IAP Political Forum
September 06, 2008, 09:43:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Default theme has been changed, and everyone reset due to some problems with posts disappearing after submitting.
 
   Home   Blog Forum   Help Search Chat Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Evolution v. Creationism/Intelligent Design  (Read 758 times)
Reasoned Faith
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 18, 2007, 05:25:22 PM »

Quote
This is Discovery Institute's response to the PBS special.

Why didn't they participate in the Nova special?

I know why I would not.  Because it is generally unwise to participate in a documentary who's purpose is to promote a viewpoint opposite your own.  It would be like shooting your own foot.

Quote
Quote
PBS wrongly claims that Tiktaalik is "one of the most vivid transitional forms ever discovered" and is "the latest evidence to refute intelligent design."
A centerpiece of "Judgment Day's" attack on ID is the fossil Tiktaalik, which allegedly shows fish evolving into amphibians. It's not clear why this would "refute" ID because ID is not incompatible with universal common ancestry. Regardless, Tiktaalik is not very impressive as a transitional form because it does not document the key aspect of the alleged fish-to-amphibian evolutionary transition: the transformation of fins into feet. For more information on why the finlike fin of Tiktaalik does not explain how feet evolved, see:


Here's Casey Luskins attempted response where he is super skeptical of Tiktaalik being transitional. Good thing he wasn't super duper skeptical or the entire field of paleontology would have to be abandoned. Did you actually read that? It's as ridiculous as expecting the malarial plasmodium to evolve hands and wave to you.

I read it and didn't find the part you find ridiculous.  I find those who infer that the fossil is a transitional speculating too much about vague similarities.  In any case the fossils tell us nothing about how they came to exist.  This is the same old story of people who see something as true the things they want to be true.  It is an elegant and fortunate thing about this historical science that is not required to follow the scientific method of experiment and repetition.  We have no practical way to falsify it and no practical way to confirm it.  It is like a painting where the artist gets to make up the narrative.

Quote
By the way, why did the DI boys need their own counsel to  protect their interests. The plaintiff's witnesses surely didn't.

Discovery Institute joined the defense team but then parted ways over disagreements with the legal strategy.  That is why Discovery had attorneys up until the beginning of the trial phase.
Logged
jpn of Seattle
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +226/-210
Posts: 1,557



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: November 18, 2007, 08:32:54 PM »

The Discovery Institute refused to appear on the special when they were not permitted to rig the rules of their appearance.
Then they sat back and sniped at it.
They also sat out of the Dover court case.

Seems like when the Kleig lights come on, they take a powder.

Of course, the best place for them to make their case is in the scientific community. In that they have utterly failed, and don't even merit a footnote in the development of evolutionary theory.
Logged

What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
Reasoned Faith
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2007, 04:52:26 AM »

jpn, you are rehashing old points.  As far as convincing the scientific community contrary to your assertions scepticism over Materialistic explanations are holding its own.

Here are the current standings from survey data:

In the scientific community:

Survey of Scientists Finds A Stability of Faith in God

More recent surveys that look uniformally across all scientific including a 2005 Gallup survey shows that less than 27% of the scientific community accept the materialist narrative of Darwinian Evolution by only material causes.

Surveys on Evolution

Logged
jpn of Seattle
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +226/-210
Posts: 1,557



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2007, 08:38:28 AM »

jpn, you are rehashing old points.  As far as convincing the scientific community contrary to your assertions scepticism over Materialistic explanations are holding its own.

Here are the current standings from survey data:

In the scientific community:

Survey of Scientists Finds A Stability of Faith in God

More recent surveys that look uniformally across all scientific including a 2005 Gallup survey shows that less than 27% of the scientific community accept the materialist narrative of Darwinian Evolution by only material causes.

Surveys on Evolution

Whether or not scientists believe in some kind of supernatural being is neither here nor there then it comes to alternative theories to evolution. Since there is no evidence of the supernatural, it's a discussion which has to take place in an entirely other sphere of their lives. Personally I don't understand how anyone can believe that stuff, much less scientists. But as I say, it's an irrelevant point.

Quote
Q: Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?

A: Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false. All that evolution tells us is that life on this planet could have arisen by natural processes. For many people of various faiths, showing that something is due to a natural process doesn't take it outside the realm of the divine. Religious thinkers across the ages have written that merely showing that something is natural puts it within the influence of God, the creator of all nature. By definition science cannot address supernatural causes because its methodology is confined to the natural world. Therefore science has nothing to say about the nature of God or about people's spiritual beliefs. This does not mean science is anti-religious; rather, it means science simply cannot engage in this level of explanation.
--from the NOVA website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defi-qa.html

In any case, I'd like to see the polling data. Who did they classify as "scientist?" What was the actual question posed?

As for your second poll, I simply don't believe it. At least, I don't believe the results are what you think they are. I went back through the posts and didn't find a link to your poll. I would ask, what was the exact question posed? What definition of "scientist" was used? Did the "scientists" include undergraduates in social sciences? Were they all Ph Ds in hard sciences? I doubt it. 
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 09:32:33 AM by jpn of Seattle » Logged

What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
scripto
Newbie
*

Karma: +7/-6
Posts: 38



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2007, 10:21:33 AM »

Quote
This is Discovery Institute's response to the PBS special.

