emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 there are different kinds of evolution, acriku. ON a macro-scale, evolution is the gradual, random causation of all life from non-life.I deny this, and there is no evidence for it, let alone any shred of proof.ID is as viable a theory for life as macro-evolution. Again, numerous scientists subscribe to ID, making it at minimum a scientific theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Sorry I was talking about the skin color thing with a friend earlier and when you said Africans I must have reverted back to that. Damn evolution for not giving me better memory! ;)And you can't say that because the DNA that controls skin color is able to change through generations that all of evolution is suddenly proven. There could be other reasons why that occured and its too simple in my eyes to prove something as complicated as evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Emprworm, tell me, from ID theory what can we gain? I'd like to know, because so far I've only gathered that its theory is that there must be a designer to an intelligent subject. So what can we do with this theory? I'm truly curious, not asking a question that implies I don't think we can get anything from it. There is evidence for macroevolution, intermediate and transitional fossils, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 What do we gain? We gain knowledge. I am not sure what you are trying to ask? What does a kid gain learning that alpha centarui is 4.3 light years away? What do you gain learning that the density of saturn is .71 gm/cm^3?Let me ask you the same thing: What do you do with thinking that life came about from some kind of cataclysmic atmospheric electrostatic discharge?There is evidence for macroevolution, intermediate and transitional fossils, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1. fine. and there is evidence for ID here:http://www.discovery.org/crsc/ And there is counter evidence for transitional fossilization here:http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2000/r&r0012b.htmpoint being is that you don't have to believe in ID. That doesn't mean it isn't a scientific theory. And since it is a scientific theory, it needs to be taught in school. Why are you so afraid of ID, acriku? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 What I mean is, to be a scientific theory, it must be useful, must be progressive. So, how can it be useful? Again, a true question brought forth from curiousity. I am not afraid of the ID theory, I am skeptical to its scientific application. Ok we think there was a designer? What then? It is a theory after all you say, so...do something with it. Build more theories on it, do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 to be a scientific theory, it must be useful, must be progressive huh? Since when did usefulness become a requirement of science? I thought science was simply about facts, irregardless of whether or not a bipedal homosapic anthropod finds any subjective use for it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Progression is generally among the scientific community required for it to be scientific, or did you not notice that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 how is that required? Who says? Did some guy just say one day that "in order for it to be scientific, it must be progressive!" lolentropy is not progressive, acriku. i guess that means its not scientific?what in the world are you saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Word on the street is that some mobster guy named Tony Capone, that punk, decided ;) Jk, but here:Is Evolution Science?This question isn't as simple as it sounds, but the short answer is yes, evolution is science. Evolution meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science, and the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as science.Let's first list the basic criteria necessary for a theory to qualify as scientific: Consistent (internally and externally) Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena) Empirically Testable & Falsifiable Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered) Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)Can we guess where this came from? If you guessed http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_science.htm you were right! Clap clap clap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 "achieves all that previous theories have and more"Ok so what in ID doesn't make that true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 well that is just some guy's standard of science. it is irrelevant to truth. And who says that is the "standard?" How does some homosapic bipedal limited finite being determine that objective truth must be strained through a subjective criteria?total nonsense.Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away. That is a scientific theory. It meets only 4 of the criteria.what a stupid criteria.and evolution, btw, does not meet #4...not even by a longshot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 That's what I'm asking Emprworm, how does the ID theory build on theories beforehand?For example:Is evolutionary theory progressive?The idea that a scientific theory should be "progressive" means that a new scientific theory should build on the scientific theories that came before it. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they while providing a new understanding for additional material - something which evolution certainly does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 An alternative description:Unfortunately, it's impossible to know that a scientific theory is right. The theory may agree beautifully with all the evidence - today. But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.So, we go for the next best thing, which is proving theories wrong. That's easy. You just find some evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The theory is then falsified and stays that way.So, a scientific theory is one which can in principle be falsified. The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and is unfalsifiable. That's bad.It's bad for three very practical reasons. First, a theory which can't make predictions is a dead end. Second, it would be useless. Oil companies are very pleased that geologists can predict where to drill for oil. And third, if we have two rival theories, we want to use evidence to choose between them. If they are unfalsifiable, then evidence doesn't do that for us.or another:1. Correct empirical predictions2. Simplicity (Ockham's razor principle)3. Generality4. Avoidance of ad hoc devices5. Coherence with other bodies of knowledge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Acriku, my point is that it DOESNT HAVE TO BUILD on theories before hand to be scientific. Your criteria is FALSE.I can prove it false empirically.All modern theories at one point were initially constructed without any prior theory to build on. Yet they were still scientific. Therefore, Acriku's criteria that some atheist thought up and put on his website, is objetively false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Emprworm, those critera are accepted generally throughout the scientific community, he did not make them up and put them on his website. And remember that it is criteria for NEW theories. We have the basics of science, now we build off of them, as such have we been doing for a while now. You can of course email the writer about where he got the criteria from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 accepted by WHO?Obviously it MUST be false since no theory could ever be initially developed and meet the criteria.Secondly, for you to say "Ahhh..well...it did not apply 100 years ago...but NOW....NOW the universe is ready for this criteria. SInce humans now have theories for everything, the universe decided that this atheist criteria will be the new standard from this point forward upon which objective facts can be determined."lolcriteria like this is a superme example why scientists make horrible philosophers. How many scientists never took Logic 101? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Evolution certainly passes the criteria. No theory eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Evolution passes the criteria? LOL. in your dreams pal.And I am referring to CROSS-SPECIAL evolution here,, ok? No semantical games here. Fill in the blanks with the proof reagarding CROSS-SPECIAL evolution:Observable______________________Testable________________________Repeatable______________________Now, regarding life coming from non-life...Fill in the blanks with the proof of such an event that evolution declares happened:Observable______________________Testable________________________Repeatable______________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or122/newman.htmThis paper has an interesting conclusion to evolution as a scientific theory. A quote they make while talking about considering evolution as biological change:The question is, how much of the diversity in the fossil record is a result of descent and how much a result of (say) a common designer? The apparently systematic gaps in the fossil record between the higher levels of the biological classification scheme, especially when linked with the unusual biochemical spacing between various living things, present serious evidential challenges to gradualistic forms of evolution at the macroevolutionary level, including the Punctuated Equilibria theory as usually presented.Also a FAQ on ID theory:http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 there is ample evidence that ID is scientific. this entire debate proves it.lets get back to the original subject:ID should be taught in schools Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Ok, it is time to address this nonsense that ID is not even scientific.A SMALL LIST OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS WHO SUBSCRIBE TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry He has a B.S. in Chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California (Berkeley). He spent a total of 18 years in biochemical research; with Cornell University Medical College (NYC), with the Virus Laboratory, U of Cal-Berkley and and on the research staff of the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Michigan). He has published approximately 40 articles in scientific journals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology He has a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry with honors from Tufts University, a Masters in Biology from Harvard, and the Ph.D. in Biology with a major in Ecology and a minor in Biochemistry from Harvard University. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience He has a B.S. in Biochemistry from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine. His professional memberships include the Society for Neuroscience and the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology) He has a B.A. in Biology from Western State College in Colorado and an M.A. in Zoology from the University of Northern Colorado. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/GenomicsHe has a B.S. in Biology (highest honors) from Liberty University, a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Virginia, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Genomics from Clemson University. Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Robert Franks, M.D. He has a B.A. in Zoology (Magna Cum Laude) from San Diego State University, and a M.D. from UCLA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Robert H. Eckel, M.D. He has a B.S. in Bacteriology from the University of Cincinnati and a M.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology He has a B.A. in Biology/Chemistry(high honors) from Wabash College, Crawfordville, IN, a M.S. in Biology/Physiology, and an Ed.D. in Biology with a cognate in Paleontology from Ball State University. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bert Thompson, Ph.D. MicrobiologyHe has a B.S. in Biology from Abilene Christian University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Microbiology from Texas A&M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology He has a B.A. in Biology from Mankato State University and a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from Brown University. Dr. Menton is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington U. School of Medicine. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. He has a B.S. in Mathematics from the University of Wisconsin (entered as 16 yr old freshman) and a M.D. from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology He has a B.S. in Kinesiology from Brooklyn College, a M.S. in Kinesiology from the University of Illinois, a Ph.D. in Kinesiology from the University of Iowa, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Human Physiology from the National Institutes of Health. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology He has a B.S. in Biology from Asbury College, a M.S. in Soil Microbiology from the University of Kentucky, a Ph.D. in Microbiology (Microbiology, Limnology, Ecology) from Indiana University, and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the National Institutes of Health, University of Minnesota. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular BiologyHe received a B.Sc.(Hons.) and a Ph.D. from Monash University in Australia. His fields were genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology.Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal/Molecular GeneticsDr. Eggen received a B.Sc. in Agronomy and Animal Production and a Ph.D. in Animal and Molecular Genetics from the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical ToxicologyDr. Tantcheva received a M.Sc. in Pharmacy and a Ph.D. in Biochemical Toxicology from the Medical Academy, Sofia. Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. ZoologyHe has a B.Sc. from the University of Stellenbosch with major subjects Zoology and Chemistry, a B.Sc.and M.Sc. in Zoology from the University of Stellenbosch and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Cape Town. D--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. BiochemistryHe has a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Biochemistry from the University of Manatoba and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry with a minor in Organic Chemistry from the University of Minnesota. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Benjamin L. Aaron, M.D. (Board Member)He did his Pre-Med at the University of Missouri and received his M.D. from the University of Texas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory MedicineShe has a B.S. in Zoology (summa cum laude) from North Carolina State University and a Ph.D. in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine from the University of North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------------------------John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology (Technical Advisory Board)He has a B.A. in Biology/Chemistry from Kearney State College and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Iowa,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics (Technical Advisory Board)He has a B.S.E. in Biology from the University of Florida, a M.S. in Ecology and a Ph.D. in Genetics from Purdue University. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science EducationHe has a B.A. in Biology from Washington & Jefferson College in Washington, PA, a M.S. in Zoology from Ohio State University, a certification in Allied Health Sciences from the Baylor College of Medicine and an Ed.D. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. BiologyHe has a B.S. in Biology from the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. and a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California San Diego (UCSD). Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arthur J. Jones, Ph.D. BiologyHe has a B.Sc.(Hons) in Biology from the University of Birmingham, a M.Ed. in Education from Bristol University, and a Ph.D. in Biology(Developmental Biology, Fish Systematics, History and Philosophy of Biology) from the University of Birmingham, UK.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Mollecular and Cellular PharmacologyShe has a B.S. in Biology and Math from New College of Florida and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology from the University of Miami. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological SciencesShe has a B.A. in Education from Faith Baptist Bible College and a M.A. in Biological Sciences with a minor in Botany from the University of Texas at Austin. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal HusbandryHe has a B.S. in Animal Science with a Zoology minor from Western Illinois University, a M.S. in Animal Industries from Southern Illinois University, and a Ph.D. in Animal Husbandry/Ruminant Nutrition with a Statistics minor from the University of Missouri. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mark H. Armitage, M.S. BiologyHe completed 164 undergraduate hours in Biology from the University of Florida, received a B.S. in Education from Liberty University, and a M.S. in Biology with an emphasis in electron microscopy, parasitology and microtechnique from the Institute of Creation Research Graduate School. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Memory of Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology (Former Chair of ICR's Grad School Biology Dept. 1990-1996 - Went Home to be with the Lord 1997)He had a B.S. and M.S. in Zoology from Tulane University, a traineeship in Cell Biology at Harvard (non-degree), a Ph.D. in Biology from Rice University, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Medical Pathology from the Tulane University School of Medicine. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------David A. Demick, M.D. He has a B.S. in Chemistry from Huntington College, Huntington, IN and his M.D. from University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign and at Peoria. Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Randy Guliuzza, M.D. He has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and an M.D. from the University of Minnesota. Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Keith Swenson, M.D. He has a B.S. in Zoology and Pre-medical Studies from the University of Idaho and an M.D. from Washington University School of Medicine (St. Louis, MO). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------George F. Howe, Ph.D. BotanyHe has a B.S. in Botany from Wheaton College, and the M.Sc., and Ph.D. in Botany from Ohio State University. Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. AnatomyHe has a B.S. in Mathematics/Physical Education from Slippery Rock University, a M.A. in Physical Education, and a Ph.D. in Anatomy from the University of Iowa Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jonathan B. Scripture, Ph.D. BiochemistryHe has a B.A. in Zoology from the University of California, Berkley and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Notre Dame. Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Richard Oliver , Ph.D. BiologyHe has a B.S. in Biology from the University of California, Fullerton and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California, Irvine. Back to Top --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Inis J. Bardella, M.D. She has a B.S. in Biology(high honors) from Washington and Jefferson College and M.D. from the Temple University School of Medicine. Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M.He has a M.S. in Pharmacology with a Minor in Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine and a D.V.M from the Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine. Other ID scientists:Donald Hamann, Ph.D. Agricultural Science - Virginia Tech Joseph Henson, Ph.D. Entomology - Clemson U. John Moore, Ed.D. Biology - Michigan State U. Jean Morton, Ph.D. Cellular Studies - George Washington U. Raymond Bohlin, Ph.D. Molecular Biology - U. of Texas John Marcus, Ph.D. Biochemistry - U. of Michigan George Marshall, Ph.D. Opthalmic Science - U. of Glasgow Ariel Roth, Ph.D. Biology - U. of Michigan Bob Hosken, Ph.D. Biochemistry - U. of Newcastle <option selected>James Allan, Ph.D. Genetics - U. of Edinburgh George Javor, Ph.D. Biochemistry - Columbia U., NY Dwain Ford, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry - Clark U. Angela Meyer, Ph.D. Horticultural Science - U. of Sydney John Marcus, Ph.D. Biochemistry - U. of Michigan Nancy Darrall, Ph.D. Botany - U. of Wales D.B. Gower, Ph.D. Biochemistry - U. of London Geoff Downes, Ph.D. Tree Physiology - U. of Melbourne Wayne Frair, Ph.D. Biochemical Taxonomy - Rutgers U. Don Batten, Ph.D. Plant Physiology - U. of Sydney John Silvius, Ph.D. Plant Physiology - West VirginiaNow for my question to Acriku. What were your credentials, exactly, that gives you the intellectual ability to summarily declare that all of these accomplished and established scientists have no scientific basis for ID? Are you really that arrogant to think that you...little ole' Acriku is better than all of them? Who are you to say that all of these people representing literally thousands of years of scientific research are unscientific? That is lame, dude.Let me tell you something about me. I do not believe in evolution. I do acknowledge (at least!) that it is a scientific theory. I do not dismiss atheist scientists who are more educated than I am as having a theory that is unscientific. I DO say that "evolution is a scientific theory". Yet you do not have the humility and objectivity to consider anything else other than your own conclusions as scientific! Really...really lame.Your arrogance to cast judgment on all these people to declare them to be unscientific is astounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Emprworm, by now you should know I was referring to the ID theory applied to creationism, where there must be a designer for "us." I have no reason to think that this is scientific at all, and the making of the ID theory was in all intents : 1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies."2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Said by The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, the institutional home of Intelligent Design. Are these scientific goals to use the theory with? These look like religious and political goals to me, so it brings to mind that any claim made by the ID to be primarily conscerned with science is false. Politics and religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 they may have a religious purpose, but that is irrelevant. many atheist scientists (like Frank Zindler) belong to organizations such as the American Atheists organization (www.americanatheists.org) which has specific goals to rid the world of religion. Such memberships in private organizations by no means discredits their work as scientists.to suggest it does comits the ad-hominem fallacy.cmon dude. why do you continually say stuff like this?If Acriku had a PhD in biochemistry, his work as a biochemist is IRRELEVANT to his membership in some atheist organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Emprworm, it IS relevant, because the whole point of the theory is stated in the goals above. If your cause is A, then your methods B is directly related to A. If I made a theory to make women less than a man, and put them in a second-class citizenship, would my methods be tainted by my cause? Yes. My data be tainted by my cause? You bet. My credibility be tainted by my cause? For sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 the point of the theory is not the organization acriku. ANyone can join an organization. Last I checked, there were plenty of atheist organizations that have plenty of atheist scientists. I guess we discredit them now? Membership in a group does not invalidate someone's credibility as a scientist. Again, just who the heck are you to summarily declare all those scientists as unscientific? What were your credentials again?You are seriously underqualified. That is a lot of scientists you are judging. sounds to me like arrogance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.