RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,09:27   

Well, there was that moron recently who claimed that atheists really believed in god, but pretended not to, or something. That's so dumb, I'm not sure the word 'retarded' goes far enough. Can't remember on what blog that guy was being mocked.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,09:34   

Quote
Faith is one of those support mechanisms and if you take it away...
Let's just be clear on one thing. Science (and scientists, and that generally covers what the IDists like to call "Darwinists") are not plotting to take away faith. There is no "atheist agenda" behind either the success of evolutionary theory, or the opposition of mainstream science to the anti-science of ID. The scurrilous accusations of many IDers to the contrary (DaveScot, JAD, just about every pronouncement from the Disco Inst) does not speak well of the character of the movement.

At the same time, science should not and cannot be concerned about whether objective reality conflicts with this, that or the other religious perspective. If your god is sufficiently abstract, I guess there's not a problem. But if your god is an entity that created the universe 6000 years ago, and created the first humans with no biological ancestors, etc. then I'm sorry; that just does not appear to be consistent with science. I know the more sophisticated of the IDers make more subtle claims than that, but so far as I can see, there's no substance to their claims.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,10:03   

Quote (Russell @ Feb. 10 2006,15:34)
Quote
Faith is one of those support mechanisms and if you take it away...
Let's just be clear on one thing. Science (and scientists, and that generally covers what the IDists like to call "Darwinists") are not plotting to take away faith. There is no "atheist agenda" behind either the success of evolutionary theory, or the opposition of mainstream science to the anti-science of ID. The scurrilous accusations of many IDers to the contrary (DaveScot, JAD, just about every pronouncement from the Disco Inst) does not speak well of the character of the movement.

At the same time, science should not and cannot be concerned about whether objective reality conflicts with this, that or the other religious perspective. If your god is sufficiently abstract, I guess there's not a problem. But if your god is an entity that created the universe 6000 years ago, and created the first humans with no biological ancestors, etc. then I'm sorry; that just does not appear to be consistent with science. I know the more sophisticated of the IDers make more subtle claims than that, but so far as I can see, there's no substance to their claims.

Brian Greene claims something a bit different.

He says that statistically, it is far more probable that the Universe has only just "popped" into existence than it is 16 Billion years old.

Don't get me wrong, he does not go on to claim this is the case.

He does go along with an ancient Universe, otherwise science would be pointless.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,10:20   

Quote
Brian Greene claims something a bit different.

He says that statistically, it is far more probable that the Universe has only just "popped" into existence than it is 16 Billion years old.
Huh? how can you apply statistics to a single event? Do you have a reference? Greene seems to be mischievously inscrutable here.  

(Also - I doubt if Greene thinks humans were created with no biological ancestors!;)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,10:24   

Quote
But to claim that God isn't important is equally dangerous.


Artist In Training, I recognize God is important to many if not most people.  My point it god it irrelevant to science, math, etc. and faith in a god is not needed for a wortwhile life that is free of fear and uncertainty.  

I also recognize most religionists would not agree with that statement but the facts prove otherwise.  Many religionists would choose to have a less meaningful life without a belief in a god but that would be there choice.

God *is* important to those who make him important but a society does not need a god to prosper nor does an individual need a god to be happy and comfortable in their own skin and lead a meaningful life.

There is nothing dangerous about rejecting faith in a god nor does it lead to despair or a life of crime.  And children do not need faith in a god any more than my goldfish do.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,10:51   

Quote
For example:  You think that their are massive unaddressed flaws with 'Darwinism'...yet you cant tell us what they are...

I haven't had time to do it yet. It's definitely the right way to go.

Quote
If, however, someone claims that dropping Evolution and replacing it with ID will push medicine into the dark ages...they actually have a reason.  It may be hyperbole, but since many, many modern medical advances are based on the Theory of Evolution...it would not be false to claim that if Evolution was false...then many medical discoveries would be invalidated.


