First off the server ate (as a scientist I don’t believe in censorship unless there is proof of it) part of the post, where I said it was a dishonest argument.
It is. In Germany, Jew were gassed because of a pseudo-scientific ideology with no proof of what it asserted saying that race was bad. If the basic precept of Intelligent Design is a non-falsifiable theory (you cannot prove that the designer doesn’t exist), then it is one many people would regard as not being truly scientific. Science Journals have reputations. I won’t insult your intelligence by finding a list of criteria for a good theory, but one of them is the theory must be falsifiable, otherwise you can’t know it is wrong. Thus articles on Intelligent Design often cannot meet the criteria for publication. I’m happy to admit, that for reasons we have discussed in other threads and that you haven’t rebutted yet, often Creationists and Intelligent Designouts have a bad reputation. I’m happy to admit that either due to this reputation, or due to closed mindedness on the part of some people, many Creationist and ID articles are not regarded that seriously. But, part of that is that so many cannot be regarded tht seriously, and it misses the whole point. No matter what bias there me be on the part of some reviewers, or bad press created by some sloppy Creationists and Intelligent Designouts, the theories still don’t meet the criteria for publication.
I have been beaten up twice openly because of my views and the American government refused to do anything. Serves me right, they said. Do you know what it is like to get death threats? It is not fun. Shall I go on? I know that the American government is very corrupt and one study found that one out of seven inmates on death row were innocent (mostly exonerated by DNA) and all of this does not endear me to my government much.
So, the American government, which at the moment is neo-conservative and very religiously influenced, doesn’t protect you because you are a Creationist/Ider? That’s not a very convincing argument. I do agree with your point about the death sentence though, but it’s a different issue really.
It may interest you to know that I have interviewed hundreds of creationists for a book that I wrote and, of the out of the closet breed, all but two were denied tenure at state colleges (I am one of those rare birds; I was awarded tenure at a state college of over 4,000 students to teach biology and biochemistry in a science department; Prof. Keith who teaches at a major State University is the other one). Many creationists were also denied tenure at "Christian" colleges (including me although my Witness background probably was part of it). Those creationists in the closet do very well, though. Also, out of the closet ID advocates don't do too much better. This is pure hate.
Some bias does occur Jerry. That’s not good. But after almost five weeks you’ve not defended the argument YOU made, that I rebutted. You said it was golly unfair that Creationists had a bad reputation; I showed examples of how they got that bad reputation. You then committed similar errors to those that I had pointed out in Creationist articles, defended yourself by book review, reduced yourself to lies about me and Ad Hom attacks, and have still not addressed one point head on. All of this is there on this web site as proof. Are you going to tell me you’re a bad Creationist, and all the rest don’t use bad science, invalid comparisons, red herrings, straw men, ad homs, prevarication, avoidance and lies? You can’t complain about how you are treated if the way you behave is an example. Harsh but fair, sad but true.
If Neo-Darwinism is empirically proven, clearly ID and creationism are both falsified (and I would have to switch sides). Many scientists claim not only that it
falsified. Read Dawkins, Gould and many others such as Eldridge. This is one of their main points.
I have to admit I find the lack of evidence for literal (like YEC) Creationistic beliefs compelling when compared to the wealth of evidence supporting evolution. It’s errant rubbish. I find less prescriptive forms of Creationism have smaller degrees of falsifiability. This is not necessarily a good thing, but one would is gratified to see Creationism obeying the laws of evolution and being shaped by natural selection.
I can understand other people feeling that just ‘cause Creationism/ID cannot be disproved as a theory, doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. Many feel there’s so many indications there is no designer that one theory with no proof that you can’t prove wrong is irrelevant, as it would be like not buying your kids presents cause there might be a real Santa Claus. I think this is a bloody good point.
I also see no conflict in a belief in god and a disbelief in Intelligent Design. There seems to be an ideological fixation on some theist’s part to retain god as a plate spinning creator, the one who balances and keeps it all going, and a disinclination to see god as a primal cause who watched his ‘experiment’ run without interference after turning it on. All such theories have an utter lack of scientific proof though. Doesn’t mean they’re false, but extraordinary claims blah blah blah…
1. If "facts" keep changing from month to month, year to year, then there must be room for counter viewpoints, instead of the condescending remarks I read here.
Tell you what, that’s a good point. Shall we keep the ‘facts’ the same whilst the evidence CHANGES?
I think you miss the important point here Thi Chi.
Science changes its facts to fit the evidence. If there is no evidence, it is not a fact.
There might be enthusiastic “joining up the dots” to make theories about the facts there is evidence for, and these need fiddling with if new ‘dots’ of evidence are found, but that’s obviously required to keep them fitting with reality as it can be proved to be.
Creationists and Intelligent Designouts have facts without evidence. When new evidence is uncovered, they cannot alter their fundamental facts, as these are predetermined. Even if the evidence indicates that the facts do NOT fit with reality as it can be proved to be, they can only attack the ‘facts’ other people use to interpret the evidence differently, or devise ways of viewing reality that allow them to retain the original fact.
"""""You can't be complaining about science discovering new things, or refining theories in light of new knowledge"""""
Wow, you sound like the Watchtower! We are getting "New light" so why concentrate on the "fact today is fiction tomorrow" aspect? I am all for debate regarding the matter, but when some here take a "I am above you" because I believe in this as a "fact"(a term used loosely around here), then you can count me out! Who knows?
Democratic fallacy. Everyone’s opinion is not worth the same, they just have equal right to express it. My opinion on maintaining 1950 American V8’s is worthless. If I tried, I’d be out of my depth and be laughed at. Some people approach these discussions without knowing that much about the subject, and act surprised when they say something foolish. Is this some white-collar/blue-collar thing, it’s okay for a master mechanic to laugh at someone who is an ‘uppity know all’, but the school teacher had better not talk down to less educated folks, even if they’re talking out of their hats?
Now, I think someone skim reading webpages on a subject they don't know a lot about and posting them as an argument is arrogant and uppity. Go and read a few blasted books, then come and play. That's my opinion, you don't have to respect it, but you do have to tolerate it. You mention fakes but fail to see how self-policing the field is as you don't know enough about the field, and also don't mention eviolutionist fakes, which means you're ignorant of them or biased, make yourself really silly quoting 150 year-old science articles on evolution as though they were current, fail to see that all ID does is contradict it own guiding principle, that complex things need designers, by failing to explain how the designer got there. If you think it's okay to have a debate at that level, here you go;
Now, you'll find considerable amounts of information here. Anything in the stuff that YOU cut and paste that isn't refuted by MY cut and paste, just put it in your own words, and we'll get back to you, m'kay?
Do scientists have the right to be creationists? The general consensus of the scientific community is "No!" Because the whole concept of a personal God is so repugnant to most of the set that believes that the Universe, whether God made it or no, is operating by laws that can be comprehended and understood - laws which are not set aside at the whim of some great Beard in the Sky.
I don't quite concur with your phrasing, but that's a good point. I'd just replace 'repugnant' with 'silly'. There may be a god, but I haven't seen one good theory about god yet, and I'm not talking about how god came into being (though now I mention it, good point), but the theories as to what god wants etc. All concepts of a personal god (by this I take it you mean a concerned and caring creator god with a plan and an individual interest in everyone) are all childish and human, the theories don't make sense. They're non falsifiable and have no evidence, other than belief (in this contect faith WITHOUT evidence), and look what belief can make people believe! I was discussing the different paradigms used on a thread here the other day, it does lead to a comprehension gap, as can be seen....