Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why are Darwinists here so scientifically illiterate?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2011 11:05:05 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
In the product description (http://www.amazon.com/Explore-Evolution-Arguments-Against-Neo-Darwinism/dp/0947352481/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1300125478&sr=8-1) is the following sentence, "When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence."
While there are 'competing' (even though it's not a race or a contest) theories about evolution, there are no scientific alternative theories to evolution. Neither intelligent design nor creationism have the attributes of a scientific theory.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 6:00:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 15, 2011 6:27:08 PM PDT
A. Caplan's post: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism have the attributes of a scientific theory. "

ID theorists use inductive logic, the basis of scientific reasoning, to move from a set of observations to a general conclusion. Our observations concerning the origins of all known codes establishes a strong conclusion about a code whose origin is not known. This method is employed in theory-building, specifically... ID asserts that the facts that we know about codes enable us to create a theory that explains relationships between the facts and postulates an intelligent cause concerning the origin of DNA.

"DNA is the software of life, there is no question about it, that is key to evolution of life on this planet, and now the key to the future of life on this planet is understanding how to write that software." ~Craig Venter

Behind every known code in the entire universe there is a coder, a mind behind the code, notwithstanding the foregoing whose identity is not known. But the identity of the coder is another line of investigation, ID only asserts that where we find design there was a designer. We may learn something about the mind behind the code by studying his design, albeit we don't know the identity of the coder.

Regarding the sophistication of DNA/RNA relative to other codes of an intelligent origin, our inductive logical argument indicates a powerful degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion of intelligent origin. We can consider it a theory and proceed with scientific investigation. The ID theory will continue to be investigated and is indeed gaining support in the scientific community. At the same time, the impotence of Natural selection and genetic mutation as an explanation for the origin of species is being exposed.

It is true that unlike other scientific endeavors, such as the discovery and harnessing of electricity through scientific research which has produced many benefits, the fruit of ID research does not produce a tangible and material benefit to society, the real benefit comes from KNOWING the answer to one of the age old questions that the greatest minds of mankind have always pondered: where did we come from?? What one thinks about from whence he came changes how you view your world, it changes everything. It is important to us, otherwise no one would care, and no one would spend one millisecond giving it any thought or argument. But there sure are a lot of people who are willing to fight tooth and nail (hello NCSE) over this very question. Of course to the Darwinist there is no question; you evolved and don't you dare question it. Now just stare at a simple cell and repeat the mantra: everything evolved, no intelligence allowed.

Yours truly BAM aka CD.

Posted on Mar 15, 2011 6:12:05 PM PDT
krad1964 says:
BAM: "and proceed with scientific investigation."

And how is that proceeding?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 6:20:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 16, 2011 3:46:10 AM PDT
David Watson's post: "People who like reason and scientific rationality will LOVE this book - except those whose minds have an a priori fixation on the idea of naturalism and who also do not accept the challenge to re-examine their stance."

Thanks for that recommendation David. There is an excellent video documentary that features Nelson and Meyer (along with another 12 scientists) called Unlocking the Mystery of Life. That was my first introduction to Intelligent Design from the Discovery Institute. I had been reading books from Gerald Schroeder PhD, about a year before that (around 2005).

Thanks for mentioning that my posts add to the discussion David. Darwinists can't help it, it is how they were trained (brainwashed) to respond, anyone that questions evolution must be wrong. Throughout all of science, skepticism is good, it is healthy, it is the sign of a scientific mind, but where Darwinism is concerned you must have complete unquestioning faith, we will see that this is because the theory is so weak that once you start questioning and investigating, you will begin to have doubts, and they will have none of that kind of talk.

I have noticed that in my discussions with Darwinists, they will usually get around to bringing God into the discussion, and then accuse me of basing my ideas around a supernatural assumption, when I have made none. This is very telling, it reveals that they are religious, they must protect their precious prophet Darwin from any scrutiny, ID appears to be a threat to their "God": Nature did it.

Yours truly, BAM aka CD

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 6:24:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 16, 2011 3:47:38 AM PDT
krad, I'll let you in on a trade secret: Craig Venter is doing ID research. His labs and scientists are reverse engineering the genome and designing synthetic organisms using methods of INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!! Shhh, this is a secret. The funny part... they think they are studying evolution. he-he

Posted on Mar 15, 2011 7:03:46 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 21, 2011 9:32:49 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 9:53:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 15, 2011 9:54:40 PM PDT
I just posted a new article entitled, "Why are Americans Scientifically Precocious -- Is Michael Behe Responsible?" It gives a different perspective on ID and scientific literacy. You may enjoy it:

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 10:45:28 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
BAM says: "I have noticed that in my discussions with Darwinists, they will usually get around to bringing God into the discussion, and then accuse me of basing my ideas around a supernatural assumption, when I have made none."

OK, if it's not a supernatural assumption, is it a natural assumption? That is, is it some sort of physical being such as a super-intelligent alien?

If some sort of super-intelligent alien, did these aliens evolve or were they intelligently designed?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 12:01:12 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:51:51 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 12:05:07 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:51:51 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 12:07:08 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:51:51 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 12:11:52 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:51:51 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 3:54:30 AM PDT
krad1964 says:
BAM: "I'll let you in on a trade secret..."

Pretty lame but not much more was expected.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 5:53:28 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"ID theorists use inductive logic, the basis of scientific reasoning, to move from a set of observations to a general conclusion."

This doesn't validate a conclusion that either starts from a faulty premise or has no empirical evidence to back it up. There is no empirical evidence of a designer of any IQ level, there is no way to falsify or even to test this design "theory" and there is no mechanism to explain how it was done. This is why it isn't allowed the status of "theory."

