ID and Evolution

[Maksutov]

Found your wedge, guys.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Haven't read it myself, don't approve or disapprove.

Enjoy.

Ironic that a young Earth creationist would link to (given the media environment, and especially this BB) some very old news.

Meanwhile, Dons (along with some of the other BAUT regulars) has made many good points, most pertinent being specifically that YEC and ID, having been conclusively demonstrated to be religion-based, have no place on a science board.

[Professor Illwill]

Illwill wrote:


“I cannot imagine any way to obtain indisputable evidence other than through Divine Revelation.”

I'd expect you to try to convince me you honestly don't understand what I wrote. Now you think you can sell such a bill of goods to the MODS?

If they're biased enough to buy that, I'm out of here and I won't ever look back.

I have dealt many times before with Christian fundamentalist, and I am concerned that Illwill will put me in a position where I have to start quoting the bible. It will not be nice when I quote bible scriptures as they are self explanatory, and it will not be kind, nor decent, as the bible is NOT fitting for the audience of this board, much less for a child to read.

I respect this board, it is a science board, not a religious board, so in respect to those that are here, that want to learn and teach science, I may back off.

I regret every last minute it took me to compose "Who's fooling who?" You're not worthy. Well, maybe others can appreciate a little fun. Now that I think about it, I only regret any chuckles you may have derived from it. Hope you were drinking something at the time.

There's absolutely no need to quote scripture when discussing this issue. ID is not exclusively biblical and you know it. So does everyone else here. My take is that you do indeed intend to attack my personal beliefs, in order to divert the discussion. Has that proven effective in the past? I, Professor Illwill do not fear cheap ploys.

Maybe you think the mods would grant you permission to do just that, in order to keep the thread alive? If you really wanted to debate CS/ID vs. evolution, or even Christianity vs. atheism, why have I no PM's. Mods, Admins, whoever-it-takes please verify this before someone makes a contrary claim.

Also, while your attention is here, I'd very much appreciate a clarification if I am supposed to be "arguing" anything other than what I've already stated I am.

More than one party here seem to be under the impression this is some sort of hatefest free-for-all.

There is a request for me to define history out there somewhere that I haven't gotten around to. I plan to address it before I go or this thing gets shut down.

In light of the bad faith so flagrantly demonstrated, I withdraw my open offer to debate. This is subject to change, and I might consider offers to debate or just discuss the issues with those who have consistently shown good faith. You know who you aren't.

This specific post could use some tweaking; but it must go as is.

[Gillianren]

Well now, what was the question exactly? Ah yes, someone requested evidence for a young earth as I recall.

Now most everyone's thinking they're gonna go over & divvy up the page & barrage me with nonsense, If I say "yes". Scores, perhaps hundreds of meaningless questions about moot points. Maybe a little intentional misinterpreting of what's written just for good measure. As if I, Professor Illwill, had never seen this game before!

Oh, yeah, and we totally haven't seen the kind of games played to "show evidence" of creationism. They may be moot points to you; however, to scientists who work in the various relevant fields every day, they're indisputable evidence that so-called "creation science" is bogus.

Oh, and are you of the opinion that Intelligent Design is based on "irreducible complexity"? If so, are you aware that no instance of alleged irreducible complexity has actually been found by evidence to be irreducibly complex?

But if I say "NO WAY", the Mods will ban me. I, Professor Illwill would seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place.

Well, there's alternative three--don't attempt to convince scientists that religion and science occupy the same field. They don't.

What I said was that there does indeed exist evidence which can be interpreted as supporting a young earth. Now since you can't argue interpretation, you're going to have to find fault with the methods. Good Luck. I'm familiar with a few of the names I saw over there, and I have no small confidence in their methods.

There is evidence which can be interpreted as meaning that fairies dance on the lawn in front of my apartment complex at night. That doesn't make the interpretation valid, you know. You see, I recognize a lot of those names, too, and I don't have small confidence in their methods. I have no confidence in their methods, though they do excel at bad science and bad theology.

