A calm debate

[emprworm]

"According to Paley, if you came across a watch on a beach, you would not assume that it had assembled itself due to chance. Instead, its intricate design and functioning would cause you to conclude that it must have been designed and created by a skilled watchmaker. The same, he argued, should be concluded about the universe - and this is the basis for Intelligent Design Creationism today. "

Yes, this is the basis. And it is also evidence, btw. But some people may not believe in a God and hold to ID. A panspermist, for example, or a dualist, or a panentheist (the belief that all is God...rejecting the notion of a distinct creator).

The point is that ANYONE -- *except* atheists can hold to ID. It is not just for monotheists! And fancy that- only the atheists have a problem with ID. What a coincidence eh? Perhaps because they think they are superior when it comes to science? ID teaches nothing about the supernatural, or the identity of the designer- which is unknown. (similar to atheists having no idea how the Big Bang happened or the identity of the forces that caused it- its an unknown)

[Acriku]

Hey look a theory that is based upon the idea that the existence of God could be deduced from the existence of intricate design in the universe is not accepted by an atheist! Wow! Could it be the "a" in atheist that holds relevance in here?

[nemafakei]

"similar to atheists having no idea how the Big Bang happened or the identity of the forces that caused it- its an unknown"

Not really... for it not to happen would not be possible. But that's another matter.

"A panspermist, for example, or a dualist, or a panentheist"

So a belief that life was developed by another race without explanation of that race's origin has no supernatural element?

So a belief in two gods is not a belief in a supernatural force?

So a belief that all is god is not a belief in a supernatural force?

[emprworm]

My question was not rhetorical. Would you, if presented with such a list, believe that it was not scientific theory? Or do I have to find a 400-long list?

no, you just have to find three. They must be PhD's in a related field of biology, and their statements that ID is unscientific must be made as scientists. It is one thing to shoot off the cuff in a newsgroup. A scientist that says to his buddy "blah blah blah" is not making a statement in the capacity of a scientist before his peers. A scientist that publishes a statement in his professional capacity as a scientist is making such a statement as a scientist. So, yea, if you can find three PhD biologists publishing a scientific article that says ID is not even scientific, I will read the articles and consider what they are saying. I'm sure they will have a reason for making such a statement, so I'll take a look at it.

All of the scientists I put up are published and have made scientific claims about ID backed with evidence and have done so in their capacity as scientists.

"I'm questioning Emprworm's interpretation of the evidence - he thinks that scientists who believe in ID believe that this constitutes that not only they think it is scientific theory, but also that this means that it is scienticic theory."

Combined with evidence plus a massive community of well-respected secularly trained scientists, the answer is yes. Do you want me to now list some physicists with PhD's who subscribe to ID? I only listed biologists above. Its pretty obvious that ID is scientific. Again, you do not need to believe a theory - nor does it have to actually be true - for it to be scientific.

"Oh, yes, and I'd also appreciate if you be careful not to assume that I think that ID is not at least a remotely feasible idea. "

I hope I don't have to say this more than once: DON'T TWIST MY WORDS. I never said that you claimed it wasn't remotely feasible. I said you are claiming that it is unscientific. If that does not represent your view, and you indeed do see it as scientific, please tell me now and I will promply rescind my comments.

[nemafakei]

As far as I am concerned:

a remotely feasible idea means that it is most certianly not unscientific. Difficult to study, and, I believe, an incorrect hypothesis, but still an idea which may be pursued scientifically. But I still say the evidence you present is enough to prove that it is scientific theory.

3 and you'd consider it... odd. I'd consider it whatever. We're making progress towards a direct answer, though. Would you, if presented with such list of 200 scientist, claiming ID to be unscientific, believe that it was not scientific theory? Or do I have to find a 400-long list?

[emprworm]

no, you just have to find 3 or so, Nema and I will consider what they say. Why am I the only guy that does research around here?

I take it you are not even going to find ONE? How about just ONE?

Bah, fine. I'll answer the hypothetical then. But I'll be darned if this isn't laziness!

I consider what people say.

If you presented a list of 400 people with PhD's in Biology that have published in their capacity as professional scientists, statements that ID was unscientific, and they gave evidence and explanations for their views (not just said them off the cuff), then I would conclude the following:

Scientists make an Hypothesis: ID is unsceintific

Scientists provide evidence for the hypothesis

Scientists conclude that ID is unscientific based upon their evidence.

Emprworm concludes: the 400 scientists have a scientific theory.

Note: a scientific theory does not need to be considered TRUE in order to be scientific

But of course, you will provide no such list...will you?

