Joined: Jan. 2011
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2011,22:44)|
| † † |
|Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,23:54)|
|So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.|
As above, I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with your statement ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible"). I agree with your statement.
What you will encounter here is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.
Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.
Anyway, here goes:
Actually, there are many statements here that assert that ID and/or creation are impossible. Even if the word "impossible" isn't used, the implication is the same.
I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.
At the same time, many of you make excuses for science and speak as though science has all the answers to every question. There are tons of things that science has no clue about and there are lots of disputes and disagreements between scientists. Even though there is some good science, there is a lot of lousy science too, and there's some outright fraud too.
Yeah, I know, science allegedly corrects itself eventually. Trouble is, the damage is already done by then and sometimes the damage is profound. For some examples, go here:
Among other things, notice how many times the retracted papers were cited. What does that suggest about those other studies and papers that used the retracted papers as any sort of basis for their studies or papers? And what does it do for the reputation of science in general? How about the "peer review" process? Why didn't the 'peers' stop those papers before they were ever published?
Peer review is a joke, and just because something is published, it doesn't necessarily mean it has any basis in fact or truth.
I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.
I'm not saying that ID or creation are real or that they're even necessarily scientific at this point. However, there may come a time when more information will be available, and if nothing else ID and/or creation may be found to be impossible or may be found to be the real thing. Frankly, I doubt that the matter will ever be settled. In the meantime, since science is allegedly "silent" on the matter, scientists should not say they are impossible and should keep an open mind. There are many scientists and science supporters who voice and write their opinions about ID and creation on a regular basis. So much for being "silent" on the matter.
I wrote something last night in response to someone who said that scientists never claim to have 'proof'. This is probably as good a place as any to post it, so here it is:
Scientists regularly say they have proof, or words to that effect.
You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:
Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.
There are still many things that science cannot figure out and there are still things that have not been thought of or are only a thought that will never be testable or verifiable. There are too many people on forums like this one who think they know it all and that science has or will get all the answers to every question. There are still many very basic things in nature and in scientific procedures that scientists don't agree on and regularly argue about.
Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.
Also think about the regularly conflicting reports on medical procedures and tests, prescription drugs, immunizations, etc., and that scientists are constantly claiming that some new discovery is going to bring about a cure for every malady known to man, even though there's often no real connection to any such thing.
You guys who work in science or are just zealous science supporters are often so caught up in your belief system about science that you're just as delusional as those who are caught up in their religious beliefs. You get defensive and think you're being personally attacked when someone questions science or simply doesn't believe 'in' science as much as you do. Science isn't a religion, or at least it shouldn't be considered one. Many of you seem to think it's the only 'religion' that everyone should believe 'in'.
What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known? Why is it so hard for some scientists to say, "We don't know and may never know. We're working on it, but it may take a long time to figure it out, if ever. We make mistakes and some of us are even dishonest and commit fraud. We're just as fallible as anyone else is in any other field. Nature is enormously complex and we haven't figured out how to test or verify many things yet, if ever. Some scientific claims are well established. Many are not."?
I don't know if ID or creation will ever be testable or verifiable to science's satisfaction. I don't believe all the fairy tales there are in religions but I also don't feel that the concept of ID or creation have to be linked to religion.
We live in a very big universe and there are lots of hypotheses and theories and guesses about how it came about and what makes it tick. Rather than endlessly argue and fight about Gods or multiverses or divine miracles or how stars form or whether Pluto is a planet or not, I'd like to see the people of this world get together and take better care of the only planet we have; Earth. If people would do that I wouldn't care if they believe that The Wizard Of Oz created and designed everything.
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato