Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Parsimony]

Have you read the Discovery Institute's manifesto - Wedge Document? It clearly outline that it is Christian creationism, disguising itself as "scientific" endeavour.

Yes, it's most amusing how they try to distance themselves from creationism on their official website by saying:

"Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text."

on one hand while in their "Wedge" document they say things like:

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

"Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader cultue."

Given that the Discovery Institute most obviously does care about defending the Bible and Christianity, then that would make them a creationist organization by their own definition, not the "agnostic" intelligent design proponents that they are trying to portray themselves as.

 

[Zosimus]

rotflmao
is that all the better you got?
seriously?
rotflmao

I have a policy against accepting self-refuting statements. It's this weird hang-up I have.

 

[Sapiens]

I have a policy against accepting self-refuting statements. It's this weird hang-up I have.

Then you must, clearly, be really good at living with cognitive dissonance.

 

[shmogie]

Look, shmogie.

I have never said that I believe in ABIOGENESIS, so that's a straw man from you.

Abiogenesis is still a relative new hypothesis or theoretical biochemistry theory. There have been testing going on, with regards to abiogenesis. And I am willing to wait for more conclusive data and evidences, before I accept it as a valid scientific theory.

But what I do keep telling creationists, is that there are distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, because they are two different fields.

Even if abiogenesis was refuted or debunked today or tomorrow, doesn't mean evolution has been debunked. There are just too many evidences for evolution, for it to be refuted.

And as far as I have been able to learn, none of the mechanisms of evolution (mutation, natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift) have been refuted, and certainly have not been debunked by advocates for Intelligent Design or the dishonest and superstitious creationists.

Actually the Intelligent Design advocates are just plain dishonest.

Have you read the Discovery Institute's manifesto - Wedge Document?

It clearly outline that it is Christian creationism, disguising itself as "scientific" endeavour. Except nothing about

It clearly demonstrate that are not interested in showing evidences for a Designer. The whole agenda of Discovery Institute, is to discredit evolution with PR, with legislation, and hiding the fact that ID is not science, and yet want ID AND Creationism to be taught in the science classroom.

Nothing in ID is scientific, because they can't provide a testable methodology for this Designer. There are no verifiable evidences for Designer. The Intelligent Designer is no more credible than leprechauns or teletubbies.

You are "projecting" if you cannot provide a single evidence for Designer.

What you are saying about Designer is similar to Vikings believing whenever there is a storm with thunder and lightnings, then Thor must be using his hammer, bashing frostgiants, or whenever they see rainbow, then it must be Bifrost, a bridge between Midgard and Asgard.

Like creationism, ID is as much about superstition than science.

Like I said, you have no business being here, the two propositions are intelligent design and abiogenesis. From your perspective there is no evidence for either. I know of 7 winners of the Nobel prize in science, who support intelligent design. They know and understand the scientific method, intimately. So, your conclusions do not speak for all, nor can they be accurate, except for you, personally. You obviously have a biased, totally negative and rigid view on the matter. This, of course, is your right, but you are being dishonest in parading about in the clothes of "an honest seeker of truth". I have before me 32 evidences for a designer, and the statistical possibilities of each coming about purely by chance. I am not going to bother to post them, because it serves no purpose. In your close minded fashion you will take these 32 that need to interrelate and mesh perfectly for life to exist, and discount them as simply chance. I have always felt that theists and atheists are able to evaluate and decide, agnostics are the opposite. We haven't even gotten to quantifying and evaluating evidence, nor determining the quality of evidence, things I did for a working lifetime. We won't, because Christ said "do not cast your pearls before swine", and I shan't

 

[Skwim]

Like I said, you have no business being here, the two propositions are intelligent design and abiogenesis. From your perspective there is no evidence for either. I know of 7 winners of the Nobel prize in science, who support intelligent design. They know and understand the scientific method, intimately.

But they don't know the territory: evolution.