[Acriku]

I think he is getting towards that providing a long list of people who support it, or whatever, does not make it a scientific theory. Maybe.

[Gobalopper]

And emprworm is getting more towards saying he doesn't care how big the list is, what matters is what they say on why ID isn't scientific theory. :)

[emprworm]

and I am getting towards: yes it does.

lets assume for a moment your fish theory. Every scientist in the world ascribes to THEORY A. These scientists were not persuaded by anyone, but each, individually through their own research, all confirms in THEORY A.

Theory A is a scientific theory.

You do not need to believe it, of course.

[SurlyPIG]

and as for Ace's comments, well, its pretty obvious what an anti-religious person is going to think about the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Of course, I can say the same thing Ace said about evolution:

The only thing "proven" about evolution is that, like modern atheistic Guth-ism, it is unprovable

HAH!

You can physically see the different stages in evolution from monkey to man. Search the internet for a comparison of a chimpanzee skull and the skull of a northern Mongolian man so you can see for yourself. There is geological and paleontological evidence for evolution. Any half-braned scientist, whether they believe in creation or Darwin's Law, CAN NOT deny this.

Some scientists are so weak as to say that this evolution is caused by an external omnipotent force. Foolish...The entire foundation for intelligent design is that it cannot be proven or disproven. However, Darwins Theory/Law, CAN be proven, and CANNOT be disproven. There *IS* no competing theory that comes even close. You can test his theory 1000 timees over and you'll get the same result every time. It is logical. It is real. It is fact. A scientist that supports ID has the only recourse of "You can't disprove my theory."

Well, in that case, I believe there is a cloaked planet on the same orbital plain as Earth on the opposite side of the sun called planet vorgon. It's a magical happy place where the laws of physics are routinely broken and all live hapily under their noble leader, Zimbu the monkey. Zimbu sends hidden messaged to the people of earth in the form of comic strips. One day when humanity has reached a new plateau Zimbu will come in a gigantic spaceship to save the worth from earth and trasnport them to Vorgon. Oh, by the way, the planet does not have a normal gravity field, so it won't alter the orbits of other planets. And it appears completely invisible because the atmosphere reflects or transmits all light. Basically, you can't prove it's not there but you have no reason to believe it is. I want all children to learn about the planet Vorgon and Zimbu the monkey so they can make their own decision about whether it is real or not. ::)

However I am glad that atheists do not dictate what is taught in schools, and that rational objective people are mature enough to teach children both sides, and instead of shoving unproven atheist dogma down their throat, these children can make up their own minds about what to believe.

Maybe in your country, the land of the free except for Arabs. However, the rest of the world teaches only evolution as fact.

ID is as scientific as evolution. Period. For every single...and I mean every single argument you have for evolution...there is a rational counter argument for Intelligent Design. There is just simply no argument for evolution that you can present that cannot be scientifically countered by ID. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to biased, one sided atheists...but we already knew that.

Propaganda strategy number one: accuse your enemy of executing the seedy things you routinely practice. You say atheists are one-sided?

Counter this arguement; give me a shred of astronomical, geological or paleontological evidence that supports your theory. A shred that supports the 6th day theory or whatever you call it, a shred that says God created the universe, a shred that says God creates all humans and chromosomes don't, a shred that says our destiny is controlled by God.

And don't give me that "well you arrogant atheist would not interpret *MY* evidence as fact" nonsense because that doesn't fly in science.

[emprworm]

And, Gob, I am also saying is that if you give me a list of 400 scientists that all say "ID is unscientific" then all we have is a scientific theory that ID is unscientific.

Note: We do not have a FACT that ID is unscientific.

[Acriku]

Any half-braned scientist, whether they believe in creation or Darwin's Law, CAN NOT deny this.

Which is why there are many creationists who do accept evolution as a fact, because it is rediculous to ignore the facts.

Emprworm have you wondered if any of the scientists who believe in ID theory were/are creationists? Beliefs they were grown up with are hard to let go, and many scientists still believe in creationism, so of course they would believe ID theory.

[emprworm]

Ace, what "mongolian man" are you referring to? All evolutionary "missing links" have names. What is the name of this "mongolian man?"

and as for your accusations of "half brained scientists"....what credentials, do you have again, to call these people half brained?

How Does Ace Dismiss These Scientists?

[Acriku]

I like how you twist everybody's words Emprworm. Dishonorable tactic, but pretty effective on the wrong people.