I believe that is a fallacious assumption. Name me one medical advance that would be invalidated, name me one medical discovery that depended upon the arrival of species having come about through gradualism rather than some other mechanism.

Russell,

No one is saying that Darwinists are engaged in massive fraud. What they say is that Darwinian evolution will turn out to be one of the biggest false leads in science. The word fraud might be used, but not personally against anyone or the group. That is absurd.

Quote
Are you familiar with this for instance?
Alright, I'm sitting here reading it and first of all, Wesley called someone named Goode to ask what Dembski meant. In my opinion, Goode was wrong. I don't think Dembski was referring to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but just to a hegemony in science, and I cannot disagree with that. The actions taken against Richard Sternberg, for example, show exactly what Dembski mentions, and while Wesley is right that he was not sent to exile or taken out and shot, we don't have that kind of society. Again, Wesley says Dembski failed to note the unproductive nature of ideologically sanctioned science, but right now it seem it is Wesley who should be thinking about that. No the parallels are not exact - we don't exist in an idea-driven totalitarian regime but it is still a monopoly of ideas to a large extent. Anyway, that's as far as I got.

Quote
but I will tell you I honestly worry about the anti-science, anti-intellectual religious right mindset that seems to be inseparable from ID.
Yes, even Grandad notices that the far end of the fundamentalist spectrum is the situation we have in the middle east. But then, too, let us not forget that it is not only religion which is capable of this - after all, we have the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which were, if anything, worse than living under the Ayatollah of Iran.

Okay, I went back to look at the wedge document, and I misunderstood the first time. Apparently it is theirs. Nonetheless, I don't know what about it you find objectionable. I've read through about half your link.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,10:57   

Quote (Russell @ Feb. 10 2006,16:20)
Quote
Brian Greene claims something a bit different.

He says that statistically, it is far more probable that the Universe has only just "popped" into existence than it is 16 Billion years old.
Huh? how can you apply statistics to a single event? Do you have a reference? Greene seems to be mischievously inscrutable here.  

(Also - I doubt if Greene thinks humans were created with no biological ancestors!;)

I was going from Brian Greene's popular book "the Fabric of the Cosmos".

He is explaining the Universe from the POV of SLOT. By maths, he says that the Universe is extremely unlikely in it's present form.

Mathematicaly, it is more likely to have just right now, have been created.

He does not press this claim BTW. He goes on to say that if the Universe is as old as science thinks. Then it started out at an incredibly low state of entropy; This is what gives time a direction.

It is all in his popular book, The Fabric of the Cosmos. Definately worth a read.
EDIT:
No, Greene does not propose, "no common ancestors".

EDIT 2:
However, he does claim "no common ancestors" is statisticaly more likely. His disclaimer though is; If the Universe realy had just popped into existence, all our perceived science would be false, so it is better to assume an old Universe and memories to be true.

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:04   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,16:51)
But then, too, let us not forget that it is not only religion which is capable of this - after all, we have the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which were, if anything, worse than living under the Ayatollah of Iran.

Is Godwin's Law still observed?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:10   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,16:51)
Okay, I went back to look at the wedge document, and I misunderstood the first time. Apparently it is theirs. Nonetheless, I don't know what about it you find objectionable. I've read through about half your link.

The Wedge doccument is objectionable because they have admitted that the whole movement is based on religion.

They are not doing science, they are lying for religious/political reasons. Then trying to disguise it as science.

Do you know what science is yet Avo? If so, how would it be aplicable to God? You would be removing God's free will.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:12   

Quote
I believe that is a fallacious assumption. Name me one medical advance that would be invalidated, name me one medical discovery that depended upon the arrival of species having come about through gradualism rather than some other mechanism.


First off...gradualism is not part of the current theory of Evolution

Second....I dont know if you are aware....but the mechanism behind all drugs must be rigorously demonstrated.  The FDA will not approve a drug if you cannot explain how it works.  If evolutionary theory was invalidated...then you could kiss your flu vaccine goodbye.  I will allow someone with a slightly better understanding of modern medicine explain the finer points...

some other mechanism....first you have to suggest another mechanism.  Newtonian physics had flaws...but we didnt replace it until a better system existed....

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:18   

Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 10 2006,17:12)
Quote
I believe that is a fallacious assumption. Name me one medical advance that would be invalidated, name me one medical discovery that depended upon the arrival of species having come about through gradualism rather than some other mechanism.


First off...gradualism is not part of the current theory of Evolution

Second....I dont know if you are aware....but the mechanism behind all drugs must be rigorously demonstrated.  The FDA will not approve a drug if you cannot explain how it works.  If evolutionary theory was invalidated...then you could kiss your flu vaccine goodbye.  I will allow someone with a slightly better understanding of modern medicine explain the finer points...

some other mechanism....first you have to suggest another mechanism.  Newtonian physics had flaws...but we didnt replace it until a better system existed....

In most practical examples it still hasn't been replaced.

I do believe rocket scientists still use Newtonian physics. Not because it is more correct, but because it is good enough.

Einstein gravity being too complex for negligible extra reliability.

I guess things would change if humans could build rockets that aproached the speed of light.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:27   

What do you mean gradualism is not part of current theory. I just used that word - does it means something I'm not aware of? By gradualism, I mean current Darwinian theory of descent by small, slight modifications.

Yes, let someone explain why evolution theory matters in explaining how a drug works on living tissue.

Do you realize that the first vaccines were invented before evolution theory? Please tell me if all scientists agreed right now that the 6-day creation story is correct, why they could not create a flu vaccine?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:37   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,17:27)
What do you mean gradualism is not part of current theory. I just used that word - does it means something I'm not aware of? By gradualism, I mean current Darwinian theory of descent by small, slight modifications.

Yes, let someone explain why evolution theory matters in explaining how a drug works on living tissue.

Do you realize that the first vaccines were invented before evolution theory? Please tell me if all scientists agreed right now that the 6-day creation story is correct, why they could not create a flu vaccine?

What do you think would hapen to science, if the explanation was "that is the way it was designed" was acceptable?

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:46   

Well, basically, I just don't think that would happen. I don't think science would be affected. I think people would continue to study and reverse engineer.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:49   

Is it me or is uncommon descent starting to look more and more like a gathering place for a new age christian science fiction cult where everyone and anyone is a "design theorist"?

I predict we'll soon read about "patterns" found in crystals which are obviously a signature of an intelligent designer.  

It's all about "pattern detection".

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:51   

OK, I'll take a stab at this.

The development of drugs for use in treating human diseases almost always requires testing in some sort of "model animal". The choice of model animal is based on such factors as their evolutionary relationship to humans, their reproduction rate, their amenity to being housed and bred in laboratories, and (especially recently) ethical concerns.

Today, the most common model animals are rodents, because they are sufficiently closely to humans that many of their responses to drugs are similar to what they would be in humans, and because they satisfy many of the other requirements which are not satisfied by other animals.

If there was no evolutionary relationship between any of the animals on Earth, then there would be no reason to choose one animal as a model over any other. Why would we not choose cockroaches, since they satisfy all of the requirements far better than mice do?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:59   

This seems incoherent, Avocationist.
ID claims to want to revolutionize --and redefine-- science, but, if it becomes accepted, you don't think science would be affected?

"Reverse Engineering" designed organisms can act as a case in point. It seems to me that "scientific" disputes within such a framework will inevitably become theological/ontological discussions, unless the designer is universally believed to be the Christian God. And then you would just have specifically Christian theological debates among what would pass for "scientists."

Imagine it: "Well, I'm trying to reverse engineer this deadly, flesh-eating virus that causes blindness, great pain and death."
"That was designed by satan, so you have to look for the 'devil proteins'."
"No, I think God did it."
"But that's so horrible..."
Cue theological discussion of 'the problem of evil'.

