Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble

On Aug 18, 7:58 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:59 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Numerous <numer...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:35:35 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg"
<e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
saying this.
Of course not. You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble
either, do you?

The point is that we *do* see cosmologists and physicists
saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble.

Are they *all* saying this, or just the "real" ones? Are you claiming
a consensus of cosmologists and physicists, of the actual BB theory
being "in trouble"?

Not *all* cosmologists probably think that the BB is *fatally*
flawed. And whether or not they do, both sides are represented by
people doing real, valid, peer-reviewed and publishable science *in
that field*. Science does not *require* consensus. It does require
acceptance of the methods of scientific inquiry. That is where ID
fails to be science.

So Behe for example, isn't an "evolutionary scientist", right?

Behe definitely is not an "evolutionary" scientist. When he does
actual science, which seems to be rather rarely nowadays, he tends to
be a biochemist. Not a particularly leading edge one, but that is not
a serious knock. We cannot all be a Krebs or an Einstein. OTOH, his
"evolutionary" ideas are nonsensical. His ID ideas, such as they are,
are not science.

Real scientists admit it
when there's a problem.

Real scientists, huh. You really mean that a "real" scientist is
honest and admits a problem when he sees one. Nice fantasy you live
in. And disprovable to you, since any scientists shown to not admit a
known problem would be seen as not a "real" scientist.

Evolutionary science is open to the
possibility; ID is just not it.

ID is not even an hypothesis. Even the DI has given up on trying to
treat ID as if it were science and have gone on to promoting instead
something which is nothing more than rehashed (and almost entirely
bogus) old time religious creationist criticisms of evolution. They
have descended to "teach the controversy" using old tired creationist
arguments and arguments from ignorance as if they represented *real*
scientific controversy.

The state of any scientific belief or consensus has been shown many
times in the past to not be "open" to change.

Science is a human and humanistic endeavor, not something done by gods
or demigods. And it is both human and natural and right that one does
not immediately toss out a long-standing *scientific theory* that has
been supported by many lines of evidence (and that is what it takes
for something to be called a "theory" in science) at the first hint of
trouble. Nor is it reasonable to expect wide acceptance of alternate
theories in the absence of clear evidence supporting that alternative
in lieu of standard theory. Changes in scientific paradigms and
dropping of old theories *should* be a slow and gradual process with
argument at each step in the process.

When (really if) ID ever comes up with a scientific theory or even
hypotheses and actually finds supporting evidence, it will have to
undergo this slow human process if it is going to successfully
supplant current evolutionary theory. So far ID hasn't even gone the
first millimeter in this marathon.

Change has occured,

Can you go two sentences without contradiction? Apparently what you
object to is *resistance* to and *skepticism of* change by science and
scientists, not a lack of openness to change. That is, you are taking
a slower than desired (by you) *rate of change* as evidence of not
being open to change. And, even worse, scientists keep rejecting the
pseudoscience you love best because they recognize it as religion
gussied up as pseudoscience and keep pointing out that basic failure.

but
you can't use that fact to support this childish claim that one
particular belief is open to change at any given time. Besides, you
are conveniently painting evolutionary science, and ID, with a very
large brush.

ID is NOT a scientific theory. It is a vacuous and empty idea. Even
the DI is no longer trying to claim that ID should be taught as
science. Instead they are arguing that one should "teach the
controversy" that they claim exists (and that *they* manufactured).
To scientists evolution is about as 'controversial' as the idea that
the earth is quasi-spherical rather than flat or the fact that the
earth is not the center of the universe. Not that there aren't some
good Christians who wouldn't be happy to teach the 'controversy' in
the hopes that flat-earthism will supplant the Devil's spherical
teachings.

If you are just expressing faith in a belief that is called "fact" is
"open" to change, then you've done nothing here to support that faith.
But with this wide brush you've used, readers don't know what you are
really talking about in particular, yet you seem to think this
ambiguity and generalization adequate to disparage ID.

ID is NOT a scientific theory. ID goes out of its way to not make any
testable statements. It is empty-headed argument from ignorance. The
more ignorant one is, the more evidence there is for ID.

You're just an atheist loon.

Well, I may laugh like a loon at some of the ideas you present, but I
keep being provoked.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... If you assert that I am referring to science as a "new god" you are ... It was accepted because the evidence showed that the events ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... You should try reading articles from scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
    ... You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble ... Science does not *require* consensus. ... bogus) old time religious creationist criticisms of evolution. ... scientists, not a lack of openness to change. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
    ... You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble ... Science does not *require* consensus. ... bogus) old time religious creationist criticisms of evolution. ... scientists, not a lack of openness to change. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading