Decius wrote:
] ] The Discovery Institute's appeals to academic freedom
] ] create a kind of catch-22. If scientists ignore the ID
] ] movement, their silence is offered as further evidence of
] ] a conspiracy. If they join in, they risk reinforcing the
] ] perception of a battle between equal sides. Most
] ] scientists choose to remain silent. "Where the scientific
] ] community has been at fault," says Krauss, "is in
] ] assuming that these people are harmless, like
] ] flat-earthers. They don't realize that they are well
] ] organized, and that they have a political agenda."
]
] Wired published a fairly long article on the creationist
] revival. It was interesting sort of as a microcosm of the
] anti-scientific thinking that is consuming our political and
] social lives:
]
] Develop convictions.
] Never think critically about your position.
] Come up with a strategy for advocating your perspective.
]
] Don't engage people who disagree with you unless it has a
] strategic purpose. Do not listen to them. They are the enemy.
] Your goal is to defeat them. They are evil, and everything
] they say hides an ulterior motive.
]
] The jaw dropping thing was the end. George Gilder: The
] creationist. George Gilder has been a major leader in the
] technical community for over a decade. He was the sooth sayer
] of the internet boom in the early nineties. The U.S. made
] significant policy decisions based on this vision.
]
] The telecom crash has hurt his credibility because he didn't
] forsee it. Some people have been wondering whether he should
] have been listened to, but most of the tech community still
] thinks of him as a leader.
]
] But to go to an audience like Wired, which is primarily read
] by engineers and technical business people, and associate
] yourself with creationism? People who make their living from
] applied science; people who understand the history of
] technology in unparalleled detail... hundreds of years of
] using the scientific method to investigate natural phenomena
] and harness them. And you go to them and tell them that
] conclusions ought to precede the collection of evidence! Thats
] an amazing thing. Like a rock star blowing his brains out at a
] concert in front of a million fans.
]
] Its important for that reason. George Gilder is dead.

Why does creationism have to be opposed to scientific method? That makes no sense! The ideologies of creationism and evolution (the practical scientific explanation) aren't mutually exclusive. You could have both. All pure creationism says is that there was an intelligence behind the architecture and execution of the universe. It doesn't say that things didn't happen on the time frames or processes that most evolutionists postulate. Science is not an enemy of God.

For myself, the more you know about science and the Way Things Work, the more you logically can conclude that it was not by chance or circumstance. It's far too well architected and the necessary steps for things to happen 'on chance' are dizzyingly impossible, even given billions of years. To put it simply, if you had all the pieces of a wristwatch in a box, and you shook it up for a billion years, do you think that you'd ever end up with an assembled watch?

flynn23 wrote:
] Why does creationism have to be opposed to scientific method?
] That makes no sense! The ideologies of creationism and
] evolution (the practical scientific explanation) aren't
] mutually exclusive. You could have both. All pure creationism
] says is that there was an intelligence behind the architecture
] and execution of the universe.

Et tu?

The problem isn't with what you are saying, its with why you are saying it. Are you saying that you have intelligent design because you have experimental evidence that demonstrates intelligent design, or are you saying it because you think thats how it "must have worked" or because you beleive that it worked that way.

] For myself, the more you know about science and the Way Things
] Work, the more you logically can conclude that it was not by
] chance or circumstance. It's far too well architected and the
] necessary steps for things to happen 'on chance' are
] dizzyingly impossible, even given billions of years.

I'm not entirely qualified to get into a detailed discussion of it. (Nano?) However, more then chance is involved. It relates to environmental pressures.

For example, some bacteria of a particular type are more resistant to anti-biotics then others. When humans take anti-biotics improperly they wipe out the weak ones but leave the strong ones around to continue to reproduce. Eventually there are enough present to cause a problem again, and the patient takes more anti-biotics. Again, if they take them improperly, the weak group from the new children will be wiped out that the stronger survive. In this case even the weaker ones in the group were stronger on average then the first group, because they are all related to parents of the original strong type. This is a real problem in our world that occurs on human time scales. There is no evidence that any intelligent force is intenionally producing new super bugs. Its entirely a by-product of our mis-use of certain medicines. You can actually observe the things adapt genetically to environmental stimulous in a lab.

In any event, a defense of evolution is irrelevent. Even if its a totally flawed notion this in no way provides a defence for intelligent design. Intelligent design must have experimentally verifiable evidence. It doesn't. It must stand on its own merit. It can't. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying that there is no experimental evidence that it is true, and hence I can't use it for any purpose, nor can I reasonably assume that it is the case.

If there is no math, then it is not science, its art. I don't have a problem with art until you start saying that its science. Its not.

