ID and Evolution

[Professor Illwill]

This was in response to a request for your evidence of a very young earth (some thousands of years), and it is a bit more than "evolutionists" interpreting things differently. There is evidence from many fields of science that the earth is far older than this. That's why I'm curious what fields of science you would allow in school.

For breadth:
http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html

For depth:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...nk&cd=19&gl=us

I had assumed you all had some familiarity with the controversy. If you would be well-informed or want to properly investigate things, you'll have to venture outside of TA's brainwashing pit.

I won't argue point-by-point everything they say there. Give it up. There is evidence, tons pf it, and it doesn't have to be interpreted to suit evolution.

[Professor Illwill]

But still, you have not answered my question. I'll pose it again-- which is easier to believe, and why: that the entire geological and biological scientific communities as a whole would suddenly let their normally exacting standards fall into complete disarray in the area of evolution just to be able to conclude that certain religious depictions are scientifically unsupportable, or that people with a pre-existing stake (prior to the science, that is) in a particular religious depiction would naturally find it distressing and requiring of a defensive and closedminded response in the face of mounting scientific evidence that contradicts that pre-existing view? We know it has to be one or the other, which sounds like a more plausible statement of human nature, if you had no stake in the answer? I really want to know the reasons that you conclude the first is easier to believe than the second. This is the big weakness in your position, independent from any item by item challenges of various scientific results, and so far you have offered not the least hint of support for that choice of societal view, except for a blanket condemnation of all that you perceive as "crooked", which seems more to me like a classic example of said "defensive" response.
Indeed, the geologists have to be "in on it" as well. This is starting to sound more like paranoia than reason, but I'm not a geologist. I'll inquire with ones who are, and I fully expect that the views of that unspecified retired geologist are either nonsense or are being misrepresented.

{snip}

I wanted to respond to the entire post, but I can't find what I'm looking for.

This is exactly where history comes into play. You have to understand "naturalism" got pretty big and glommed on to lots of ideas. There was a time when "Newtonians" had co-opted Newton's ideas and turned them upside down to make it appear to support atheism - the last thing Newton himself would have agreed with.

People believe what they are taught. They do their science based on what they were taught. Thus the scientific community has for quite a while been predisposed to believe in evolution.

Have you never seen axioms which exclude God from science? A PRIORI, right? This has been taught for a long time. God can be "ruled out" without evidence, or even an argument; and it's "religion" to say otherwise. "God cannot be the cause of anything". This is a textbook example of being "closeminded".

This is what's been taught universally for a century. Thus "science" is defined as exclusively atheistic. So yes, evolution is very much linked to atheism; and so is the Big Bang. Atheists were also thrilled with Steady-State, but the BB is compatible enough to suit most (but not all) of them.

Now for present-day "operational science", there's a good case to be made for keeping God out of most procedures. If God helps you obtain a result, but does not help me; so much for repeatability. God, however cannot be reasonably excluded form history, until someone proves conclusively that such an entity has in fact never existed.

Does evolution rule out religion altogether? That's a matter of opinion. Most would give a qualified "no". But do you deny that there is on the face of it, an apparent conflict? Do you deny the compatibility of evolution with atheism? They dovetail perfectly!

Evolution is externally (when viewed from the outside) much like a religion. Innumerable transitional forms are accepted on blind faith. But I haven't time to digress.

Back to history: Evolution got a big boost from hoaxes like "Piltdown Man" and "Nebraska Man". Without this boost it might very well have died off. (Remember: in the formula given by Darwin, it was "wrong", or whatever term you prefer.) The motives of the perpetrators? I don't think they conspired together at all. I think they saw an easy way to make a buck & grab a little fame, stuff like that.

But the point is, evolution got enough of a boost from bad science (nearly all of it's been shown to be flawed to some extent) that it became the dominant teaching. And from there on, it's just downhill. People believe what they're taught.

Ken G, you seem to be a good, honest seeker-of-knowledge. You tend to project this honesty upon others, and I think it is unwarranted.

Now what I'm busy looking for is some good example of where evolutionists "debunk" Dr. Robert Gentries "dates" for the Grand Canyon. He found "older" rocks at the bottom and "younger" ones at the top. This is due to "migration" - water transporting materials. That's what the pro-evolution side says! They say migration occurs (CS does not dispute such an obvious thing; old-earth ID might, depending on the individual.). The problem is that you can't find many evolutionists who talk about it. It not only invalidates Dr. Gentry's "dates", it invalidates all the rest.

There's no way to say how much migration has occurred (quantify it) in any given place, since one would have to know the conditions for the whole time (and thus already know how old a thing is). Hmmm... Maybe if you had some "reference fossils" to help (but then it isn't science because it's circular).

I'll assume you would not take the word of CS science about migration, so I'll keep trying to find something from the "old-earthers".

[iceage]

I briefly looked at your first reference "For breadth" and spotted "moon dust" and "polystrate trees". OK if that is what you call evidence, you have a low threshold for proof. These are tired and weak evidences for a Young Earth.

First Moon Dust.

From the AIG site on "Which arguments should definitely not be used?"

"For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young"

Your breadth just narrowed....

Now for polystrate trees.

There are numerous examples on both coasts of North America where ancient upright trees and forests are in process to becoming "polystrate" fossils.

This is not worth the time refuting but for visual appeal here is a link showing spruce 10k years old being uncovered in a sand pit.

Ancient Buried Forest in Michigan

[Gillianren]

Have you never seen axioms which exclude God from science? A PRIORI, right? This has been taught for a long time. God can be "ruled out" without evidence, or even an argument; and it's "religion" to say otherwise. "God cannot be the cause of anything". This is a textbook example of being "closeminded".

Actually, it's not so much that "Goddidit" is ruled out; it's more that it isn't an answer. After all, despite what you blindly believe, evolution is used every day by people in several important fields. God randomly changing microbes so they become resistant to antibiotics isn't an answer. However, microbiologists can watch the process of evolution as they become thus resistant.

Does evolution rule out religion altogether? That's a matter of opinion. Most would give a qualified "no". But do you deny that there is on the face of it, an apparent conflict? Do you deny the compatibility of evolution with atheism? They dovetail perfectly!

I deny that there is a conflict. It's not a qualified no; it's a flat-out no. I have faith. I accept the evidence of evolution. So, unreservedly, did John Paul II. (The jury's kind of out on Benedict XVI, but his stance on the subject is far from my biggest problem with him even if he were shown to be a creationist.) However, I only have evidence of one, and I assure you, it isn't my religion.

Evolution is externally (when viewed from the outside) much like a religion. Innumerable transitional forms are accepted on blind faith. But I haven't time to digress.

This is my biggest peeve with your arguing style. You bring up things, some of them actionable libel, and then say you don't have time to discuss your own arguments. Would you accept--and note that I'm not saying this!--one of us saying, "All creationists are of below-average IQ, but I don't really want to talk about that"? Of course not, and nor should you. Instead, you should present reasonable evidence or not bring a subject up in the first place.

Besides, how do you view something of which you are a product from the outside? If you mean "from the perspective of a scientific layman," isn't it possible that the problem is not with science but with your understanding of it?

Back to history: Evolution got a big boost from hoaxes like "Piltdown Man" and "Nebraska Man". Without this boost it might very well have died off. (Remember: in the formula given by Darwin, it was "wrong", or whatever term you prefer.) The motives of the perpetrators? I don't think they conspired together at all. I think they saw an easy way to make a buck & grab a little fame, stuff like that.

Nonsense. Piltdown Man has been dismissed as a forgery--by scientists using evolutionary patterns as part of their evidence, mind--for decades, and "Nebraska Man" had so little impact that I'd never even heard of it until I got involved in studying creationist "debating" tactics a couple of years ago, and I had a passionate interest in paleontology as a kid--and took a class in it in college.

But the point is, evolution got enough of a boost from bad science (nearly all of it's been shown to be flawed to some extent) that it became the dominant teaching. And from there on, it's just downhill. People believe what they're taught.

Right; that's why I who went to years and years of Catholic Sunday school lost the faith. That's why Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter even though the teaching of the day said they were impossible. And, in fact, hardly any of the evidence for evolution has been showed to be flawed, much less "nearly all." In fact, if people "just believe what they're taught," how did evolution become dominant in the first place?

Ken G, you seem to be a good, honest seeker-of-knowledge. You tend to project this honesty upon others, and I think it is unwarranted.

I have to say, Ken, I agree. You should see the dishonesty of certain prominent creationists, like Ken Hovind, for example.

I'll assume you would not take the word of CS science about migration, so I'll keep trying to find something from the "old-earthers".

Good luck. You're going to need it, if you think you can find non-Biblically-based research giving a young date for the Grand Canyon.

[Van Rijn]

For breadth:
http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html

So, your answer is that only YEC arguments should be taught in the science class in K-12? No general astronomy? No physics? No biology? No chemistry? Wow.

By the way, that's a funny page. I see the moon distance claim, already discussed in this thread. Many have been discussed on this board (IO heating, moon dust, etc.) and are based on ignorance of the subject matter. Some are woefully out of date (for instance, the neutrinos were found). Some are just unsupported claims.

I won't argue point-by-point everything they say there.

Good idea. It's pretty bad.

Give it up. There is evidence, tons pf it, and it doesn't have to be interpreted to suit evolution.

While this thread has discussed the ID/Creationism versus Evolution issue, you're arguing that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That is a general argument against many different scientific fields. "Interpretation" just doesn't cut it. The evidence simply doesn't support your position.

[iceage]

{snip}
Back to history: Evolution got a big boost from hoaxes like "Piltdown Man" and "Nebraska Man". Without this boost it might very well have died off. (Remember: in the formula given by Darwin, it was "wrong", or whatever term you prefer.) The motives of the perpetrators? I don't think they conspired together at all. I think they saw an easy way to make a buck & grab a little fame, stuff like that.

But the point is, evolution got enough of a boost from bad science (nearly all of it's been shown to be flawed to some extent) that it became the dominant teaching. And from there on, it's just downhill. People believe what they're taught.

This is absolutely ludicrous.

"Nebraska Man" was a sideshow in science history and was never widely accepted as an "ape-man".

"Piltdown Man" was a hoax uncovered via Scientific investigation by the very same people you eluded to as greedy fame mongers.

[iceage]

.

[ASEI]

Have you never seen axioms which exclude God from science? A PRIORI, right? This has been taught for a long time. God can be "ruled out" without evidence, or even an argument; and it's "religion" to say otherwise. "God cannot be the cause of anything". This is a textbook example of being "closeminded".

This is what's been taught universally for a century. Thus "science" is defined as exclusively atheistic. So yes, evolution is very much linked to atheism; and so is the Big Bang. Atheists were also thrilled with Steady-State, but the BB is compatible enough to suit most (but not all) of them.

What's with all these tribal identifiers - "atheistic", "naturalistic", "Newtonian", ect? Newton's work was important in it's own right, not because he believed in God. The rules by which nature operates which he discovered and explored are as valid for Budhists in India as they are for Christians in Brazil. Had someone from China discovered the laws of gravity, would our spacecraft fly differently today?

Furthermore, eating is an inherently "atheistic" activity by your definition. You can include a pre-meal prayer if you wish to thank God, but it's completely optional. It's not necessary to the process of obtaining nutrition, as evidenced by the fact that atheists aren't starving to death.

Ditto science. You can obtain info about how the world works, take it apart, deduce it's history without needing outside Revalation. The world is already "revealed" to you, you have eyes and a brain.

So in summary: There is no atheist science, naturalistic science, or christian science. There is only science done well or poorly. We all live in the same universe, and that universe works the same way for all of us! On the extreme ends of the scale, there is extreme dilligence and adherence to strict proceedures to rule out bias (such as the FDA uses in drug testing), or there is outright lying and data fabrication.