Of course, I realize that posting this to you is completely pointless, but someone may be reading who needs to know that.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 5:57:01 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Does not "Big Bang Theory" offer some of the most brilliant writing currently available on the idiot box?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 6:15:02 AM PDT
<< What the !*@&#^*! is "Neo-Darwinism"? >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-darwinism

In strict terms, "neo-darwinism" refers to the "modern synthesis", i.e. the reconciliation of mendelian inheritance with darwinian selection. Considering that this "modern" synthesis is ~70 years old and predates such breakthroughs as the discovery of the DNA structure and the discovery of the translation mechanism, the term itself should be understood as a convenience that time has rendered a misnomer.

Biologists are generally neo-darwinian by default today, which sort of makes the term archaic. Biologists these days are also empiricists by default, as opposed to, say, vitalists, and as a result they don't bother to label themselves as such. Neo-darwinism remains the default stance because no overall synthesis has occurred since the "modern" one, in the 1940s, and because the new evidence biologists have accumulated since the '40s has gone beyond but not contradicted the neo-darwinian view.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 7:17:27 AM PDT
Irish Lace's post: "posting this to you is completely pointless"

Only because you are wrong and you are wasting your time.

There is no empirical evidence that a single cell evolved by chemical evolution. There is no empirical evidence that a single cell evolved into a multicellular organism. Two big problems for you, so why would you assume that a single cell evolved from non-living chemical, then evolved into a human? Then you wrongly point out that there is no empirical evidence that an intelligent designer can synthesize a living organism, read back aways in this thread, Dr. Venter (working with other scientists) recently intelligently designed a synthetic version of a living organism using mechanisms of design. Design is a tool in the toolkit of an engineer, it is how they build sophisticated systems. THERE is your empirical evidence. In addition your inability to answer this simple question shows how completely and totally you are brainwashed into looking for only one possible explanation:

Evolution model: matter + energy + time = codes

ID model: matter + energy + time + intelligence = codes

Which one have we ever observed?

Answer that simple question then we can proceed to the next level of discussion, until then your posts are pointless.

Yours truly, BAM aka CD.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 8:08:31 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:51:52 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 8:18:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 16, 2011 8:19:09 AM PDT
SinSeeker says:
Are you going to answer my simple question?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 8:41:59 AM PDT
SinSeeker asks, "What are some of the underlying principles, mechanisms, hypotheses, and experiments I can use to start my new career in intelligent design creationism research?"

Actually, I think disproving Intelligent Design is rather simple. Find something in Nature which is utterly useless--such as the human appendix (the wrong turn in the human digestive system), birth marks, the ear hair which grows out of control in older men while the tops of their heads go bald for no apparent purpose, or the entire cast of Jersey Shore. In order to prove Intelligent Design, you would have to prove that things which occur in Nature, but are useless, do not result from evolution, natural selection, or by some intention of living beings--such as selective breeding or genetics--or that not only did they have a purpose but they currently do as well.

You would also have to prove that any product of design, which is the result of intelligence--such as the internal combustion engine--is not intelligent and therefore god-like. In other words, if Intelligent Design is valid, then all design is Intelligent Design, and other intelligence simply doesn't exist.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 8:43:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 16, 2011 8:44:11 AM PDT
Brent:

<< Which one have we ever observed? >>

As I have pointed out to you before, we have never observed the "ID model" as you posit it. This is because we have never observed an intelligence that exists separate from code. You must be intelligent to use language; you must use language to be intelligible. Which means that it runs counter to our observation to suggest that intelligence might precede code.

Consider your "equation". Although your expression mangles the logic symbols so badly I am reluctant to perpetuate your construal, it might be useful for discussion to consider it this way. If "intelligence" always includes codes, from what we have observed, we can apply substitution to your equation:

matter + energy + time + intelligence = codes

matter + energy + time + (X + codes) = codes

where X represents all aspects of intelligence other than codes.

So the best this "model" can provide, if it really is meant to be consistent with available observations, is that new code is *not* created out of nothing, a new coding system is a *derivative* of a previous coding system. Suddenly I feel like we're back to evolution...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 5:30:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 16, 2011 5:31:16 PM PDT
Yothgoboufnir's post: "....we have never observed an intelligence that exists separate from code."

There you have it. Now that wasn't that hard was it? Wherever there is code there is intelligence behind the code. Piece of cake. The more sophisticated the code... the more sophisticated the coder. Further, it takes intelligence to recognize intelligence in the code. IF you can't recognize intelligence then you aren't _______ (fill in the blank.) Now that wasn't fair, because there could be an intelligence that is unrecognizable to us, who leaves traces of intelligence that are beyond our comprehension. But code in the DNA IS recognizable to us, as instructions, blueprints, ingredients, a recipe for building molecular machines.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer Yothgoboufnir. That doesn't sound like an American name, where are you from?

Yours truly, BAM aka CD.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 5:42:34 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
Are you going to answer my simple question?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 5:53:11 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
BAM: Wherever there is code there is intelligence behind the code.
>Not necessarily. There is no evidence of intelligence behind natural (genetic) codes. That doesn't mean that there isn't an intelligence (which I believe there is [aka: G-d]). However, whether or not there is an intelligent designer, the science of evolution is still is valid. ID, on the other hand, is not science, but a belief.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 6:05:12 PM PDT
Very interesting article David, and insightful. Thank you. As far as voting habits here on AMAZON, if the poster even hint's in favor of an ID position: does not add to the discussion. Giving them a button they can push helps them feel like they have some power. Funny.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  303
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Mar 13, 2011
Latest post:  Nov 10, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions