How Can ID/Creationism Be Science?

[fantome profane]

ID uses the same facts as orthodox Darwinists and point to inconsistencies in the accepted theory. Having so much invested in the status quo, mainstream scientists simply don't want to hear it.

I.D. proponents do make this claim, and Creationists have also been making exactly the same claim for decades. What is the difference you see?

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Rollingstone :

ID and Creationism are not the same. Pundants who equate them are either deliberately misleading people or ignorant.

Sorry But that's nonsense...I for one, am not deliberately misleading people, much less ignorant...If the universe and its biology are products of Intelligent design, then both must have been conceived ‘ a priori’ in the mind of a Creator, transcending all matter / space and time. . ID is not as some ideologically driven materialist zealots pretend , ‘ Creationsim in Disguise/ thinly masked Creationism ’...It IS Creationism, pure and simple...

However, it need NOT be the cartoonish/ paint by numbers version of Creationism/ religious zealotry , supported by most narrow minded Monotheistic ministers / modern-day Pharisees/ young earth creationists. etcetera..

I myself prefer terms like Creative-Evolution / Intelligent Evolution ...

since the universe is obviously perpetually in a state of flux...I think its safe to say that this Creative/ Evolutionary process is still ongoing, meaning that Homo Sapiens too are still a work in progress...I have no doubts about the existence of Man's free will , but I conceive of both Creator and Sentient Creation as being co-creators of the future ( a precept which some interpretations of quantum physics seems to share )

Rollingstone

:...ID uses the same facts as orthodox Darwinists and point to inconsistencies in the accepted theory. Having so much invested in the status quo, mainstream scientists simply don't want to hear it.

Well I mostly agree with everything you’re saying here...or at least I agree that this is what ID'ers at their best should always strive to do ( i.e. Divorce themselves from preconceived religious dogmas, and stick to the facts/scientific evidence ) .... Nevertheless, the implications of ID/ the inconsistencies/ weakness of Darwinian orthodoxy...in the final analysis, again lends credence to the Purposeful Cosmos/ Creationist/Beneficent Creator hypotheses...one cannot escape this IMO

Rollingstone:

English biologist Rupert Sheldrake posits what he calls "morphic fields," coherent fields of information that influence everything from cell growth to galaxies. He believes that something is needed to explain things like why crystals that are difficult to grow in a lab get easier to grow over time ( I recall that decades earlier biologist Lyall Watson, see ' Lifetide', ' SuperNature' wrote some insightful things vis a vis this subject too )... or how a learned behavior of birds interrupted by war is somehow instinctive to later generations, or how it is that rats seem to somehow pick up how to run a maze learned by unrelated rats an ocean away.

What I'm saying is that there's a hellava lot of information that has yet to be correlated into a coherent whole and biologists are stuck in a materialistic rut.

Yeah I agree with this commentary one hundred percent !...what’s needed I think is a new ‘ evolutionary paradigm’, perhaps incorporating not only the curious nexus of quantum physics and mysticism... but equally some of the ideas first proposed by Jean Baptiste Lamarck ( which predates Darwinism by some fifty years )

Neo-Lamarckian evolution ...which might also be labeled ‘ evolution by collective/unconscious volition’ , in my mind, somehow smacks of your /Sheldrake's above observations vis a vis birds/ rats, the phenomenon of animal instinct/ animal migration / the emergent phenomenon of social insect behaviors...etc. etc etc...

CHEERS
***

Hela :

... Wake up and smell the coffee, Darwinism is on its last legs

Sunstone :

Which drugs will allow one to see the truth of your statement?

If u have to engage in petty/childish insults/ insinuations , like so many increasingly desperate materialists/ Darwinist nowadays ( Richard Dawkins is a prime example ) are prone to doing...

Then arguing with u, is beneath me...Ergo, I’ll simply ignore u from now on...

Have urself a nice day Sunstone/staff

 

[Sunstone]

If u have to engage in petty/childish insults/ insinuations , like so many increasingly desperate materialists/ Darwinist nowadays ( Richard Dawkins is a prime example ) are prone to doing...

Then arguing with the u, is beneath me...Ergo, I’ll simply ignore u from now on...

Have urself a nice day Sunstone/staff

If you can insinuate that "Darwinism is on its last legs" and that Richard Dawkins is "desperate", I am forced to reserve the right to ask which drugs would best allow me to see the truth of your statement. Apparently, beer alone won't do it. Have a nice day, Hela!