[Professor Illwill]

Related creationist arguments note (correctly) that light from the most distant galaxies has red shifts up to the equivalent of four times the speed of light. Hence, they argue that the universe appears to be expanding at a rate in excess of the speed light in violation of Einstein's equations and that these values for the speed of light must have changed with time. Thus, a very young universe is possible (Curtis, 1995). The whole argument is based on a false premise, that these red shifts are Doppler effects. In reality, the red shifts have little to do with Doppler-like instantaneous speeds of celestial objects. Instead, they represent a kind of tape measure of the wavelengths of light stretching from those distant galaxies to the earth. When these wavelengths started, they were of normal lengths. In the intervening eons, the cosmos has expanded along the line of travel by as much as four times, stretching the wavelengths embedded in it. Thus, the Creationist argument is a complete misreading of the physics: the red shift has nothing to do with instantaneous Doppler effects and Einsteinian equations but instead is a measure of long term expansion of the cosmos and everything within it.

found here:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

This is a fine example of a person trying to force others to conform to his point of view and agree to his conclusions. If Big Bang is a theory, are we not free to interpret observations without invoking it? If BB is somehow a sacred religious belief, the creationists are guilty of heresy, I would say.

This is not "a complete misreading of the physics." It is (here's the irony) an alternative explanation of the observation which does not resort to unseen, untestable, unquantified metaphysical agents, and is therefore unacceptable to the theocracy.

The expansion of space is just a somebody's guess. It's a conclusion. There's no scientifically compelling reason to agree with it.

Please don't go circular here. You see something. You invent the best explanation you can for why you see it. You cannot then point to the something and say it "proves" your explanation. Just doesn't work that way.

Yes I know BB & "expansion" aren't exactly the same thing, but I forget which is the parent and which is the child, and you don't find one without the other. Maybe they're more like siamese twins.

[ASEI]

Related creationist arguments note (correctly) that light from the most distant galaxies has red shifts up to the equivalent of four times the speed of light.

Is this right? I thought that when you hit lightspeed, the redshift was infinite? In which case, can you have a redshift that indicates superluminal speeds?

It's sort of like the speed of sound - how do you hear something coming at you at supersonic speeds? You don't.

The expansion of space is just a somebody's guess. It's a conclusion. There's no scientifically compelling reason to agree with it.

Well, when you have ranged the galaxies using the period and intensity of Cephid variable stars, and you know that their redshift is pretty tightly correlated with their distance from you, and that one of the only things you know of to cause redshift is something moving away from you according to relativity, then it's just a matter of putting two and two together. Of course, there are other proposed explainations. "Tired light" theories, ect.

I think the Big Bang is a child theory of universal expansion. It wouldn't make sense to propose if we didn't find ourselves in an expanding universe!

Please don't go circular here. You see something. You invent the best explanation you can for why you see it. You cannot then point to the something and say it "proves" your explanation. Just doesn't work that way.

I think this is correct. You can't "prove" a scientific theory from axioms like you do with a mathematical theorum. You can only keep piling on the evidence that correlates with the theory until, for all intents and purposes, you believe that that's the way the universe works. Science is inherently inductive, the deductive part of it being used to make predictions which are tested inductively against further data. Sometimes the universe suprises you when you begin exploring new areas - take QP for example.

And yet "proof" is what you creationists demand of us when it comes to evolution. We can keep excavating evidence until the earth is picked clean of old bones, bacteria are resistant to all our medicines, and there is a breed of purple cat, and evolution will still be "just a theory".

[R.A.F.]

There is far too much evidence for me to list here. And to do so would simply be the start of an evolution vs. creation debate, since you'd "challenge" any piece of evidence I list.

So instead of answering the question, you have chosen to handwave it away...

I'll repeat the question...a bit differently...

Where is the scientific evidence (peer reviewed, of course) of a "young Earth"??

I don't dispute the fact that evolutionists choose to interpret all evidence differently, so there's no point in arguing about it.

According to that, any scientific disipline which considers the Earth to be billions of years old MUST be biased. You realize you are posting on a science board, right. People here might take that narrow view of science and scientists as an insult.

And since there is no point in arguing, are you done here?? Be reminded that this is a discussion board, so your opinion of what is or is not "pointless" is in fact pointless, as it is not up to you to decide what will be discussed. (added...however I imagine that the mods won't be too happy with the direction this thread is going...and they DO decide what is "postable" here. )

Even if you think the Bible is inaccurate somehow, I don't see how you can dispute that it claims to report history.

Sure it claims to report history...but do you really want to get into a discussion as to the accuracy of the bible...don't make me laugh.

I thought "science" was defined by methods - not conclusions. Silly me. Only conclusions which support evolution can possibly be valid. Does that not lead to circular reasoning?

