appears you're saying that macro-evolution is an axiom.
The term "axiom" would apply to observations, eg, the fossil record.
While we have great confidence in the TOE due to great explanatory power & much evidence, it is nonetheless a theory.

 

[JM2C]

You yourself said that eugenics is a form of artificial selection, which is just natural selection as controlled by humans.

This is your interpretation of natural selection and artificial selection

I know the difference between artificial and natural selection. Accepting that natural selection is a real phenomenon does not mean that one must advocate artificial selection of humans. It's wrong to forcibly sterilize or kill someone to keep their genes from making it to the next generation. I do not advocate eugenics.

and here is another one

Natural selection is the process by which different individuals in a population survive and reproduce with differing degrees of success depending on how well they are adapted to their environment.

One can rearranged the PREEXISTING genetic information of another person through natural selection, i.e., through sexual reproduction, but if one use the ideology eugenics, as the principles, to rearrange this PREEXISTING genetic information, then that is artificial selection. Dog breeders produce a new breed of dog by using artificial selection. Just think of that and use that concept into human and that is eugenic.

Eugenics does not even require the existence of macroevolution.

Artificial selection does not require natural selection. Eugenics is artificial selection.

 

[JM2C]

For reference.....
Ideology | Define Ideology at Dictionary.com
By strict definition, scientific theory is not ideology.
Theories might inspire ideologies, but they are separate things.

There is no science behind eugenics

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sorry, but "macro-evolution" has long been proven beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. It is not "believed" it happened-- it has long been "known" by the scientific community that it very much has happened. Just because some will not accept known scientific axioms doesn't mean that these axioms don't exist. The reality is that the only general resistance to accepting the basic ToE comes from a rather far-out interpretation of the creation accounts by some Christians and most Muslims.

Is just nonsense exaggeration. Scientists still have not accepted the fact that freedom is real. The data may work out differently, if the scientists take account of the fact that freedom is real.

 

[jonathan180iq]

How can you say this:

There is no science behind eugenics

After you have said this...

One can rearranged the PREEXISTING genetic information of another person through natural selection, i.e., through sexual reproduction, but if one use the ideology eugenics, as the principles, to rearrange this PREEXISTING genetic information, then that is artificial selection. Dog breeders produce a new breed of dog by using artificial selection. Just think of that and use that concept into human and that is eugenic.

By your own explanation, eugenics is simply biological artificial selection, which is a principle that scientifically applies to evolutionary biology.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

For reference.....
Ideology | Define Ideology at Dictionary.com
By strict definition, scientific theory is not ideology.
Theories might inspire ideologies, but they are separate things.

That is not the way it works. One cannot just by fiat of definition excuse all what is proposed as science from being in truth an ideology.

One would have to actually look at what is proposed and evaluate whether it is an ideology or science.

And when it is proposed that there is differential reproductive "success", "beneficial" mutations, "struggle for " survival, then it is arguably an ideology.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no science behind eugenics

Au contraire.....it relies upon selective breeding, which is a long used method rooted in science.
Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But is it a good or bad idea?
That's more controversial.

 

[leibowde84]

Is a lot of nonsense..... and in my opinion it is obvious to anybody that you are distorting history.

Why are you refusing to define the terms in question? You are obviously using different meanings of the terms, so I am simply and respectfully asking that you provide the definitions you are using. This is the 4th time I've asked, and you refuse to provide them and, instead, use your usual disrespectful tone. So, can you please provide them now so we can have a meaningful discussion about them? Or, should I assume that you are accepting defeat in that you realized that you are using the incorrect meanings of these terms?

 

[Revoltingest]

That is not the way it works. One cannot just by fiat of definition excuse all what is proposed as science from being in truth an ideology.
One would have to actually look at what is proposed and evaluate whether it is an ideology or science.
And when it is proposed that there is differential reproductive "success", "beneficial" mutations, "struggle for " survival, then it is arguably an ideology.

I'm not excusing anything.
I simply urge using common definitions of words instead of inventing ad hoc ones.
"Ideology" does not apply to scientific theories which explain observed phenomena.
Otherwise, general relativity, plate tectyonics & quantum mechanics would be ideologies, which is absurd.
Perhaps there's confusion because people pursuing an ideology will sometimes apply scientific theories in pursuit or justification of their ideology.

 

[leibowde84]

I already told you more than 5 times certainly. There are 2 categories in creationism, the creator and the creation. Subjectivity applies to the creator category, objectivity applies to the creation category. So that is 1 whole category for objectivity.

Maybe you should remember what I wrote after 5 times?

It's not a problem with my memory, you have just done an unsatisfactory job of explaining your arguments, and show an immense lack of understanding of the very terms you use. You have refused to even provide the meanings of the terms you are using, and you accuse others of misunderstanding as a defense mechanism. Your disrespectful attitude demonstrates your own lack of understanding of your own comments.

Can you provide the meanings of the theory of evolution and social darwinism that you are using please? If not, why not?

 

[leibowde84]

That is not the way it works. One cannot just by fiat of definition excuse all what is proposed as science from being in truth an ideology.

One would have to actually look at what is proposed and evaluate whether it is an ideology or science.

And when it is proposed that there is differential reproductive "success", "beneficial" mutations, "struggle for " survival, then it is arguably an ideology.

Why would you think that these qualitative terms would indicate the theory of evolution is an ideology? "Beneficial" referes to whether it helps an organism to survive. "The struggle for survival" is not part of the theory of evolution, so that is merely a straw man argument. Some "beneficial" mutations increase an organism's possibility for procreation, which leads to that mutation being passed down. It is a natural process, so I fail to see any connection with an "ideology". But, again, you seem to just be making up your own meaning for the term "ideology". Can you please provide it so we know what you are referring to. Here is the actual meaning of the term as used in the English language:
Ideology - a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
The Theory of Evolution - The PROCESS by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Thus, there is no reasonable connection between the two unless you actively change the meaning of these terms to fit your argument. And, you won't even provide us with your changed meanings, so how can you call your argument "coherent". It is pretty much just jibberish unless you define the terms you have changed the meanings of.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nuclear fission is a proven theory [Hiroshima 150,000 death and Nagasaki 75,000 death] just like microevolution, a well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon, is a fact and not a theory, while macroevolution or ToE and eugenics were not, they still remain as theories.

Theories always remain theories. They don't graduate to laws or "facts." Theories are comprised of facts.

 

[leibowde84]

Nuclear fission is a proven theory [Hiroshima 150,000 death and Nagasaki 75,000 death] just like microevolution, a well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon, is a fact and not a theory, while macroevolution or ToE and eugenics were not, they still remain as theories.

That's not true. Evolution allows scientists to make predictions about what fossil records will be found at a later date, and continually, those predictions are true. And isn't the proof of human evolution from our common ancestors with apes observable evidence?

 

[Parsimony]

For future reference, could you please quote all of my responses in a single post, JM2C? Having to go through and collect all of your responses in many different posts is tedious.

Meaning that you agreed eugenics is an ideology, right?

Yes.

”force someone to accept something as fact” That’s exactly the meaning of Ideology,

So the round Earth model is an ideology if I try to prove that it is a fact?

an ideological process that is unknown to the thinker and forces these ideas as the truth.

Marx defined "ideology" as a "false consciousness" of a ruling class in a society who falsely presents their ideas as if they were universal truth.

Okay, now you've added new qualifiers to your definition. As a matter of fact, you've made the definiton circular. You define an ideology as an ideological process. Of course ideologies are ideological...

What evidence are you talking about? From an inorganic matter to the first single celled organism is evolution to you? That is macroevolution. Macroevolution is an ideology.

The fossil record and genetics. Inorganic matter to the first organisms is abiogenesis, not macroevolution. Macroevolution is a natural process and if being a natural process makes something an ideology then erosion, entropy, crystal formation, freezing, etc. are ideologies as well.

The same way you think that eugenics is an ideology.

That makes no sense. Please be more clear. If you count the Holocaust as a eugenics program, then consider how it resulted in microevolution because it only changed the genetic variation of the human species instead of causing humans to become a new kind of creature.

Nuclear fission is a proven theory [Hiroshima 150,000 death and Nagasaki 75,000 death] just like microevolution, a well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon, is a fact and not a theory, while macroevolution or ToE and eugenics were not, they still remain as theories.