Really, I'm afraid you underestimate the degree to which the ID movement is antiscientific, in every meaning of that word. ID is a showstopper for scientific inquiry.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:59   

Quote
No one is saying that Darwinists are engaged in massive fraud. What they say is that Darwinian evolution will turn out to be one of the biggest false leads in science. The word fraud might be used, but not personally against anyone or the group. That is absurd.
Absurd? From Dembski's review of Jonathan Wells's "Icons of Evolution"
Quote
[Wells] found that on closer examination the key examples that Darwinists cite to support their theory are themselves either fraudulent, staged, or misrepresented
In fact, Wells's entire book - for that matter Wells's entire career - consists of exactly the accusations you deny. And tell me I've got Bruce Chapman, founder of the Disco Inst, all wrong here. The whole movement is based on the idea that an entrenched orthodoxy is propping up a broken theory in order to promote a supposed atheist, secularist agenda.

Absurd? hardly

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,12:14   

Russell: congratulations on your latest publication (that's you right - J Virol, Feb 2006?).

Avocationist: how many papers did you say you've published?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,12:19   

Quote
Please tell me if all scientists agreed right now that the 6-day creation story is correct, why they could not create a flu vaccine?
Well, now, I can help you with that because vaccine research happens to be my job.

Early vaccines (Jenner's smallpox, Pasteur's rabies...) were based on empirical observations: they worked. But a lot of vaccine candidates don't work, or worse, actually exacerbate the disease they're supposed to prevent. Why they do that is the subject of intense research, involving all the tools of modern biology, to which evolutionary theory is integral. You can't pick up a journal, or go to a meeting, concerning vaccine development where evolution, whether of pathogens or of the immune system, is not explicitly or implicitly central to most of the articles or talks.

(...including mine... thanks, Gregonomic)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,12:40   

Quote (gregonomic @ Feb. 10 2006,18:14)
Russell: congratulations on your latest publication (that's you right - J Virol, Feb 2006?).

Avocationist: how many papers did you say you've published?

While it's good to know that we have a bona fide expert in our ranks, and good that your paper got published, Russell (congrats), I'm a little uncomfortable with the implication that avocationist's contributions here are unwelcome, or not worthwhile, because he is not a professional research scientist.

I, for instance, have no papers to my credit, no higher degrees, just an interest in the issues, a willingness to learn, and a functional BS-detector.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,12:42   

AND... do you suppose the current concern over avian flu is predicated on the possibility of that nonexistent random mutation converting a barely competent human pathogen into a highly contagious agent, under the influence of the highly controversial natural selection? Or do you think scientists are just waiting to see if the Intelligent Designer is in a capricious mood?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,12:52   

Sanctum you slander me! (Not in the way that actually offends me)

When have I ever attacked anyone for their belief in god? Is that your perception of me? Someone who indiscriminately hurls insults?

I have a deep spiritual sense and I totally understand AIT's position. I don't happen to feel the need for god to provide me with anything, let alone faith. Faith seems pretty removed from god for me. It's like having faith in red or something.

Regardless, faith is fine but ID is duplicitous and has the potential to seriously undermine science education and, for that matter, education in general. Religion as in the church is on pretty shaky ground with me because institutions dedicated to god, er, it's like intitutions dedicated to red. Or blue I suppose. The problem is when the institution becomes dedicated to Red, Blue and White that I begin to get worried. The trick is to abstract god away from those who claim to speak for him/her/it (I liked that touch). That's the trick for me anyway. But you do what you want. Just please don't tell people that science is ruining society because at this point, at however many billion people Earth now supports, it's all we've got.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,12:55   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 10 2006,18:40)
...I'm a little uncomfortable with the implication that avocationist's contributions here are unwelcome, or not worthwhile, because he is not a professional research scientist.

I, for instance, have no papers to my credit, no higher degrees, just an interest in the issues, a willingness to learn, and a functional BS-detector.

