How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

arbitrary? How is it arbitrary? They look at things in the world and see if any fit with hallmarks of intelligent design, such as SETI scientists use.

hallmarks? on what are these ID hallmarks based?

SETI scientists look for hallmarks of intelligent life based upon the one's we see on our own planet

arbitrary means the "hallmarks" are intellectualized... arrived at not through observation, or even implication through observation, but through philosophy

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownie

SETI scientists look for hallmarks of intelligent life based upon the one's we see on our own planet

likewise for IDers. Intelligence is intelligence, and design is design. Now something can be designed to look natural, and natural processes can put out something that looks somewhat designed, but something that is obviously designed has the hallmarks of design that those SETI scientists look for. I'll have to look into some of the statistical markers that they use... that might help clarify it. But if you grant that SETI scientists can analyze signals and make intelligent conclusions about whether or not they are random or contain information, then there is no reason to withhold that from IDers.

And what did you think of my little quote from TalkOrigins? Apparently they think "Science" can make conclusions about it!


(Gaffer - I moved our discussion over to the Origins and Implications of Origins thread - hope to see you there! )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That wasnt "facts" that was an over spun "reporting" piece from a source that has a massive vested interest in intelligent design. Facts would be nice actually. Why dont we ever hear any... This was simply a story Rian.

What, exactly, wasn't a "fact"? And how do they have a massive vested interest? They think ID is a valid concept, and they're tired of being squashed, and are trying to put FACTS out there so people can know them and draw their own conclusions.

[Insidious Rex]

It was an over the top dramatic spin on a news story from the point of view of a creationist body who has a monster bias in the process. There werent any FACTS. You said it was full of FACTS. Facts would be scientific evidence for creationsim. Those werent in there. This was a rally to arms for other creationists (woops i mean intelligent designerists...). Not a display of facts.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by IRex in a very defensive mood, apparently

There werent any FACTS.

There darn tootin' were FACTS!!

Here's a FACT - "Dr. Gonzalez, a senior fellow of Discovery Institute, is internationally known among astronomers and cosmologists as an expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones."

Here's another FACT - "The Des Moines Register reports that faculty members have “accused Gonzalez of having a hidden religious agenda� and “fingering him as an academic fraud.� " (assuming the Register checked their quotes)

and here's another stinkin' FACT - "...a small number of faculty at Iowa State University have organized a petition denouncing intelligent design as unscientific and urged the university community to essentially ban the theory from campus."

Now am I right or am I right, buster?! Sheesh! Would you stop being so defensive with what I say and READ what I say, please. Please! If you recall, the main thrust of this thread was not about scientific evidence, anyway. When did I say it was about creationism FACTS? Nowhere.

You said it was full of FACTS

And I"m RIGHT. Nowhere did I specify creationism facts What I was discussing was reactions/opinions on what to teach about origins. I really think you just get too defensive about my posts in this subject and make wrong assumptions. Please read my posts more carefully, and I'll try my best to be as clear as possible, OK?

Facts would be scientific evidence for creationsim. Those werent in there.

I never said they were

[Spock]

Facts are nothing more than what a group of people believe. Therefore belief becomes subjective and is a valid system for answering certain questions.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

likewise for IDers. Intelligence is intelligence, and design is design. Now something can be designed to look natural, and natural processes can put out something that looks somewhat designed, but something that is obviously designed has the hallmarks of design that those SETI scientists look for.

"obviously" is where you have it wrong... we can say something is extremely likely, obvious

take your arrowhead example... while it is quite unlikely for one to have formed naturally, it is not impossible... in fact, out of the millions we have found, it is not impossible that a handful are actually natural in occurance

on top of that, we can judge whether or not an arrowhead is "designed" because we can physically take two rocks and try to make one as an experiment... it doesn't mean the caveman made it the same way... it means he could have

there is no such test for creation... we do not see pure creation of the kind god is supposed to be able to perform even on a small scale, so how can we possibly have hallmarks?

we can claim that some things might be hallmarks of human design... but claiming godlike design is simply without basis

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'll have to look into some of the statistical markers that they use... that might help clarify it. But if you grant that SETI scientists can analyze signals and make intelligent conclusions about whether or not they are random or contain information, then there is no reason to withhold that from IDers.

SETI is looking for humanlike activity... something we can observe in our world

ID is looking for godlike activity... not observable

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And what did you think of my little quote from TalkOrigins? Apparently they think "Science" can make conclusions about it!

unlike the bible... science does not depend upon infallibility... mistakes and corrections of opinions and theories are all part of the system... no one statement is an authority

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

Facts are nothing more than what a group of people believe. Therefore belief becomes subjective and is a valid system for answering certain questions.

