Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

You have been shown possible falsifications of macroevolution before (in links). One such might be winged horse or other such six limbed mammal.

You seem to get a lot of ad hominim attacks directed at you because you don't seem to understand the fundamental concepts. Micro evolution over time IS macro evolution. It's how you get a sea going whale from what was originally a land based wolf-like creature.

I've also seen you display around 4 or so misconceptions as displayed here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/index.shtml

Also, just what part of macro evolution did you think your link disproved? Selection (Artifical, Natural, Sexual, Fitness)? Mutation(rate, type, sources)? The tree of life(Clades, families, species, etc.)? Or was it just disputing the verifiable existence of dateable fossils found in strata (which is just silly)?

I am fine with keeping faith based teachings from the classroom, but it must be fair. How is it faith that humanism gets to indoctrinate children into their religion in the classroom with untested, non-falsifiable theories, meant to suggest there is no God?

The above statement is ludicrous. Science is not based on humanism (which is a philosophy, not a religion). Science does not seek to suggest there is no god. It's completely neutral on the subject. I truly hope that some day you'll learn to recognize the difference between the objective analysis of observable factual data (science) and religious demagoguery (ID and the True Origin site). Teaching children to distrust science and that science is atheistic propaganda through such flagrant mischaracterization (and flat out ignorance) is a kind of child abuse.

I'll accept that. We have shown with this website... http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp that the website you are claiming makes your point that macroevolution is testable and therefor falsifiable is wrong.

Every evidence he proposes supports the theory can equally be supported should the evidence be different. I would restate his very eloquent words, but I believe he says it much better that I. I could cut and paste it, because I know you won't read it from the link, but that might be flooding, and I wouldn't want to upset anyone.

If you do read the data, and find it unreasonable, feel free to either ignore it, or (if you think others might believe it) answer it to show his logical mistakes.

I am fine with keeping faith based teachings from the classroom, but it must be fair. How is it faith that humanism gets to indoctrinate children into their religion in the classroom with untested, non-falsifiable theories, meant to suggest there is no God?

Show the tests that can be done to falsify macroevolution, or admit it's a fable to fill gaps the same way ID fills gaps.

Science isn't the issue Chip. Science tests and falsifies theories. If science can't test to falsify a theory, it isn't science. So, we can agree macroevolution is no more scientific than ID, because there is no tests that would falsify it.

....

...... To be blunt, and I mean no offense by this, your Faith makes you blind.......


........


......

I have narrowed your entire argument to this. This is all that stands, and it's hardly scientific. With it, you sweep away anything I say. So, I guess our discussion is over.

I have narrowed your entire argument to this. This is all that stands, and it's hardly scientific. With it, you sweep away anything I say. So, I guess our discussion is over.

So, I guess our discussion is over.

In other words, lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!

This "belief" is very different than other beliefs, evolutionists get very emotional when confronted with questions concerning their faith. Why would people become so outraged if it doesn't equate to a deep held belief?

In other words, we aren't communicating.

He isn't interested in falsifying macroevolution.

Why would people become so outraged if it doesn't equate to a deep held belief?

I might try to explain it,

This "belief" is very different than other beliefs, evolutionists get very emotional when confronted with questions concerning their faith. Why would people become so outraged if it doesn't equate to a deep held belief?

In other words, we aren't communicating. He isn't interested in falsifying macroevolution. The macroevolution supporters have made up their minds to believe what can't be falsified.

This "belief" is very different than other beliefs, evolutionists get very emotional when confronted with questions concerning their faith. Why would people become so outraged if it doesn't equate to a deep held belief?

I certainly wouldn't get so worked up if someone questioned something I consider to be fact. I might try to explain it, but I would never get so emotional as to resort to rudeness, name-calling and ad hom attacks?

The fact some people get worked up over an issue suggests they really aren't sure, but want to be.?

I would say the fervor and gut reaction displayed by supporters of the untested theory of macroevolution clearly demonstrates the devoutness and zeal of these believers. I see less zeal in most born again Christians.

The link I just posted... http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp clearly eliminates that as a way to falsify macroevolution. But you won't read it, because you aren't interested in falsification.

The site doesnt show how macroevolution can be falsified. When evolutionists run into a wall, they twist the theory to fit the new data. They say that is how science works, it molds to the data. Then it says the data supports it.

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA

Concerning the ad hominim attacks directed at me, never is it proper to use ad hominim attacks in debate. As you my notice, I don't reply to some posters, the reason is I can no longer see their posts. Once a person becomes aggressive and resorts to person insults, the discussion is over. You may feel its fair to get personal if the opponent doesn't agree with with your flawless reasoning, but the opponent also is frustrated you can't see his reasoning. So, no, it's never appropriate to get personal.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact
that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals,
who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy. http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

My point, which you have ignored something like six times now, is that ID does not *inherently* mean a Christian God.

Do a lot of ID's proponents believe in such? Sure. Would a few radicals love if they *could* sanction teaching the christian god theory in class? Absolutely. But ID does not *inherently* mean the Christian God.