I Googled "Nobel prize winners in science, who support intelligent design." and the first site on the list was uncommondescent.com, which listed the following seven (I assume these are the seven you're talking about) under the heading of "Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution" (note that they don't all support ID)

Dr. Brian Josephson (winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, 1973)

Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)

Abdus Salam (1926-1996), a winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics

Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1963.

Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology

Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1945.

Guglielmo Marconi (1874–1937), winner of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics
​

So, there are 4 are physicists, 2 are in medicine, and 1 is a chemist. Hardly fields germane to evolutionary studies, and that they are no doubt familiar with the scientific methodology is immaterial. May as well list seven Academy Award winners, or seven Olympic gold medal winners.

However, if you want to play the Nobel prize winners numbers game just consider:

"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners."
Source: Wikipedia​

Then there's Project Steve.

.Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.
Source:Wikipedia
​

As of March 7, 2016, the number of scientists named "Steve" who support evolution is 1,389. And when one considers that

"About 1% of the United States population possesses such a first name, so each signatory represents about 100 potential signatories"
source
​

it means that there about 138,900 scientists who support evolution.

.​

 

[Zosimus]

Then you must, clearly, be really good at living with cognitive dissonance.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[shmogie]

Intelligent design encompasses more than evolution.It includes the origin of the universe, and the beginning of life. As to evolution, there is evolution, then there is EVOLUTION. Most who accept intelligent design are evolutionists to a point. We do not accept the concept that infinitely simple organisms turned into the bio diversity we see today. Further, macro evolutionists have singular hurdles and problems not at all solved when proposing this concept. From the standpoint of evidence, it is significantly lacking. I see, unless one is a scientist in a particular field, one doesn't know the scientific method ? I think not.

 

[gnostic]

Like I said, you have no business being here, the two propositions are intelligent design and abiogenesis. From your perspective there is no evidence for either. I know of 7 winners of the Nobel prize in science, who support intelligent design. They know and understand the scientific method, intimately.

The biggest name in science who advocate for Intelligent Design (ID) is biochemist Michael Behe, who is a professor Lehigh University.

His paper that was meant to herald ID - Irreducible Complexity (IC) - was supposed to be Discovery Institute (DI) crown jewel for ID. But IC has been rejected on the ground as being unscientific (hence pseudoscience) and untestable, because it neither meet the requirements of falsifiable hypothesis, nor that of Scientific Method (SM).

Any statement (in science), whether it be hypothesis or theory, required the statement to be FALSIFIABLE.

Do you need to be "falsifiable", shmogie?

It mean that the statement needs to be able to be refuted, by the mean of being testable and scrutinised. If you can't test it, then it is not scientific.

In the nutshell, Behe's Irreducible Complexity is about the biology at cellular or molecular-level to be too complex for mechanisms of evolution, therefore it must be "designed" by some intelligent being, known as the "Designer".

If his argument for biological unit (be they genes, cells, chromosomes, DNA, etc) "designed" as the EFFECT, and the Designer as the CAUSE, hence the CAUSE-AND-EFFECT argument, then there should be evidences for not only the EFFECT (designed), there should be evidences for the CAUSE (in this case for Designer) too.

That being the case, Behe should know about Scientific Method as much as the 7 Nobel prize winners who are advocates for Intelligent Design. His IC not only has to provide the platform for testing biochemical for "design" (EFFECT), but also platform for testing the "designer" (CAUSE).

The kicker is this, Behe cannot test for this DESIGNER, so no evidences for Designer. Behe's argument using this CAUSE-AND-EFFECT model, completely falls apart if there are no evidences for the CAUSE. And if the CAUSE has no evidences, then the EFFECT (design) also falls apart.

Scientific Method required there be evidences for both "cause" and "effect", or else the cause-and-effect don't really work at all. And clearly, IC don't work, which make IC nothing more than pseudoscience.

The Irreducible Complexity is nothing more than a textbook case of logical fallacy, known as "circular reasoning".

Behe appeared in some court cases to support ID being taught in science classroom in the US public school, as the star expert witness, but in reality, Behe's appearance turn out to be nothing more than a PR stunt.