Somehow you have completely ignored what I posted. I stated (basically) that when the conclusion is decided before evidence is evaluated that is not science.

The Bible itself says all things are to be questioned.

Except the bible...

People who did so laid the very foundations of science. One can go somewhat deeper into this subject.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

You confuse issues. Learn what history is first. Then I could explain it.

So if I happen to not agree with you, then I don't know "history"? Only you can explain it?? How egotistical of you.

If you say one isn't allowed to have any opinion at all before investigating an historical event, it precludes investigation.

Where did I say that?? I stated that if a conclusion has been determined before any evidence is evaluated, (as it has in ID/CS), then that IS NOT SCIENCE.

[Professor Illwill]

Actually, it's not so much that "Goddidit" is ruled out; it's more that it isn't an answer. After all, despite what you blindly believe, evolution is used every day by people in several important fields. God randomly changing microbes so they become resistant to antibiotics isn't an answer. However, microbiologists can watch the process of evolution as they become thus resistant.

You've seen the axioms. They're all very carefully geared to prevent theism of any form from being compatible with science. The people who write them aren't interested in objectivity; only with disproving God. Have you never seen any of the silly writings of the 1800's that start with them and proceed to "scientifically prove" the Bible is wrong?

No. It doesn't matter. I've told the basics of what happened.

I deny that there is a conflict. It's not a qualified no; it's a flat-out no. I have faith. I accept the evidence of evolution. So, unreservedly, did John Paul II. (The jury's kind of out on Benedict XVI, but his stance on the subject is far from my biggest problem with him even if he were shown to be a creationist.) However, I only have evidence of one, and I assure you, it isn't my religion.

How old were you before you could reconcile religion with "science"? That's the question. The idea has always been to teach children evolution before they're old enough to put it together.

This is my biggest peeve with your arguing style. You bring up things, some of them actionable libel, and then say you don't have time to discuss your own arguments. Would you accept--and note that I'm not saying this!--one of us saying, "All creationists are of below-average IQ, but I don't really want to talk about that"? Of course not, and nor should you. Instead, you should present reasonable evidence or not bring a subject up in the first place.

Yes. It's similar to my biggest peeve with my arguing style: there's only one of me, and much of the time I'm not even trying to argue.

Besides, how do you view something of which you are a product from the outside? If you mean "from the perspective of a scientific layman," isn't it possible that the problem is not with science but with your understanding of it?

Don't have time to define every last word I use. That doesn't work anyhow, since you have to define the words in the definitions and the math will outrun you. Ignore the clause "externally (when viewed from the outside)" and just read the sentence. The clause is there to make the meaning more clear, but I seem to have failed.

Nonsense. Piltdown Man has been dismissed as a forgery--by scientists using evolutionary patterns as part of their evidence, mind--for decades, and "Nebraska Man" had so little impact that I'd never even heard of it until I got involved in studying creationist "debating" tactics a couple of years ago, and I had a passionate interest in paleontology as a kid--and took a class in it in college..

Nonsense my foot! Piltdown Man wasn't dismissed until long after the damage was done. They did catch on quicker to Nebraska Man, but it had an impact.

I didn't even bring up the advent of uniformitanariasm (bet I spelled that puppy wrong) which took geology off in the wrong direction. That's because it still has a few followers who just can't accept any catastrophes. Let's see, there was recap theory and... what was the one about the different parts of the body transmitting something to reproduction?

Anyone with any knowledge of the era knows how much was going wrong in those days. The advent of large-scale atheism in the scientific arena was not a pretty sight. I'd call it a disaster, but I don't expect you all to agree with such a strong term.

---End of direct response portion---

Now as for Darwin being so right, go down you guys' own checklist and count right vs. wrong.

Was Darwin Wrong? provides a rather illuminating consideration of the many faces of the evolution/creation rift.

Not very impressive. And they're his fanclub.

Thing is, they got it into the schools one way or another, so it doesn't make everyone who believes it part of some grand conspiracy. That's the beginning and end of that point. I try to explain something to someone, and everyone jumps in trying to sidetrack the discussion.