So the hour I spent with my son last night reviewing his multiplication table was wasted? I mean, he truly believed that 6 x 4 was 28! Why did I bother to correct him? If his teacher objects today when he gives that answer, I'll refer her to you

IOW, I take issue with your definition of "facts".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

there is no such test for creation... we do not see pure creation of the kind god is supposed to be able to perform even on a small scale, so how can we possibly have hallmarks?

Again, ID does NOT claim a particular being!

we can claim that some things might be hallmarks of human design... but claiming godlike design is simply without basis

Fine - again, ID doesn't claim this!

SETI is looking for humanlike activity... something we can observe in our world

ID is looking for godlike activity... not observable

NO, it's NOT looking for godlike activity, any more than SETI is! It's looking for intelligence of a type that humans on earth display, just like SETI is!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

NO, it's NOT looking for godlike activity, any more than SETI is! It's looking for intelligence of a type that humans on earth display, just like SETI is!

SETI is looking for intelligent beings (physical, observable things) ... it is not looking for the concept "intelligence"

i think that is where they differ

[rohirrim TR]

SETI an ID are similar because they are scientific groups looking for evidence and presenting facts to the public. They differ in both their theorys and what they are searching for, SETI is searching for aliens ( and not illegal immigrants either ) DI is searching for the truth about origins and intelligent design. they are different groups with different motivations therefore it is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Count Comfect]

Rian - I think brownjenkins is right to use the word "godlike" - because it is like what people conceive of as god to be able to design life. It is not human activity, because humans can't do that, and what is above human activity is "godlike." It isn't necessarily "god" in the religious sense, but it is "godlike activity" in the meaning of "something god could do and people can't." And that seems to be how brownjenkins is using it.

On another note, it really would be nice to be able to find the actual "testable theories" being brought up, instead of just hearing "oh, there are testable theories." And also, if testable, why not test them? Discovery Institute is pretty rich, so they could potentially do it themselves, and not have to undergo persecution from a college faculty.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

they are different groups with different motivations therefore it is like comparing apples to oranges

or science to philosophy

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

SETI is looking for intelligent beings (physical, observable things) ... it is not looking for the concept "intelligence"

i think that is where they differ

And ID is looking for intelligent beings (physical, observable things) too! It does not define who these beings are. There is no difference, and I really, truly do not understand why you think there is. Both ID and SETI are looking for intelligent beings by analyzing concrete physical things for markers of intelligent design.

When you say "SETI is looking for intelligent beings (physical, observable things)", how else could they look for them besides analyzing things that they might have made? I mean, it would be nice if one popped by and we could say, "yes, here is an alien intelligent being" but in the meantime, we'll have to settle for analyzing possible artifacts of their design. How else do you think SETI scientists could look for intelligence? How else could Mars rover scientists look for intelligence?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There darn tootin' were FACTS!!

Here's a FACT - "Dr. Gonzalez, a senior fellow of Discovery Institute, is internationally known among astronomers and cosmologists as an expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones."

Here's another FACT - "The Des Moines Register reports that faculty members have “accused Gonzalez of having a hidden religious agenda� and “fingering him as an academic fraud.� " (assuming the Register checked their quotes)

and here's another stinkin' FACT - "...a small number of faculty at Iowa State University have organized a petition denouncing intelligent design as unscientific and urged the university community to essentially ban the theory from campus."

Your usual over the top dramatic indignation I see… not surprised really…

Would you stop being so defensive with what I say and READ what I say, please. Please!

Oh but I did read it Rian. And I replied in kind. I cant help it if you choose to switch around and around on the topics like you seem to always do. Lets look and see what was said originally before you do your standard HOW DARE YOU! huff and puff reaction shall we…

I said: “Facts would be nice actually. Why dont we ever hear any...� in regards to INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Not to who said he said she said on the campus of Iowa State… Youd think this wouldn’t be so hard for you to understand since Ive only been asking for legitimate facts and evidence for a good two years now.

To which you replied: “What, exactly, wasn't a "fact"? And how do they have a massive vested interest? They think ID is a valid concept, and they're tired of being squashed, and are trying to put FACTS out there so people can know them and draw their own conclusions.�

Now… unless Im not familiar with the English language, you were talking about intelligent design being a “valid concept� and that they put out FACTS to this effect. THIS is what I was addressing Rian. And im having a hard time seeing from that quote how you were just talking about “facts� regarding a specific academic case in Iowa and not intelligent design at all. That’s completely irrelevant to the two simple sentences I said originally about wanting facts on intelligent design. If you didn’t want to get into the discussion of FACTS (or evidence) for intelligent design and would rather take over and devote this thread simply to your spin on academic controversies surrounding creationism and intelligent design then tell me to shut up that’s not what I want to talk about but don’t give me this defensive crap when you are the one being misleading and going back and forth on what it is you are talking about.