In (2005) the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, where the Dover (the school board) tried to implement teaching of ID as science, using Of Panda And People as a textbook. Even with Behe's help, the court ruled that Intelligent Design is religion in the form of creationism, not science.

And this true. Intelligent Design is nothing more than Christian creationism masquerading as science. Like I said before, in my previous post to you, that the Wedge Document revealed the true intentions of the Discovery Institute, using Intelligent Design. And Behe is one of the senior member of DI.

Have you read the Wedge Document, shmogie?

BTW, shmogie. His own department in biology and biochemistry has issued a disclaimer notice that despite Behe work for them at the university, this in no way support Behe's view on Intelligent Design. Why would his department issued such a statement about Behe?

 

[gnostic]

Intelligent design encompasses more than evolution.It includes the origin of the universe

It doesn't work.

Like I said in my last reply, there are no evidences to support the existence of Designer (CAUSE) involved in biology than in the origin of the universe, any more than there are evidences for leprechaun awaiting on the other side of rainbow with pot full of shining gold coins.

Intelligent Design advocates used circular reasoning, not science to support their unsubstantiated claims. All advocates can do is to project their make-believe beliefs.

The Designer is no better than arguments for Creator or God, or for the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechauns, fairies, ghouls and goblins, etc.

Where are the evidences for Designer?

Sources, please.

 

[Zosimus]

The biggest name in science who advocate for Intelligent Design (ID) is biochemist Michael Behe, who is a professor Lehigh University.

His paper that was meant to herald ID - Irreducible Complexity (IC) - was supposed to be Discovery Institute (DI) crown jewel for ID. But IC has been rejected on the ground as being unscientific (hence pseudoscience) and untestable, because it neither meet the requirements of falsifiable hypothesis, nor that of Scientific Method (SM).

Any statement (in science), whether it be hypothesis or theory, required the statement to be FALSIFIABLE.

If that were really the standard, then Christianity would be science. After all, all you have to do is find Jesus of Nazareth's tomb with the skeleton of a crucified Jew in it to falsify Christianity.

Not to mention the tacking by disjunction problem.

 

[Sapiens]

I have a policy against accepting self-refuting statements. It's this weird hang-up I have.

Then you must, clearly, be really good at living with cognitive dissonance.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

No assumptions required, you've shared enough self-refuting statements that everyone can see your "policy" is honored more in the breach than in the practice.

 

[gnostic]

If that were really the standard, then Christianity would be science.

Christianity is a religion, and fall under theology, not science.

There have been many good scientists, who were Christians, just as there have been good ones who were Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, desists, etc, but working in any field of science is a profession, not religion or religious belief.

You can have a trade or profession and be religious or not. The religion shouldn't affect the trade.

Your argument is absurd, really.

It is like saying Jesus was said to be a shepherd, does that mean all shepherds are Christians?

The majority of his apostles were fishermen, does that mean all fishermen are Christians?

Stupid creationists make the mistaken assumption that evolution is synonymous with atheism. Well, guess what, Zosimus?

Charles Darwin was a Christian, not an atheism. Although, he was leaning towards agnosticism later years of life, but he was still a Christian, and never an atheist.

Evolution is biology, it is not atheistic, agnostic or theistic; so that's basically make creationists ignorant to the point of stupidity when they can't distinguish the difference between evolution and atheism.

Well, I am not surprise by creationists' ignorance, because they also can't distinguish science and religion, between science and philosophy, between evolution and abiogenesis, between fact and faith, between evidence and faith, between evidence and proof, between theory and hypothesis, and the list goes on and on.

Why are evolution up is treated as atheism, but not other branches or fields of science?

That because creationists often used dishonest propaganda, just like they do with Intelligent Design.

But back to your point of Christianity should be science.

They have tried that in Darwin's time. A movement was led by T H Huxley in the 19th century, to separate science from theology and religion, just like they separate state (politics and laws) from religion with secularism.