Funny how you said nuclear fission is a "proven theory" and then say it's "not a theory". That's a contradiction. Something can't be a proven theory if it's not a theory in the first place. You also have a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. That's why you still have the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity being called theories even though they have massive evidence supporting them.

More to the point, you say that simply accepting something as fact means you have to also accept ideologies that are related to it. If that is true, then accepting the theory of nuclear fission as fact means you have to accept that nuking nations is good. For the sake of argument, what would happen if macroevolution was "proven"? Would one no longer have to accept eugenics in order to accept evolution? Or if nuclear fission was not proven, would that mean accepting it as fact would mean you would also have to accept all ideologies attached to it? What sense does that make?

This is your interpretation of natural selection and artificial selectionand here is another oneOne can rearranged the PREEXISTING genetic information of another person through natural selection, i.e., through sexual reproduction, but if one use the ideology eugenics, as the principles, to rearrange this PREEXISTING genetic information, then that is artificial selection. Dog breeders produce a new breed of dog by using artificial selection. Just think of that and use that concept into human and that is eugenic.
Artificial selection does not require natural selection. Eugenics is artificial selection.

Artificial selection on humans is microevolution just as artificial selection on animals is microevolution.

As I've said before, even if it was true that every single evolutionist was also a eugenicist, it would do absolutely nothing to prove that evolution is not a real process. Nothing at all. That is the argument from consequences fallacy. Look it up.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Welcome!

If you enjoy watching two people who have no idea what they are talking about argue with six people who are obviously more intelligent,

this is the place for you!

Enjoy!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why are you refusing to define the terms in question? You are obviously using different meanings of the terms, so I am simply and respectfully asking that you provide the definitions you are using. This is the 4th time I've asked, and you refuse to provide them and, instead, use your usual disrespectful tone. So, can you please provide them now so we can have a meaningful discussion about them? Or, should I assume that you are accepting defeat in that you realized that you are using the incorrect meanings of these terms?

I am not using different definitions, social darwinism in any definition of it, it means to derive prescriptive applicability from natural selection theory. I explain exactly how prescriptive applicability is derived from natural selection theory. When the theory is interpreted as saying that organisms love life, then good and evil are derived in respect to this love, and because the love is then held to be fact, then the good and evil are conceived of as fact as well.

You are obviously just another evolutionist trying to distort history, of which there are very many, including many professors. And I have seen much of that, and they lack respect for the history about the holocaust, in the way they talk about it, and the way they argue about it like a debating game. Evolutionists are social darwinists, they define all terms differently. They define choosing as sorting out the best result, with the facts about good and evil acting as sorting criteria.

This is why you don't acknowledge any freedom in the entire universe except inside the skulls of human beings. It is because human beings can sort out optimal results, which is of course what the other stuff in the universe, like the weather, cannot do. You define all terms associated to choosing on this basis of stating as fact what is good and evil, which is against the religion of billions of people, and against common discourse besides. You really will say just about anything to keep on conceiving good and evil as fact. Deny freedom is real for the entire universe? Sure you will. Deny history of social darwinism in regards to Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito? How much can you get away with at this time?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"The struggle for survival" is not part of the theory of evolution........

Thus, there is no reasonable connection between the two unless you actively change the meaning of these terms to fit your argument. And, you won't even provide us with your changed meanings, so how can you call your argument "coherent". It is pretty much just jibberish unless you define the terms you have changed the meanings of.

Evolutionists either deny free will is real, or they define free will as that there are no alternative courses of action available. As clearly stated in Dennett's piece of junk entitled, "I could not have done otherwise, so what?". It is evolutionists who use different meanings for all words associated to choosing.

And all evolutionists talk about organisms in terms of a struggle for survival. Without any exception.

 

[David M]

What evidence are you talking about? From an inorganic matter to the first single celled organism is evolution to you? That is macroevolution. Macroevolution is an ideology.

No, that is Abiogenesis. "macro-evolution" is new species evolving from existing species - which is an observed fact.

 

[David M]

That is not the way it works. One cannot just by fiat of definition excuse all what is proposed as science from being in truth an ideology

Really?

That is all you do all the time, make fiat definitions of terms that do not match the definitions used by the majority of people (or dictionaries) and compound it by refusing to provide the definitions that you are using.