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Sunstone :

If you can insinuate that "Darwinism is on its last legs" and that Richard Dawkins is "desperate", I am FORCED to reserve the right to ask which drugs would best allow me to see the truth of your statement. Apparently, beer alone won't do it. Have a nice day, Hela!

Au contraire...You’re NOT ‘ forced’ to do anything...much less to cast aspersions vis a vis my alleged use of illicit drugs...Did I personally insult you ? I haven't to this point at least

No worries, you’re certainly in good company since this is common fodder for staunch materialists/ Darwinists nowadays, as per my earlier Richard Dawkin’s commentary...


Dawkin’s basically labels all those who believe that the cosmos could NOT be an accident , based on the vast preponderance of scientific evidence ( see the strong Anthropic Principle ) ‘ delusional’

Yet there are solid / rational arguments for asserting/contending as I do that:
’ Darwinism is on its last legs’

To reiterate : You claim this leaves u feeling free to insinuate that I must be drug addled? Well then , my *cough cough* friend...I would submit that it is most probably you, not me, who is living in a fantasy world...

***

OK Enjoy / Smoke em/ drink em... if u got em Sunstroke ...sorry I meant Sunstoned.....damn these typos

Hope I wasn’t * wink , wink * inadvertently disparaging of ur obvious acumen
/ wit

CHEERS AGAIN KEMOSABEY !

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone :

Au contraire...You’re NOT ‘ forced’ to do anything...much less to cast aspersions vis a vis my alleged use of illicit drugs...Did I personally insult you ? I haven't to this point at least

No worries, you’re certainly in good company since this is common fodder for staunch materialists/ Darwinists nowadays, as per my earlier Richard Dawkin’s commentary...


Dawkin’s basically labels all those who believe that the cosmos could NOT be an accident , based on the vast preponderance of scientific evidence ( see the strong Anthropic Principle ) ‘ delusional’

Yet there are solid / rational arguments for asserting/contending as I do that:
’ Darwinism is on its last legs’

To reiterate : You claim this leaves u feeling free to insinuate that I must be drug addled? Well then , my *cough cough* friend...I would submit that it is most probably you, not me, who is living in a fantasy world...

***

OK Enjoy / Smoke em/ drink em... if u got em Sunstroke ...sorry I meant Sunstoned.....damn these typos

Hope I wasn’t * wink , wink * inadvertently disparaging of ur obvious acumen
/ wit

CHEERS AGAIN KEMOSABEY !

It seems you think I was insinuating that you use drugs. Please go back, and read what I wrote.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

More to the point, though, biologists are way behind when it comes to the the physics of biology. They understand the mechanics quite well, but they will be increasingly on the defense as long as the refuse to consider coherent fields of influence.

I haven't found this to be the case at all. For example, geology and evolutionary biology are inexorably joined together.

And here's an example from my own experience: when I was in university, one of my profs, who was a structural engineering and analysis expert, was working with researchers into the causes of spina bifida, a birth defect that occurs when the embryo's neural tube doesn't fully close. By doing computer modelling of the embryo, he was able to take the "long list" of about 50 (IIRC) potential causes that the researchers had developed based on their medical evidence and, by analysing the effects that each would have on the cell structure, was able to eliminate all but ~10 (IIRC) of them.

I suppose some biologists might get "silo syndrome" and try to maintain a wall between their research and the work of others, but co-operation between disciplines is common.

 

[McBell]

It seems you think I was insinuating that you use drugs. Please go back, and read what I wrote.

​

 

[Willamena]

ID uses the same facts as orthodox Darwinists and point to inconsistencies in the accepted theory...

There's a orthodoxy of Darwinism now...?

 

[Willamena]

Wake up and smell the coffee...Darwinism is on its LAST LEGS !

We can only hope; but as long as there are Creationists to keep it alive, it cannot die.

 

[Autodidact]

If science is about the search for truth? and if the vast preponderance of evidence, supports the hypothesis that the cosmos/ life couldn’t be a spontaneous event/ a product of blind chance?...then yes of course Creation science is good science...based on disspassionate/ objective mathematical evidence/ the best available probability calculations

Yes. And by the same token, if the moon were made of green cheese, it would be a large orbital source of protein.