If you want to teach creationism, ID or religion, then it should be taught as theology, not as science.

 

[leibowde84]

aren't you the one who insists?....we don't know

I am not uncertain

What makes you so certain? What evidence do you have (apart from a God of the Gaps or "arguments from ignorance" based on absence of an alternative explanation than "God was responsible") that you base your certainty on? Or, are you confusing "certainty" for "faith"?

 

[Thief]

What makes you so certain? What evidence do you have (apart from a God of the Gaps or "arguments from ignorance" based on absence of an alternative explanation than "God was responsible") that you base your certainty on? Or, are you confusing "certainty" for "faith"?

science

science would have you believe that all of the universe came from one location
and science would insist .....nothing moves unless move by something else

so....at the point of singularity.....
Spirit first

 

[Skwim]

Intelligent design encompasses more than evolution.

As any informed intelligent design proponent knows, ID is just another name for creationism. The current use of the term was concocted by the editor of the text book Of Pandas and People in 1987 to replace the word "creation," "creationism," and "creation science." Now there's no problem with including the creation of the universe and life within its scope, but it's perverse to bring them in as points when arguing against evolution.

It includes the origin of the universe, and the beginning of life. As to evolution, there is evolution, then there is EVOLUTION. Most who accept intelligent design are evolutionists to a point.

Nice attempt at equivocation. Go sit in the back of the room.


.

 

[leibowde84]

science

science would have you believe that all of the universe came from one location
and science would insist .....nothing moves unless move by something else

so....at the point of singularity.....
Spirit first

But, you are missing one key part. You are jumping from evidence for an initial singularity to God being the cause of putting everything into motion with the Big Bang. So, what evidence do you have that God, and not some other natural phenomenon, was, without a doubt (certainly), the cause of the Big Bang? Currently our scientific understanding only gets us to the Big Bang. There are many different competing hypotheses for what came before (if that even makes sense) the big bang. There is the idea that we are living in a multiverse. There is the idea that we might be living in a constantly expanding/contracting universe. So, what evidence do you have that God or Spirit was the cause of the Big Bang rather than some naturally occurring phenomenon we currently aren't aware of yet? There is still so much we don't know about what caused the Big Bang, so I am very interested to hear what evidence makes you certain that you know the answer.

 

[Thief]

But, you are missing one key part. You are jumping from evidence for an initial singularity to God being the cause of putting everything into motion with the Big Bang. So, what evidence do you have that God, and not some other natural phenomenon, was, without a doubt (certainly), the cause of the Big Bang? Currently our scientific understanding only gets us to the Big Bang. There are many different competing hypotheses for what came before (if that even makes sense) the big bang. There is the idea that we are living in a multiverse. There is the idea that we might be living in a constantly expanding/contracting universe. So, what evidence do you have that God or Spirit was the cause of the Big Bang rather than some naturally occurring phenomenon we currently aren't aware of yet? There is still so much we don't know about what caused the Big Bang, so I am very interested to hear what evidence makes you certain that you know the answer.

it's a choice....and a simple one

substance first?....or Spirit

and the obvious answer......Spirit

 

[leibowde84]

science

science would have you believe that all of the universe came from one location
and science would insist .....nothing moves unless move by something else

so....at the point of singularity.....
Spirit first

In other words, what evidence do you have that the "something else" that "moved" the Big Bang was God rather than another natural event? If the evidence is scientific, that's fine. But, what scientific evidence are you referring to specifically?

 

[Thief]

In other words, what evidence do you have that the "something else" that "moved" the Big Bang was God rather than another natural event? If the evidence is scientific, that's fine. But, what scientific evidence are you referring to specifically?

science will take you there.....
but the question, and it's answer are up to you

try using your sense of choice

 

[leibowde84]

it's a choice....and a simple one

substance first?....or Spirit

and the obvious answer......Spirit

What makes you so certain that there was a "first", rather than the universe being infinite? Science only gets us to the Big Bang, but you haven't provided any evidence that a natural event didn't cause the Big Bang.