I mean really, now! What do you guys think I think? That you're all conspiring to indoctrinate future generations with a pack of lies? Something like that? I don't think so for one minute. Neither do I think you're a bunch of gullible dupes. You follow a mistaken idea/philosophy/concept, but not because you're gullible or foolish.

We don't practically have time in our lives to seriously, critically question and thoroughly research every tidbit of information before we accept it. That's why people believe what they're taught. Being individuals, some people make a habit of it; and others try to monitor what comes in through the gates. Even if you try, you can't monitor everything.

So how much progress has evolution brought us in the area of science skills for youth? It blurs the lines between history and science to the point most people honestly cannot distinguish the difference. They think of history as "whatever's written in a history textbook". And when history is taught in a "science textbook" it must be "science", right?

[A.DIM]

... SNIP...

Not very impressive. And they're his fanclub.

Thing is, they got it into the schools one way or another, so it doesn't make everyone who believes it part of some grand conspiracy. That's the beginning and end of that point. I try to explain something to someone, and everyone jumps in trying to sidetrack the discussion.

I mean really, now! What do you guys think I think? That you're all conspiring to indoctrinate future generations with a pack of lies? Something like that? I don't think so for one minute. Neither do I think you're a bunch of gullible dupes. You follow a mistaken idea/philosophy/concept, but not because you're gullible or foolish.

We don't practically have time in our lives to seriously, critically question and thoroughly research every tidbit of information before we accept it. That's why people believe what they're taught. Being individuals, some people make a habit of it; and others try to monitor what comes in through the gates. Even if you try, you can't monitor everything.

So how much progress has evolution brought us in the area of science skills for youth? It blurs the lines between history and science to the point most people honestly cannot distinguish the difference. They think of history as "whatever's written in a history textbook". And when history is taught in a "science textbook" it must be "science", right?

Eh?



I think you've mistaken my purpose in providing the Was Darwin Wrong? link, PI.
And don't assume I belong to either side in this silly debate, for I think creationists are simply half wrong while evolutionists only half right. Well, that which concerns humankind anyway.

None the less, the site gives a more balanced examination of neoDarwinism and evolution theory than others I've seen, and by a trained biologist no less.
I proffered it expecting all to benefit from seeing the many faces as well as historical background of the theory and its critics.

[Professor Illwill]

This is absolutely ludicrous.

"Nebraska Man" was a sideshow in science history and was never widely accepted as an "ape-man".

"Piltdown Man" was a hoax uncovered via Scientific investigation by the very same people you eluded to as greedy fame mongers.

I'm sorry. I was unaware that the perpetrators exposed their own hoax. Forgive my ignorance. I'll bet they made a public statement as well, something along the lines of "anyone who was fooled by this little trick of ours into believing false atheistic theories, please go back to thinking as you did before."

[Kwalish Kid]

Is this right? I thought that when you hit lightspeed, the redshift was infinite? In which case, can you have a redshift that indicates superluminal speeds?

The Doppler effect is not the cause of cosmological redshift. Even ATM theories do not use Doppler. There are Doppler effects that can cause deviations from cosmological redshift (called peculiar motion) and there are gravitational effects that can cause deviations from cosmological redshift.

Redshift of the type that we see was predicted by relativity theorists (like Hermann Weyl) before it was observed.

[Professor Illwill]

Eh?



I think you've mistaken my purpose in providing the Was Darwin Wrong? link, PI.
And don't assume I belong to either side in this silly debate, for I think creationists are simply half wrong while evolutionists only half right. Well, that which concerns humankind anyway.

None the less, the site gives a more balanced examination of neoDarwinism and evolution theory than others I've seen, and by a trained biologist no less.
I proffered it expecting all to benefit from seeing the many faces as well as historical background of the theory and its critics.

No problem. I'm trying not to debate myself. Stopped in to offer a little humorous/sarcastic Illwill advice on strategy, and try to let people know a little more what CS & ID are about. Next thing I know, every sentence I write gets jumped on.

I obviously checked out your link, and the checklist stuck in my mind.

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm sorry. I was unaware that the perpetrators exposed their own hoax. Forgive my ignorance. I'll bet they made a public statement as well, something along the lines of "anyone who was fooled by this little trick of ours into believing false atheistic theories, please go back to thinking as you did before."