I really think you just get too defensive about my posts in this subject and make wrong assumptions. Please read my posts more carefully

Sorry, I was perfectly clear what I was talking about the whole time there. If you don’t want to come off as being too dramatic and “defensive� and “knee-jerk� about this topic then I would recommend WRITING your posts more carefully. Assuming that you do in fact want to be clear of course and aren’t just setting traps so you can blow up at me about something that has nothing to do with the FACTS on creationism or intelligent design.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

or science to philosophy

lol
but seriously science effects philosophy and vice versa, that makes it more complicated to define a philosophical view from a scientific view

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

lol
but seriously science effects philosophy and vice versa, that makes it more complicated to define a philosophical view from a scientific view

good point... there is a lot of gray area

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rian - I think brownjenkins is right to use the word "godlike" - because it is like what people conceive of as god to be able to design life. It is not human activity, because humans can't do that, and what is above human activity is "godlike." It isn't necessarily "god" in the religious sense, but it is "godlike activity" in the meaning of "something god could do and people can't." And that seems to be how brownjenkins is using it.

And aliens could certainly be in the same category. Or are the SETI scientists only looking for aliens BELOW our abilities?

Seriously, you can use "godlike" if you want to, but that's not what IDers are looking for. They are looking for hallmarks of intelligent design, exactly like archaeologists and anthropologists do, and SETI and Mars scientists do, based upon our own observations of what an intelligently-designed product looks like.

On another note, it really would be nice to be able to find the actual "testable theories" being brought up, instead of just hearing "oh, there are testable theories." And also, if testable, why not test them? Discovery Institute is pretty rich, so they could potentially do it themselves, and not have to undergo persecution from a college faculty.

To answer in Homeric order - Disc. Inst. has a formal statement that they don't think ID should be required to be taught at this point in time, because it's not developed enough yet. Got that, evolutionists? But they DO think it's promising enough to be investigated, or at least discussed if it comes up. That's how new concepts are fleshed out and found sufficient or lacking.

As far as the testable theories for ID, I've mentioned concepts like specified complexity and irreducible complexity. You'll have to do a search yourself at this point; there's statistical models and things like that for specified complexity. (I think that's the term; I'm kinda tired now and I may not have the exact term right). And as far as creationism, there's specific scientific tests for predicted ages, and then there's fossil analysis in the same way that evolutionists do it, and there's genetics analysis in the same way evolutionists do it, and things like that.

(and please get your tail over to the Hobbit Wheel thread! )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Your usual over the top dramatic indignation I see… not surprised really…

Y'know, IRex, I'll just let our posts be the evidence for people to decide who is usually more over the top and dramatic.

It looks like it was an innocent misunderstanding again; unfortunately, that seems to happen a lot with us. Nowhere in my post did I say that the facts were facts specifically about the evidence - I guess you just misunderstood me.

As you quoted, here's what I said:

Originally Posted by Rian

“What, exactly, wasn't a "fact"? And how do they have a massive vested interest? They think ID is a valid concept, and they're tired of being squashed, and are trying to put FACTS out there so people can know them and draw their own conclusions.�

I won't even try to deal with the rest of your post - I'll just point out that the phrase "and are trying to put FACTS out there so people can know them and draw their own conclusions" referred back to the most recent phrase before that, which was "and they're tired of being squashed".

I don't think the rest is worth discussing. Again, apparently you misunderstood me. I'm sorry we seem to do that a lot. I really try very hard to write things clearly. And I think it's pretty unfair to declare that you were being "perfectly clear" - apparently you weren't, because I misunderstood you. And you misunderstood me. That's life, unfortunately. Let's both try to be more clear, and to be more patient.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And ID is looking for intelligent beings (physical, observable things) too! It does not define who these beings are. There is no difference, and I really, truly do not understand why you think there is.

i've highlighted "the difference"

SETI does define who these beings are... lifeforms like us, more or less

it is conceivable that a highly advanced alien race would have the ability to do something like cause a star to form... but any scientist today who saw a start forming and claimed that "aliens were behind it" and it was proof of their existance would be told that it was not a very scientific theory

ID defines "beings" that are so far beyond human ability (not just a little or even a lot) as to render the theory almost completely baseless

"the difference" is plausibility