Sorry C.J., that's not what I meant to imply.

I just find it amusing that Avocationist is so clearly out of his/her league when it comes to talking about the actual science of evolution and yet so adamant that the IDiots are correct, and I couldn't resist taking a little dig.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,12:55   

Well....i might have been a little harsh to condemn gradualism....but this might help a little bit.  Basically, the current argument is that a good deal of evolution is not accounted for by a strict gradualism mechanism.  It might have occured, but evidence points to an alternative in many cases.

Evolution is not just a theory of paleontology....it is a tool most Biology.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,13:02   

gregonomic,
It is amusing sometimes, and I know you weren't really strongly implying what I said. But it can cut both ways.

Absurdly, people like Sal Cordova get away with chasing people off of Dembski's trail, because they "don't have the maths" or the like.

In a rhetorical environment, you either have an argument worth listening to, or you don't. I totally know what you mean about people willfully ignoring evidence and not understanding that such a stance pretty much invalidates their claims. But most of us out here in the ether aren't scientists, just concerned, and to whatever degree, (mis)informed, citizens.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,13:16   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 10 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
I totally know what you mean about people willfully ignoring evidence and not understanding that such a stance pretty much invalidates their claims.


So, are you saying that, when someone clearly doesn't have the credentials to support the claims they are making, we shouldn't call them on it? Or that we should do it in a less mocking tone than the one I used?

Quote
But most of us out here in the ether aren't scientists, just concerned, and to whatever degree, (mis)informed, citizens.


Yes, but when we want to get informed, what do we do? We either do a bit of reading or we consult the "experts", right?

Avocationist seems to be being very selective about the material he/she is willing to read. And, when it comes to digesting information, he/she seems to accept everything an IDiot says at face value whilst instantly rejecting anything a "Darwinist" says. If you don't think he/she deserves to be mocked for that stance, then I respectfully disagree with you.

  
Artist in trainig



Posts: 12
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,13:57   

I'm sorry, I don't remember what thread I was in and I don't remember my user name, Maybe frank or Picasso.

Stevestory:
Quote
[QUOTE]
but for me and many others who may not be as strong as you when it comes to coping with a harsh reality of meaninglessness and loss

Why do I only ever hear this from the religious camp? I never hear fellow atheists talk about how grim and wretched life is. Where do religious people get this idea that life without god is meaningless and worthless? This erroneous idea goes quite against the evidence that we atheists are not depressed and nihilistic. Perhaps the religious people just don't appreciate the value of evidence.[/QUOTE]
You know, I think you are entirely missing the point.  I said that perhaps some people may be able to trancend that need but that I and many others, perhaps even some secular humanists, seek meaning. Maybe not like a quest for a Holy Grail but we can dedicate our lives or parts of our lives and even risk death for a cause. We seek and find meaning in our world and in at least some of our actions. If you allow faith into your world then you are also allowing meaning in. It's possible that you already have meaning or that you are happy with simply fulfilling your duty to our species' DNA. Good. That's not me.

Maybe faith is misguided. Maybe it is a way that our physiology has devised to get little dopamine boosts Pascal's wager always seemed a little stupid or small-minded to me.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,14:15   

You're just talking crazy talk. Where do you get off saying I don't have any meaning or support any causes? Why do you presume to tell me what I think or value?

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,14:16   

Quote (gregonomic @ Feb. 10 2006,19:16)
So, are you saying that, when someone clearly doesn't have the credentials to support the claims they are making, we shouldn't call them on it? Or that we should do it in a less mocking tone than the one I used?

No, certainly we should call them on it.

And to mock or not to mock is a personal choice. I usually save extended sarcasm (the best weapon in my arsenal) for those who are more obnoxious or vitriolic than avo, but again, we all have our tolerance levels.

I guess I was just responding to the "how many papers" bit, because any ol' IDiot engineer or what have you could dismiss me as easily with the same tack.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]