That a fraud was perpetrated in one case is not reason to dismiss an entire science, is it?

In the case of ID, a prominent ID text was actually a prominent CS text with every occurrence of "CS" removed and replaced with "ID", and small passages were changed in order to remove references that were uniquely CS. This was part of a fraud perpetrated on school boards to confuse them into teaching CS under the guise of teaching ID.

This incidence of fraud may be enough to discourage the use of this one text, but it it not enough to discourage the practice of ID or CS in general.

So too the Piltdown Man is not enough to discourage the practice of evolutionary science.

[Professor Illwill]

{snip}
---End of direct response portion---

Now as for Darwin being so right, go down you guys' own checklist and count right vs. wrong.

{there was a link here}

Not very impressive. And they're his fanclub.
{snip}

"Not very impressive." Up there is intended to refer to Darwin's record. I didn't mean anything other than that, and I want to be perfectly clear. Upon further review, I see now how it could be taken other than I what I originally intended it to mean. Let there be no misunderstanding.

[closetgeek]

I think there really is two kinds of reality. People who trust the answers that empirical science offers have to acknowledge that sometimes, the evidence is misleading. Science has their share of erroneous conclusions. I know that is a weasler because I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but scientists have had to go back to the drawing board as well. There are two ultimate possible conclusions. We were designed or we evolved naturally. I can't say that I believe in evolution, but I trust the findings thus far. However, there is the possibility that IDers are correct. There are two possible realities and we choose the answers that suit us best, both sides. The problem with the whole argument is they are debating different questions. One deals with the how and the other deals with the why. Not to mention, both have different platforms. One is based on evidence and one requires faith despite the evidence. Faith, in itself, is defined as a belief or conviction in something for which there is no evidence. You can tell a person who lives on faith that you disagree but you can't tell them they are wrong because the foundation of their entire belief structure is just that;faith.

Ken G, stop trying to have your "2 kinds of reality" argument in every thread!

[satori]

ProfessorIllwill,
you have well proved now, that you are proof against any argument we could possibly throw at you. And also must you have noticed by know, that you are preaching in the desert here.
So why continue with this futile exercise in shadow boxing ?

If you had any true knowledge about science and the achievements science has achieved to achieve...., you would not be so oblivious to the impenetrability of our shared believe system as you seem to be...
You should finaly accept this truth.

Note further, that this thread must rightfuly be continued in the CT section, as you are implicitly holding, that science is sworn against the true truth.. (As correctly pointed out above by Ken G)

[Professor Illwill]

That a fraud was perpetrated in one case is not reason to dismiss an entire science, is it?

In the case of ID, a prominent ID text was actually a prominent CS text with every occurrence of "CS" removed and replaced with "ID", and small passages were changed in order to remove references that were uniquely CS. This was part of a fraud perpetrated on school boards to confuse them into teaching CS under the guise of teaching ID.

This incidence of fraud may be enough to discourage the use of this one text, but it it not enough to discourage the practice of ID or CS in general.

So too the Piltdown Man is not enough to discourage the practice of evolutionary science.

What I'm saying is that Darwin's book was published at a time when things were much different than they are today. Today things are more organized. Today his lack of credentials (not that it's valid) would prevent it from being taken seriously at all.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The world was beginning to absorb steam power and other technologies. It was very literally the heyday of snakeoil. But I didn't want to go into every last thing.

It's a mistake to think that Darwin was accepted due to any genuine validity - that the "truth it contained was irresistible". There was a lot of activity, and the peripheral bogus science helped evolution, since it created artificial "support".

Is this really so hard to understand? That it got undeserved support from bogus science does not invalidate it. It means that somebody somewhere sometime really should take a critical look at it. Those who do are quite obviously going to be in the minority. I don't think it means they should be mocked.

[R.A.F.]

...our shared believe system...

Science is not a "belief" system.

[R.A.F.]

...somebody somewhere sometime really should take a critical look at it.

And of course that hasn't been done by any scientist in all the years since...

You seem to have a grave misunderstanding of how science works and it really hinders any argument you try to make...

BTW...are you ever going to answer my question??

edited to add...here, I'll even repeat it (again) for you...

Where is the scientific evidence (peer reviewed, of course) for a "young Earth"??

[satori]

appendum:
your ideas about the Grand Canyon are just laughable, your young Earth concept is plain foolish, as is the notion of a "universal" flood covering the hole planet...
Truly, this is hard stuff to bring to a science forum !!! ( You have choosen your name right (the second part that is !))

[Professor Illwill]

ProfessorIllwill,
you have well proved now, that you are proof against any argument we could possibly throw at you. And also must you have noticed by know, that you are preaching in the desert here.
So why continue with this futile exercise in shadow boxing ?

If you had any true knowledge about science and the achievements science has achieved to achieve...., you would not be so oblivious to the impenetrability of our shared believe system as you seem to be...
You should finaly accept this truth.

Note further, that this thread must rightfuly be continued in the ATM section, as you are implicitly holding, that science is sworn against the true truth.. (As correctly pointed out above by Ken G)

Why don't you guys write some guidelines on how science should treat the issue of God. Hmm? Educate me. Should be interesting.

[satori]

RAF,
science is also a "blief" system (thanks for the correction), question is only, is it also more than just this...(how valid the basic tenents, how rigorous its methdology, how high the degree of Consistence...)
Anyway, from ProfeesorIllwill's point of view, he is just in a confrontation with any other belief system.... and that was my point to make!

[Professor Illwill]

BTW...are you ever going to answer my question??

Not likely at all.

You know very well I didn't come here to debate evolution. You ask this. You ask that. You want me to run myself ragged tracking down things for you to ignore or dismiss or poke fun at. Not very stinking likey.

You asked for evidence. I got it. Now it ain't good enough. Too bad.

You don't know how to find these things yourself or what?

You want to debate evolution, then there are forums for just that. I might not even be outnumbered 5+ to 1 on one of them. Is that what you're afraid of?

What exactly is everyone looking for here anyhow. I thought you wanted to know what ID was about, and learn something. I still think some do or I'd be outta here.

[R.A.F.]

Problem is that your "point" is incorrect...science is not a belief system...

Simple as that...

[Kwalish Kid]

What I'm saying is that Darwin's book was published at a time when things were much different than they are today. Today things are more organized. Today his lack of credentials (not that it's valid) would prevent it from being taken seriously at all.

You are right if you are saying that the claim that Darwin lacked credentials isn't valid. For his time, he was quite well educated.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The world was beginning to absorb steam power and other technologies. It was very literally the heyday of snakeoil. But I didn't want to go into every last thing.

Steam power is hardly snake oil. It, like Darwin;s theory, was very well demonstrated.

It's a mistake to think that Darwin was accepted due to any genuine validity - that the "truth it contained was irresistible". There was a lot of activity, and the peripheral bogus science helped evolution, since it created artificial "support".

Actually, there was quite a bit of not-bogus science that supported Darwin's work. I'm guessing that you haven't actually read anything by Darwin.

Is this really so hard to understand? That it got undeserved support from bogus science does not invalidate it. It means that somebody somewhere sometime really should take a critical look at it. Those who do are quite obviously going to be in the minority. I don't think it means they should be mocked.

Actually, the majority of biologists should look very carefully at Darwin's work and at evolutionary theory. The majority of evolutionary biologists do look very carefully at Darwin's work and at evolutionary theory. I find it hard to understand why someone from the outside, who hasn't done the research, finds it so easy to doubt this research.

[Sock puppet]

Is this really so hard to understand? That it got undeserved support from bogus science does not invalidate it. It means that somebody somewhere sometime really should take a critical look at it. Those who do are quite obviously going to be in the minority. I don't think it means they should be mocked.

You're right: somebody somewhere sometime really should take a critical look at it. They have. and they keep doing it, because scientists are not content to sit on their hands and say "oh, that was decided years ago, we don't need to check it".

Science is all about checking what other people have said, looking through their reasoning for mistakes, seeing if what they said happens will work when you try it. Evolution is under continuous examination by biologists. Relativity is constantly being tested by physicists.

And the person that steps up with sufficient evidence for their claim and says: "actually, it turns out that's not the way it works- this is how it works" will get a Nobel prize.