Non-random Factors

Perusing the list of people who are in the leadership of CRSC is eye-opening: they're mostly white men and they're all Christian.

Among the more notable members are: Michael Behe, biochemist and author of Darwin's Black Box; Phillip Johnson, lawyer and author of Darwin on Trial; William Dembski, mathematician and author of The Design Inference (see review this issue); mathematician David Berlinski; philosophers William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland; and, chemist Henry "Fritz" Schaefer, a prominent figure on UGA's faculty.

That these CRSC leaders are Christian is no accident. Christianity by its very nature views the world in (at least partly) supernatural terms. Thus, as described above, they reject evolution theory as currently modeled. In its stead, ID should replace it, they say.
(...)
In fact, Larson notes, although the recent study he published in Nature showed that 40% of the general population of scientists believe in God, 100% accept evolution. The percentage of scientists that reject evolution is so small, that "it doesn't even register on the radar," he says. For the last fifteen years, he says, he is still searching for the first example of a scientist who: 1) has no religious predispositions; and, 2) rejects evolution on its own grounds.

Although the number of scientists who support ID is lacking, this doesn't discourage them in the least bit. In their eyes, the way to usurp evolution from its throne is by influencing not scientists, but the public at large. And that is what "The Wedge Strategy" is about.
(...)
In short, "Wedge" describes a 3-phase strategy to implement ID over the next 5 then 20 years. Its goals are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies," and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

That evolution is seen as a force of amorality is telling. Objective moral standards have been discounted by evolution by its proponents, the document says. The time has come to return to the older world-view of a Creator of the universe who enforces morality. And it shouldn't be surprising that this Creator is the Christian one.

The very name of CRSC tells us their position: the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. It is viewed that contemporary science and culture have lost the "bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built" that were once accepted a long time ago, and the time has come to refurbish science.

What is troublesome about the document (and CRSC in general) is that it focuses on overthrowing evolution, not from within scientific establishments, but through convincing the public that its theory is the morally acceptable one. Whether or not there is evidence to back up ID, evolution's evils (seen by them as amorality, social Darwinism, personal unaccountability, racism, and general bad things) must be put to an end and only ID can do that. By convincing the public that there are significant problems with evolution theory and that evolution has destructive consequences for humanity, there is little doubt that the public would be deluded into doing its best to force science to reject evolution theory in place of ID.

The paper includes a "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" (in which Phases I and II will be completed by 2003) and a "Wedge Strategy Progress Summary." In the "Books" section of the summary, it says, "Finally, Discovery Fellow Ed Larson has won the Pulitzer Prize for Summer for the Gods, his retelling of the Scopes Trial, and InterVarsity has just published his co-authored attack on assisted suicide, A Different Death."

This insertion sticks out among the other books in the section because neither these books, nor its author, support ID. "First, I believe in evolution," says Larson.

When Dr. Barry Palevitz, UGA botany professor and TSS Faculty Advisor, contacted Larson regarding his mentioning in "Wedge," Larson was not very happy. By the end of the day, he sent e-mail to Discovery asking them to not have him associated with the document.

"There is little new in the arguments of the Wedge," Larson says, "they are as old as antievolutionism itself."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html

Nuh-uh. You're all wrong. Macroevolution is not falsifiable. And since macroevolution is not falsifiable, ID must be true and the entire neo-Darwinian sysnthesis is false. Because I said so. And so does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Der.

So, I guess our discussion is over.

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told

13:30 19 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

[snip]

Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed” to religion. His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”

“You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class."

Interesting, Chip. I'd heard about the Behe debacle, but I had never actually heard a one-sentance summary of what his proposed version of the word "theory" was... Just that it was really vague.

Thanks!

It can be falsified, and has. That's the problem. You don't listen when people present that to you. Why should I do it again?

I am now linking, for the first time, by the way, despite your earlier assertations, to this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It presents multiple falsifications for macroevolution.

I say that again.

Multiple falsifications.

Why should I bother providing more when you wont listen to a ton already provided?

Karl Popper (Read up on his works, if you're not familiar with him) once listed what he considered to be a good definition of a theory. One of his points is as follows: A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.

Again. Macroevolution can be falsified. As shown, time and time and time again to you. It is therefor a valid scientific theory. Not mere faith.

ID, by definition, cannot be falsified. It is therefor not a valid scientific theory.



Illogic frustrates me.




None of which I've done.

Well, argueably I've been a little ruder than I've had to be... like I say, I get annoyed when people stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen.

Nevertheless, you confuse the fact I'm an argumentative person who normally tries to restrain himself but is currently getting very frustrated with a lack of... something. Conviction I guess. Choose what you want to believe.



That says more about yourself than it does me.

I believe in evolution absolutely. I also believe in God, and thus ultimatly inteligent design, absolutely. So, how does that fit into your theory?



Again, you mistake frustration for... something, I'm not sure what.

One of ID's principal proponents an Astrologer?

Read those in order, then you will be in the loop.