And On the flip side.... those who look for weaknesses in Darwinism...and the only rational /logical alternative to this, is a purposeful creation/ intelligent evolution...must also be engaged in sound science

Well, you're assuming a lot. First, that those who look actually find--this is not the case. Second, that the only rational alternative is something called "purposeful creation/intelligent evolution," which, if scientific, is the vaguest scientific notion ever invented. Of course it's not the only alternative. Let's say, hypothetically, that all of the world's biologists have been wrong for 100 years, and ToE does not account for diversity of species. It may be that Lamarck was right. It may be that we don't know yet. When science doesn't know something yet, it does not follow that magic is the only possible alternative.

Further, if "purposeful..." means something supernatural, then by definition it is outside the scope of science.

If this were not so , then Darwinism itself would NOT be science either, since for a theory to be considered scientific, as opposed to being just pseudoscience... it has to be falsify-able...based on Karl Popper’s strict definition of what constitutes a bonafide scientific hypothesis...

But of course, ToE is extremely falsifiable. There are many observations I can name easily that would have falsified it. The fact that the observations turned out to be the opposite only means that it was not falsified, not that it was not falsifiable. It was not falsified simply because it is true. Would you like me to name some potential falsifications?

Scientific support for the Strong Anthropic Principle. Based on the best available data keeps growing by leaps and bounds...and so too by default, does the strength of the ID Hypothesis/ argument...which appears increasingly to be the only logical/ reasonable/ scientific explanation for the Universe’s apparently beneficent/ life nurturing properties

1. The strong anthropic principle is NOT an argument for ID, rather actually an argument against it. 2. It is far, far, outside of the scope of biology, which is of course the field in which evolution applies.

Wake up and smell the coffee...Darwinism is on its LAST LEGS !

The world's biologists beg to differ. By the way, they prefer to call it the Theory of Evolution or the modern synthesis, since in the last 100 years it has progressed dramatically beyond Darwin's original sketch.

 

[Autodidact]

Part of science is asking "Why?" questions and then formulating an opinion to answer it. Then you have to back-up your opinion with proof to evolve into a hypothesis and perhaps a theory. Don't evolutionists and creationists alike ask how we came to be, then come up with an answer, then try to back up their answer?

No. Creationists decide their answer, then go looking for evidence to support it. That's the opposite of science.

I think we also need to ask "What is science?". How do you define science?

Anything along these lines:

[SIZE=-1]How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system.

from here.
[/SIZE]

 

[Autodidact]

First, I just want to say that this has nothing to do with my theology.

ID and Creationism are not the same. Pundants who equate them are either deliberately misleading people or ignorant. ID uses the same facts as orthodox Darwinists and point to inconsistencies in the accepted theory. Having so much invested in the status quo, mainstream scientists simply don't want to hear it.

More to the point, though, biologists are way behind when it comes to the the physics of biology. They understand the mechanics quite well, but they will be increasingly on the defense as long as the refuse to consider coherent fields of influence. The aggressiveness on the part of biologists we see towards the Sheldrakes and others is a kind of defense, as in the best defense is a good offense.

After a lengthy trial, in which ID proponents did their best to prove your assertion, Judge Jones differed from you, based on the evidence. "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

It is difficult to understand this issue without first understanding that both creationists and ID proponents are liars, as Judge Jones held. Once you understand this, everything falls into place.

 

[Autodidact]

English biologist Rupert Sheldrake posits what he calls "morphic fields," coherent fields of information that influence everything from cell growth to galaxies. He believes that something is needed to explain things like why crystals that are difficult to grow in a lab get easier to grow over time, or how a learned behavior of birds interrupted by war is somehow instinctive to later generations, or how it is that rats seem to somehow pick up how to run a maze learned by unrelated rats an ocean away.

What I'm saying is that there's a hellava lot of information that has yet to be correlated into a coherent whole and biologists are stuck in a materialistic rut.

I would say that's because they are scientists. Science uses methodological naturalism. No methodological naturalism, aka materialism, no science.

 

[doppelganger]

1. The strong anthropic principle is NOT an argument for ID, rather actually an argument against it.

It is an argument against a theory of Intelligent Design that posits a "Creator" other than the action of human minds observing, organizing and communicating about the content and form of the Universe. It is an argument for a theory of Intelligent Design that posits as the "Creator" the action of human minds "oberserving" organizing and communicating about the content and form of the Universe.

You are falling victim to a game of "Whac-A-Mole" aka "The Old Switcheroo." The modes of using "Creator" and "God" change back and forth with some people as their rhetorical needs change. Aquinas was an example of this, but it's also on display with a few of our RF members.