Decius wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] Why does creationism have to be opposed to scientific
] method?
] ] That makes no sense! The ideologies of creationism and
] ] evolution (the practical scientific explanation) aren't
] ] mutually exclusive. You could have both. All pure
] creationism
] ] says is that there was an intelligence behind the
] architecture
] ] and execution of the universe.
]
] Et tu?
]
] The problem isn't with what you are saying, its with why you
] are saying it. Are you saying that you have intelligent design
] because you have experimental evidence that demonstrates
] intelligent design, or are you saying it because you think
] thats how it "must have worked" or because you beleive that it
] worked that way.
]
] ] For myself, the more you know about science and the Way
] Things
] ] Work, the more you logically can conclude that it was not by
]
] ] chance or circumstance. It's far too well architected and
] the
] ] necessary steps for things to happen 'on chance' are
] ] dizzyingly impossible, even given billions of years.
]
] I'm not entirely qualified to get into a detailed discussion
] of it. (Nano?) However, more then chance is involved. It
] relates to environmental pressures.
]
] For example, some bacteria of a particular type are more
] resistant to anti-biotics then others. When humans take
] anti-biotics improperly they wipe out the weak ones but leave
] the strong ones around to continue to reproduce. Eventually
] there are enough present to cause a problem again, and the
] patient takes more anti-biotics. Again, if they take them
] improperly, the weak group from the new children will be wiped
] out that the stronger survive. In this case even the weaker
] ones in the group were stronger on average then the first
] group, because they are all related to parents of the original
] strong type. This is a real problem in our world that occurs
] on human time scales. There is no evidence that any
] intelligent force is intenionally producing new super bugs.
] Its entirely a by-product of our mis-use of certain medicines.
] You can actually observe the things adapt genetically
] to environmental stimulous in a lab.
]
] In any event, a defense of evolution is irrelevent. Even if
] its a totally flawed notion this in no way provides a defence
] for intelligent design. Intelligent design must have
] experimentally verifiable evidence. It doesn't. It must stand
] on its own merit. It can't. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm
] saying that there is no experimental evidence that it is true,
] and hence I can't use it for any purpose, nor can I reasonably
] assume that it is the case.
]
] If there is no math, then ... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
] I agree, but I find it humorous that the same logic that's
] being used to despute ID (or creationism, or whatever you want
] to call it) is the same logic that's being used to bolster
] evolution. That being since nothing has come along to disprove
] it, it must be correct.

No one in science uses this logic. The logic is, since its experimentally verifiable, its probably correct. Thats why its called a Theory. This gets messy because lay-people think a theory is any idea you happen to come up with that could be plausible. They don't understand the distinction between a "theory" in lay-terms (which is really a hypothesis) and a scientific Theory. A Theory is not "something that could be possible," its something that is likely to be possible based on experimental results.

] Where science fails us is in the very point you make, which is
] that there are things in the universe that cannot be explained
] YET, so you must use faith and assumption to eventually get
] there. That's not to say cease questioning.

These guys aren't just advocating that questioning stop. What they are advocating is that we should not teach experimentally verifiable results, but instead we should teach whatever politically favorable hypothesis we feel like.

The idea that "we'll never understand everything" does not give you license to throw out what we do understand just because you don't like it. Nor does it give you the license to "fill in the blanks" with your favorite hypothesis and call it a scientific truth.

] So what's to make us believe that we'll even
] have the mental capacity to understand It All? Which, in my
] mind, gives more credence to the creationist idea, since if it
] was architected by something else... obviously something
] greater than that which was created... that it would be
] impossible to understand it all.

No scientist has ever claimed that he understands "It All." Thats what religions do. Thats the whole problem here. :) The point of science is to assume that you don't understand unless you can prove otherwise. The point of religion is to assume that you do understand and operate based on that assumption.

k wrote:
] ] The buzz phrase most often heard in the institute's
] ] offices is academic freedom. "My hackles go up on the
] ] academic freedom issue," Chapman says. "You should be
] ] allowed in the sciences to ask questions and posit
] ] alternative theories."
]
] [ There's a lot of language in this article about the ID folks
] talking about scientific equanimity, "understanding the full
] range of scientific views", and so on, but nothing I have seen
] points to ID being scientific in any way, shape or form.
]
] Its central tenet is that there are structures in Biology that
] are too complex to be the result of Darwinian selection. They
] then make the fallacy of stating "therefore, there must be an
] intelligent designer." It's a fallacy because the conclusion
] is not logically supported by the assumptions.
]
] And that's not the biggest issue, because science is based on
] repeatable, verifiable experiments. If you have none, then
] you aren't doing science. The statement that one theory is
] wrong, so my theory is right, based on no evidence, is
] definitionaly unscientific.
]
] Even the "evidence" they cite is only, at *best*,
] demonstrative of areas where darwinism fails to completely
] explain a phenomenon. Again though, even assuming is that's
] the case, the failure of one system to explain something is
] insufficient to support the claim of another.
]
] And for the record, that's not to say they're wrong, or
] shouldn't believe whatever they want, but it's just that, a
] belief. And therefore has no place in a discussion about
] teaching science.
]
] Don't get me started on Gilder. He tries to cite newton, but
] neglects to mention that no one threw Newton out because of
] quantum mechanics. And that's his most cogent argument.
]
] The bottom line, as Lawrence Krauss implies, is that
] biologists need to stand up. Forget your fears about lending
] credence to the opposition by engaging them. Dispell any
] implication that evolutionary theory and ID are even close to
] each other in terms of support. They may have couched the
] debate in the lingo of science, but the result will be
] teaching about God and His plan, as defined by the political
] Right wing. Fairness doesn't enter into it. -k]

This is typical of all issues it seems like today, and that is there's nothing but spin and polarization on the issues. Obviously the ideal is somewhere in the middle, where you can contextualize the existance of a Creator (however you may define it) and the mechanics of Darwinism and adaptive process. This gets totally lost in the extremist views of "His plan" and the paranoia of atheism. And smart people do a disservice to the rest of the world by taking sides in these kinds of debates. Why can't our society embrace rationality?

I haven't read the article all the way through yet, but I imagine that there's a case made for the science of product design exhibiting the same behaviors or results as biological process. So which is it? Did we come to be due to design or from biological process? Why not both? Why are they exclusive? If you look at the study of how things react or adapt after being created, there's certainly an environmental impact component of that study. How can they be extricated from each other? Who really cares at this point!?! With what we have before us in terms of opportunities for new knowledge and leaps of understanding, I think it's academic to postulate either/or kinds of questions. That's like asking whether art is expression of conscious thought or just random form while the museum is burning down.