[emprworm]

whos words did I twist, Acriku? Please quote me, so I can clarify the issue. thanks

[nemafakei]

"Every scientist in the world ascribes to THEORY A. These scientists were not persuaded by anyone, but each, individually through their own research, all confirms in THEORY A."

For a start, you don't even have half the PhD biologists for sure. If you didn then it could be considered probable that it was scientific theory. But if you did, this alone does not make it scientific theory.

Thankyou for finally answering my question.

Now, you might find it easier to provide some direct evidence that it is scientific theory, preferably followed by some evidence that it is true so we can get back to debating the topic, not who-has-a-bigger-list.

[nemafakei]

Ace, be a littl more careful in what you say.

Emprworm, why do you target the way people say things, rather than what people are trying to say? Why not reply to the fact that there are pretty clear lines of descent (or ascent, if you prefer), rather than the way Ace worded his point?

[Acriku]

ACE made no such allegation of anybody to be a half-brained scientist.

And nema, I believe those are his debate skills, which are effective in excusing the whole point of the thread and focusing on the method of the post.

"Yes Father. The Almighty says stop changing the subject; just answer the fucking question."

[nemafakei]

I know those are his debate skills, but I'm trying to imprint upon him that he shouldn't use such things. Or I will do - I'm just trying to get him to tell me why he needs to. It's easier to conclude things from what he says, else he just says it's someone else's point of view.

[emprworm]

nema, I did reply. I want Ace to tell me what mongolian man he is referring too. I cannot respond to his argument until I understand the object of his premise.

Also how do you know the ratio PhD biologists for evolution / ID? If you, personally, require half of them in order to consider a theory scientific, well that is your personal standard. I don't argue against that. I argue against people making empirical claims that a very large scientific community has a theory with evidence is somehow not "scientific". To me, that is arrogant. Now that is my opinion, but it is true. I truly believe that summarily dismissing scientists like that is pure arrogance. You wont find me dismissing any large body of secularly and professionally trained scientists with prestigous degrees and honorable contributions to the scientific world- i really don't care what they believe in their personal lives.

But I'd really like to know how you can make claims as to saying that I dont have half of the PhD biologists? Perhaps, but how do you know this?

[emprworm]

wrong, Acriku. HEre is what Ace said:

"Any half-braned scientist, whether they believe in creation or Darwin's Law, CAN NOT deny this."

Now, I am asking Ace....What is this mongolian man? Because I can tell you that the list of scientists I provided will most likely deny this as a missing link, to which Ace is implying they will be half-brained.

[SurlyPIG]

and as for your accusations of "half brained scientists"....what credentials, do you have again, to call these people half brained?

So you're saying you don't believe in evolution? The evidence is ALL there. Whether you like it or not, we DID come from lesser beings, the last of which were primates. I cannot belive you would deny this. It is such common knowledge. Even a grade three student would say humans come from monkeys. You have dodged my demands. Show me a single thing that disproves evolution. And show me something that proves ID.

How Does Ace Dismiss These Scientists?

Is this the part where I'm supposed to doubt myself? I don't care what those people think. There are a lot of idiots in the world, some with PhDs and some without. Would you like to see my list of scientists with PhDs and masters degrees that acknowledge the existence of Planet Vorgon and Zimbu the monkey?

My explanation for those people? They were theist all their lives and they can't let go. They can't face the idea of life without God. So they modify God to fit their work. And they rally together to make themselves seem more reputable. A large group of people believing in something doesn't make it right. There were far more Nazis than there are ID sceintists, emprworm. Does that make them right?

I don't listen to people, emp. There are a lot of idiots out there, and the truth is not a popularity contest. I listen to facts. I listen to proof. You have shown none. I am genuinely interested to see the "proof" those ID-supporting scientists have assembled. I'd like to see the proof that God creates everything. At the very least I could use a chuckle.

[Acriku]

No he said any half brain would not deny it. Therefore, using his tone, it implies anybody with less than a half of a brain might deny it, and anybody who denies it must have less than half of a brain :) But it was a figure of speech, lay off.

[nemafakei]

"saying that I dont have half of the PhD biologists"

Because if you did, you would've posted them. Besides, it's far easier to just show how it is scientific - and far more educational to all. Simply passing the buck to 200 biologists who aren't exactly available for debate now on Fed2k is not a good way of debating, nor is it in any way conclusive.

[Gobalopper]

There seems to be no point in this argument. If emprworm or myself post something you will just claim it is false or that they are letting religion cloud their judgement. Why bother arguing then? Its not like we haven't posted evidence already about why ID is scientific or why we think it should be. Instead we seem to be spending more time on whether emprworm is debating properly.