 

[Autodidact]

Yeah I agree with this commentary one hundred percent !...what’s needed I think is a new ‘ evolutionary paradigm’, perhaps incorporating not only the curious nexus of quantum physics and mysticism... but equally some of the ideas first proposed by Jean Baptiste Lamarck ( which predates Darwinism by some fifty years )

Yes, most creationists seek to turn back the clock and unlearn what we have worked so hard to establish over the last two centuries--such as that Lamarck was wrong, and the evidence showed this over 100 years ago

Neo-Lamarckian evolution ...which might also be labeled ‘ evolution by collective/unconscious volition’ , in my mind, somehow smacks of your /Sheldrake's above observations vis a vis birds/ rats, the phenomenon of animal instinct/ animal migration / the emergent phenomenon of social insect behaviors...etc. etc etc...

And is as equally crackpot and unsupported.

If u have to engage in petty/childish insults/ insinuations , like so many increasingly desperate materialists/ Darwinist nowadays ( Richard Dawkins is a prime example ) are prone to doing...

Then arguing with u, is beneath me...Ergo, I’ll simply ignore u from now on...

Have urself a nice day Sunstone/staff

That remains to be seen.

 

[Autodidact]

Sunstone :

Au contraire...You’re NOT ‘ forced’ to do anything...much less to cast aspersions vis a vis my alleged use of illicit drugs...Did I personally insult you ? I haven't to this point at least
CHEERS AGAIN KEMOSABEY !

And a cigar goes to the little lady in comfortable shoes who can predict creationist behavior--from years of experience.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Eh, the materialistic rut is an awfully productive one. Bioscience is expanding at a fantastic rate. If there's more to it and these morphic fields have any relevance (I'm sceptical) biology can only benefit.

Yes, it is productive and expanding at a fantastic rate. But remember the fuss they made when acupuncture first made it to the West? I do. (Jeez, I'm old). And why is the West just now beginning to open to Ayurvedic medicine even though it's been ariund much, much longer? Biologists still haven't seriously studied the effect fields have on the body even though there's plenty of evidence they do have an affect. Heck, a living human body generates a field of its own that can be measured. I suggest reading The Field by Lynne McTaggart, especially Chapter 4. Read it and then tell me whether the author is lying or mainstream biology is in a rut.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, it is productive and expanding at a fantastic rate. But remember the fuss they made when acupuncture first made it to the West? I do. (Jeez, I'm old). And why is the West just now beginning to open to Ayurvedic medicine even though it's been ariund much, much longer? Biologists still haven't seriously studied the effect fields have on the body even though there's plenty of evidence they do have an affect. Heck, a living human body generates a field of its own that can be measured. I suggest reading The Field by Lynne McTaggart, especially Chapter 4. Read it and then tell me whether the author is lying or mainstream biology is in a rut.

I don't know what your point is, but if either acupuncture or Ayurvedic medicine are beneficial, than scientists, using the scientific method, such as controlled double-blind studies and methodological naturalism, should be able to find that benefit.

For example, with regard to acupuncture, the placebo effect seems to play a strong role. However, recent research indicates that:

By 2001 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies, especially those of Professor Z.H. Cho of the University of California Medical School at Irvine, demonstrated significant supporting evidence of a biological basis for acupuncture. Cho showed that electro-acupuncture stimulation can affect the diencephalic area of the brain, a region that promotes the body's own healing responses. Here sensory stimulation of the hypothalamus enhances homeostasis through activating the autonomic nervous system, balancing hormonal regulation by action of the pituitary gland and effecting anti-pain and limbic system responses (Cho, Wong, and Fallon 2001).

That is, acupuncture is beneficial, but does not require needles and has nothing to do with qi or imaginary meridians.

You assert that there is evidence for something called a "field." What is a "field" and what is the evidence for it?

 

[Somkid]

This is how you do it. You find scientists with no integrity whatsoever, say for instance they guys that said cigarette smoking is not addictive or harmful and you come up with a bunch of really weak facts put them in a report and publish them as real science and 90% of the people will believe it just because it uses really big words and they want to believe it anyway. How about the guy that fudged the reports on second hand smoke I actually believed it for 4 years until he was debunked Penn & Teller even did a Bull S*** episode on it and had to retract it.

 

[yossarian22]

How does the strong anthropic principle support ID at all?
It seems to support abiogenesis from my understanding of it.

'The laws of the universe must allow for the existence of intelligent life, or the universe would not exist'

I am still waiting to see the calculation which supports this claim

Creation science is good science...based on disspassionate/ objective mathematical evidence/ the best available probability calculations