Why didn't they participate in the Nova special?

I know why I would not.  Because it is generally unwise to participate in a documentary who's purpose is to promote a viewpoint opposite your own.  It would be like shooting your own foot.

Oh, I see. NOVA is a show about science

Quote
Quote
Quote
PBS wrongly claims that Tiktaalik is "one of the most vivid transitional forms ever discovered" and is "the latest evidence to refute intelligent design."
A centerpiece of "Judgment Day's" attack on ID is the fossil Tiktaalik, which allegedly shows fish evolving into amphibians. It's not clear why this would "refute" ID because ID is not incompatible with universal common ancestry. Regardless, Tiktaalik is not very impressive as a transitional form because it does not document the key aspect of the alleged fish-to-amphibian evolutionary transition: the transformation of fins into feet. For more information on why the finlike fin of Tiktaalik does not explain how feet evolved, see:


Here's Casey Luskins attempted response where he is super skeptical of Tiktaalik being transitional. Good thing he wasn't super duper skeptical or the entire field of paleontology would have to be abandoned. Did you actually read that? It's as ridiculous as expecting the malarial plasmodium to evolve hands and wave to you.

I read it and didn't find the part you find ridiculous.  I find those who infer that the fossil is a transitional speculating too much about vague similarities.  In any case the fossils tell us nothing about how they came to exist.  This is the same old story of people who see something as true the things they want to be true.  It is an elegant and fortunate thing about this historical science that is not required to follow the scientific method of experiment and repetition.  We have no practical way to falsify it and no practical way to confirm it.  It is like a painting where the artist gets to make up the narrative.

So the fact that this fossil was found in strata as predicted doesn't set off a light bulb or two over your head? And the fact that the rest of the proto-tetrapod fossils were found in a progressive sequence that can be independently confirmed by other dating methods doesn't seem like a compelling arguement for descent with modification to you? You, of all people, know that the geological column is well established. What alternative hypothesis better fits the observed evidence?

Quote
Quote
By the way, why did the DI boys need their own counsel to  protect their interests. The plaintiff's witnesses surely didn't.

Discovery Institute joined the defense team but then parted ways over disagreements with the legal strategy.  That is why Discovery had attorneys up until the beginning of the trial phase.

Sure. They're better lawyers than scientists. They knew they couldn't make a case. There isn't one. There is no "theory" of Intelligent Design.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 05:26:49 AM by scripto » Logged

3.5 billion years from a puddle of goo
daedalus 2.0
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +68/-397
Posts: 1,145



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: November 19, 2007, 04:32:03 PM »

jpn, you are rehashing old points.  As far as convincing the scientific community contrary to your assertions scepticism over Materialistic explanations are holding its own.

Here are the current standings from survey data:

In the scientific community:

Survey of Scientists Finds A Stability of Faith in God

More recent surveys that look uniformally across all scientific including a 2005 Gallup survey shows that less than 27% of the scientific community accept the materialist narrative of Darwinian Evolution by only material causes.

Surveys on Evolution


It's amazing what you can learn from polls:

Creationism -- that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years

39% of the people polled are definately idiots
27% are probably idiots
16% are probably not idiots
15% are definately not idiots
3%  don't know if they're idiots

Now, the valuable poll would be to then poll the people in the 15%, since you can rule out the value of anything the other people have to say.


edit: btw here is the comparison of the Larson poll:

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists 
Belief in personal God        1914                    1933                   1998
Personal belief                   27.7                   15                       7.0
Personal disbelief               52.7                   68                        72.2
Doubt or agnosticism          20.9                   17                        20.8
 
Belief in human immortality  1914 1933 1998
Personal belief                    35.2    18    7.9
Personal disbelief                25.4    53    76.7
Doubt or agnosticism           43.7    29    23.3
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 04:41:15 PM by daedalus 2.0 » Logged

\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
Reasoned Faith
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: November 19, 2007, 06:24:55 PM »


edit: btw here is the comparison of the Larson poll:

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists 
Belief in personal God        1914                    1933                   1998
Personal belief                   27.7                   15                       7.0
Personal disbelief               52.7                   68                        72.2
Doubt or agnosticism          20.9                   17                        20.8
 
Belief in human immortality  1914 1933 1998
Personal belief                    35.2    18    7.9
Personal disbelief                25.4    53    76.7
Doubt or agnosticism           43.7    29    23.3


From the looks of things your puny 550 or so member Academy is becoming a closed society out of step with the broader community.
Logged
daedalus 2.0
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +68/-397
Posts: 1,145



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: November 19, 2007, 08:07:15 PM »

Is that the DI/Creationist spin on this? Roll Eyes laugh

Oh, RF, you are precious!
Logged

\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
Reasoned Faith
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +146/-165
Posts: 893


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: November 19, 2007, 08:21:09 PM »

Just my observation.  550 people in a closed society by invitation only hardly represents the whole.  It is priceless that these society members are termed the "greater" scientists.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 08:23:33 PM by Reasoned Faith » Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.089 seconds with 24 queries.