My word - not CS "official" anywhere I know of: Now even if these claims were true( as I'm predict many will be thrilled to accept without question), they still don't explain anything. What he found still has obvious implications no matter where it was found.

Would you say this is true of fossils as well? Or are you going to quote the tedious "Lucy's knee" claim at us?

There will be no arguing conclusions .I never claimed you would accept their conclusions. Conclusions about history are outside of science. Science can only supply evidence. Historic methods take over from there. .

Paelontology isn't history. Paleontology is science. It may be about things in the past, but when you get right down to it, so is most astronomy. Besides which, if the majority of physical evidence supports one conclusion and a notoriously adapted book supports another, which do you go along with?

Furthermore, I did not and do not claim 100% perfection. Honest mistakes can happen (I shant antagonize you with samples form evolution). I did not even claim 50%. I haven't claimed specific rate. I, Professor Illwill will try to come up with an honest figure.

Evolution doesn't claim exact perfection, either, since science has no presumption of infallibility. However, through science, our understanding keeps increasing. How has an understanding of "creation science" increased medical science's ability to fight antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria?

Meanwhile... I, Professor Illwill, do not prophesy. I predict, based upon my superior knowledge of human behavior, that we will continue to see conclusions portrayed as "unscientific".

Yeah, you will. When the conclusion is reached before the evidence is examined--ie, "You must agree with the infallibility of the Bible before we'll let you study science at our institute, even though we'll then publicly claim that our institute isn't religious in origin"--that's not scientific.

Saved another good one: Out-of-Date. Thought I'd miss that didn't you? Think again. I, Professor Illwill do not miss very much. We all know - I do not say absolutely all, mind you - all know how time works on science. Not much challenge to go back 120 years & poke holes in all kinds of theories. Until out of date evolutionary dogma is removed from textbooks, I don't see any "room to talk".

Out-of-date evolutionary theory is removed from textbooks all the time as the state of science advances. True, textbooks tend to be a decade or two behind the scientific leading edge, but there are an awful lot of practical reasons for that, not the least being the tedious nature of getting textbooks past people who want to verify that it doesn't offend their religious beliefs.

Can't say how much longer I'll keep this up. So get organized, and get crackin'. Time's a-wastin'. Don't be discouraged. Surely people with religious beliefs can't handle scientific methods [That's more sarcasm for those who have a hard time keepin' up, real or feigned]

I can't say how much longer you'll keep it up, either. I don't think your attitude goes terribly well with the board's "be nice" rules.

And again, you keep assuming that no one with religious beliefs studies evolution and vice versa. I think you'll be greatly surprised to find out just how wrong you are.

[Van Rijn]

Well now, what was the question exactly? Ah yes, someone requested evidence for a young earth as I recall.

Now most everyone's thinking they're gonna go over & divvy up the page & barrage me with nonsense, If I say "yes". Scores, perhaps hundreds of meaningless questions about moot points. Maybe a little intentional misinterpreting of what's written just for good measure. As if I, Professor Illwill, had never seen this game before!

You made the claim that there was scientific evidence for a "Young Earth." Your claim and your continued statements to that effect were the reason this thread was moved to the ATM section. If you didn't want questions, you should not have made the claim.

But if I say "NO WAY", the Mods will ban me. I, Professor Illwill would seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place.

Actually, you could just ask that the thread be closed. That would seem reasonable given that it seems pretty clear you don't want to support your argument.

What I said was that there does indeed exist evidence which can be interpreted as supporting a young earth. Now since you can't argue interpretation, you're going to have to find fault with the methods.

Why would you think that interpretation was not open to argument? In any event, you would need to present your evidence first.

[peter eldergill]

And again, you keep assuming that no one with religious beliefs studies evolution and vice versa. I think you'll be greatly surprised to find out just how wrong you are.

I met an awesome biology teacher at the last conferecne I was at who did incredible stuff with his students. I found out on the last day that he is a creationist.

Can't say that I agree with him, or understand why he believes that, but I didn't try to debate him on it. Probably due to my lack of expertise in biology and he is very, very knowlegeable on the subject.

Pete

[satori]

that's an interesting anectode...
but anectotal evidence carries no weight in a scientific argument ! (whatsoever!!!)
I knew such a teacher myself, and that was what they call a "sad case" in my part of the world...

[peter eldergill]

I wasn't really trying to argue anything. I think he's completely wrong, but he's been studying it and I have not.

He told me that he looked to science to try to find answers, but couldn't, and then found the answers he was looking for in creationism.

Pete

[SolusLupus]

He told me that he looked to science to try to find answers, but couldn't, and then found the answers he was looking for in creationism.

Unfortunately, that's the wrong attitude, IMO. When you don't know, you should say, "I don't know". Not desperately look for any answer that can fill the gaps.

[peter eldergill]

I agree with you LW, I kind of think that's the easy way out.

Either way, the projects that he got his students to do were fantastic, and I'm pretty sure his religoius views never made it to the classroom

Pete

[SolusLupus]

Either way, the projects that he got his students to do were fantastic, and I'm pretty sure his religoius views never made it to the classroom

Yeah, for that I would respect him. I don't agree with him, but from the sounds of it, he'd earn my respect.

My World Literature instructor is the same. She doesn't really bring religion into the classroom outside of the reading (we have to read bits of the translated Koran and New Testament in order to really understand some of the later, religious-oriented literature). But when she and I talk after class... well... she's pretty hardcore creationist, really, but she's more than willing to listen to alternate viewpoints.

I just recommended that she read some of Dawkins' works, got into a bit of a long debate (which was overall friendly, but somewhat frustrating), and then left out for some lunch. It wasn't an unpleasant conversation overall.

[jamini]

It is my duty to interpret it thusly:"How is the analysis of undisputed evidence in any way congruent with a belief in mysticism?" I am not "putting words in anyone's mouth". I am doing my best to frame this into something with a meaningful answer. I may very well be incorrect, but I have no alternative if I am honest. There are different methods of analysis. I cannot think of any that would have to be less valid if performed by a person who believed in mysticism. I don't see that a belief system interferes with the performance of science. It may have an impact on conclusions, naturally. If a person is performing science correctly, the methods are the same no matter what they believe. I think I've said that before. I see no evidence that religion or lack thereof makes any difference in say... a blood test. The analysis should be the same regardless of who does it. If they do it wrong, they could lose their job. Enough time on that one. I - I, Professor Illwill, may be mistaken as to what jamini was trying to ask.

You miss the point or misunderstand my question. I was not asking if creationists were capable of performing science. I’ve already said that I don’t have a problem with anyone’s personal beliefs insofar as they do not state them as fact and impose them on others. Just as I’m not saying that creationists should be banned as teachers but rather they can not impose their personal beliefs onto their students. If ID were ever to be accepted as a legitimate form of science that would provide a basis for it to be included in school curriculum, so that is the very crux of this discussion, at least from my perspective.

I am not asking if the two can co-exist peacefully, my question is direct, specific and pertinent in the context of this discussion. You are claiming that ID warrants scientific status. I maintain that ID is synonymous with religion and has absolutely no legitimate merit to being interpreted as scientific; and as such, it would be impossible for there to be any form of compatibility between the two.

So let me repeat the question:

How is the analysis of undisputed evidence in any way congruent with a belief in mysticism?

Or (if you prefer);

What testable, provable, verifiable, falsifiable, concrete evidence can you produce to demonstrate that any form of theology is a legitimate science, given any standard dictionary version of science.

[Professor Illwill]

{snip snip cut chop hack snip}

And again, you keep assuming that no one with religious beliefs studies evolution and vice versa. I think you'll be greatly surprised to find out just how wrong you are.

Not much time today. It's ironic that I've been up over 36 hrs straight helping just such a person.

By your wording I'm guessing you confused some of my sarcasm. There are pro-evolution post here which appear very much to maintain this silly idea. Thus as Professor Illwill it is my... it's just irresistible to throw it back their way.

My history def'n is my top priority. I'm questioning whether or not my presence is harmful or hurtful to the discussion. It's much more peaceful today. Saw where someone even got away with not arguing. I, Professor Illwill must acquire this technique.

As you can see, I'm too tired to be properly belligerent. Do not think to capitalize upon this sitution. Illwill batteries have been known to recharge quickly. I, Professor Illwill also maintain a strategic power reserve.

Peace to your enemies

[R.A.F.]

You, professor illwill, need to start answering questions...or something.

How about starting with some form of evidence for the "young Earth"...hmmm??

[Van Rijn]

You, professor illwill, need to start answering questions...or something.

Right - or telling us when you will start answering questions regarding your claim of evidence for YEC, or stating that you will not support your claim (in which case, the mods will likely close the thread).

[SolusLupus]

As you can see, I'm too tired to be properly belligerent. Do not think to capitalize upon this sitution. Illwill batteries have been known to recharge quickly. I, Professor Illwill also maintain a strategic power reserve.

Oh, the horror. The horror.

[peter eldergill]

Not much time today. It's ironic that I've been up over 36 hrs straight helping just such a person.

Bold mine

Is it just me, or does this statement disturb anyone else??

Pete

[Maksutov]

Bold mine

Is it just me, or does this statement disturb anyone else??

Pete

Yeah, I caught that.

And reassigned a definition to that gerund which was close to the kind of "help" that cults and similar organizations provide their novitiates. Such activities typically consume many hours and often bridge more than one day, the idea being to wear down the resistance and critical thinking abilities of the subject being "helped".

A popular euphemism for this type of help is "programming".

[Van Rijn]

Bold mine

Is it just me, or does this statement disturb anyone else??

Pete

Well, I don't want to read too much into it. Still, given the ludicrous claims on the "Young Earth" page that was presented, I suspect the "help" has little to do with science.

[SolusLupus]

Well, I don't want to read too much into it.

Neither do I, but...

He spent 36 hours STRAIGHT doing it, according to his own claim. That number, compared to that designated unit of time, compared with the word "straight", makes alarm bells go off in my head.

Also, compare that with how he seems to act like he's off in some kind of a battle here, preparing for strategies and talking to people here as if our sole goal is to try to out-strategize him or somesuch. I dunno. Illwill scares me.

(Also, Illwill? Yeesh, even the name sounds villain-esque).

[Nereid]

I think it's time to take a little break.

This thread will be closed for a day.

I would like to remind everyone of these two BAUT rules:

2. Civility and Decorum

Politeness is the top rule here. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That’s fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be nice.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators via private message or e-mail. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take swift and appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.

3. Language

No cursing. This goes along with being polite. This website is read by a lot of kids, including young school kids who want to learn about astronomy, space, and space exploration. The Universe is a marvelous place, full of beauty and wonder, and if you despoil it by using bad language you will quickly invoke the ire of the administrators and moderators. Think of the language used on TV during an after-school special and you'll get the idea. Deliberately misspelled bad words, or replacing key letters with different characters or numbers will not be tolerated. Same goes with adult topics -- talk about them somewhere else. If you do need to post something risqué, stick with arcane scientific terminology.

Professor Illwill, please read the PM I sent you, and reply to it.

In the past, when long threads were moved to the ATM section, it has taken some time for the way the new rules work to be fully understood. This also seems to be happening here; I trust that the one day break will help everyone appreciate the changed rules better.

[Nereid]

Update: this thread will remain closed.

The transition from elsewhere to the ATM section has created quite a number of issues, whose resolution is, I feel, simply not worth the effort it would take to keep this thread well-behaved.

Should Professor Illwill - or any other BAUT member - wish to start a new thread, here in the ATM section, proposing (in the OP) an ATM idea*, or making an ATM claim*, that would be most welcome.

*Which ideas or claims may be similar to ones made earlier in thread ... or not.