Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, does that mean the highly traveled road of Catholics were right this whole time and our lowly less traveled road of Mormonism is false?

No. Next question. 

[unixknight]

Just now, Carborendum said:

There really isn't a flaw in the theoretical system.  But your friend seems to be missing two things.

1) The people participating in the "flawless" system are still flawed humans (much like the Church is true, but the people in it are flawed).
2) Just because it was peer reviewed isn't supposed to mean it is necessarily fact.  It simply means that a certain level of care was taken in the process of coming to a certain conclusion.

Yeah, the system, in theory, is great.  As I said earlier the issues lie in how it's applied.  I've said the same things to him you just did, and he responds with great offense at the idea that any scientist could have any character flaws whatsoever that might impact the peer review system, or make any mistakes with it.

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No. Next question. 

So, its fair to say that just because a majority thinks its so doesnt necessarily mean so.

[NeedleinA]

 ....

[Jane_Doe]

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The peer review stuff is a bunch of crap.

I'm sorry, but these type comments are very low-balled and gives the appearance of not being interested in listening.  For the sake of civilized discussion, I'm going not going to respond to any more of them.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

So, its fair to say that just because a majority thinks its so doesnt necessarily mean so.

 In some cases. In some cases the majority thinks something happened because it did. The majority of historians think Jesus existed. The majority of historians think the holocaust happened. The majority of doctors think smoking cigarettes is bad for you. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Yeah, the system, in theory, is great.  As I said earlier the issues lie in how it's applied.  I've said the same things to him you just did, and he responds with great offense at the idea that any scientist could have any character flaws whatsoever that might impact the peer review system, or make any mistakes with it.

The same could be said of scientific method.  The method in theory is fine.  But with a flawed individual who has determined a conclusion prior to the trial will usually see what he wants to see.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, its fair to say that just because a majority thinks its so doesnt necessarily mean so.

Science and theology are two different things.  Science has a specific method, can only address certain questions, and does not refer to revelation.  Theology is very different in that regard.

[unixknight]

Just now, Carborendum said:

The same could be said of scientific method.  The method in theory is fine.  But with a flawed individual who has determined a conclusion prior to the trial will usually see what he wants to see.

That's very true, and goes well with my earlier comments about Evolution Theory.  The Scientific Method is a great system but it's not foolproof.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm sorry, but these type comments are very low-balled and gives the appearance of not being interested in listening.  For the sake of civilized discussion, I'm going not going to respond to any more of them.

Thats alright because the moment you say "peer review" in a discussion about evolution and ID I already know to go in pure defense mode as that is a known tactic of ID critics. At that point neither side makes any headway, it just becomes tit for tat.

[Guest]

I believe we're experiencing duplicate posting again.  I've noticed it for the past couple of days.  Everyone, please be judicious on the use of the "submit" button.  If you know you hit it, but it is just not working, try copying everything, then reloading the webpage.  If the post shows up, great.  If not, paste into a new window.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thats alright because the moment you say "peer review" in a discussion about evolution and ID I already know to go in pure defense mode as that is a known tactic of ID critics. At that point neither side makes any headway, it just becomes tit for tat.

It doesn't have to be that way.   For example, I am a proponent of ID and a fan of peer review.  

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 In some cases. In some cases the majority thinks something happened because it did. The majority of historians think Jesus existed. The majority of historians think the holocaust happened. The majority of doctors think smoking cigarettes is bad for you. 

But we actually have photos of the holocaust. We also have tremendous evidence for Jesus. What kind of evidence is there that life arose on its own in an unguided, unitelligent process in nature? None!

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

It doesn't have to be that way.   For example, I am a proponent of ID and a fan of peer review.  

How are you a proponent of ID?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

How are you a proponent of ID?

Rob,

I'm really having difficulty figuring out what your position really is.  Could you please explain

1) What you believe ID actually says.
2) What you believe organic evolution actually says.
3) What you believe peer review actually is.
4) What you find to be strong and weak arguments in each.
5) What you think many here (who are apparently on the opposite side as you) believe about evolution.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Guest

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

How are you a proponent of ID?

I believe in intelligent design.  I have said that several times on this thread already.  

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Another problem is that it begs the question of the origins of life.

I was also thinking that the atheist side of evolution doesn't like the "alien seeding" idea because it means that an intelligence was required to start life.  Then that opens the door to God being that intelligence.  Then...

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im just saying that its a common tactic by round earthers to use the peer review line because they already know its their side that is the one who does the peer review.

I made a small change in the wording of your original quote to make a point. In science, majority consensus determines scientific truth. By denying one of the fundamental concepts that drives everything we know about the biological world, you are giving yourself the credibility of the flat earth society. And it certainly doesn't help that you keep lumping abiogenisis (a highly theoretical field) with biological evolution (a widely-accepted and extensively researched/documented scientific principle).

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, its fair to say that just because a majority thinks its so doesnt necessarily mean so.

Religion vs. Science. Apples and oranges. Or to put it another way:

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Science and theology are two different things.  Science has a specific method, can only address certain questions, and does not refer to revelation.  Theology is very different in that regard.

 

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I was also thinking that the atheist side of evolution doesn't like the "alien seeding" idea because it means that an intelligence was required to start life.  Then that opens the door to God being that intelligence.  Then...

The alien seeding theory doesn't imply direct/intelligent intent. Any organic (or inorganic, for that matter) material that enters the Earth's atmosphere is, by definition, considered alien. This theory suggests the possibility that, in an entirely random event, an asteroid or other celestial object struck the Earth and that it just happened to have some sort of lifeform (most likely a single-celled organism) inhabiting it. Granted, this only answers the question of where life on Earth came from, not where the asteroid-hitching lifeform came from. And ultimately this theory has very little, if any, evidence backing it. It's merely been stated as something that's theoretically possible.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Godless

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I made a small change in the wording of your original quote to make a point. In science, majority consensus determines scientific truth. By denying one of the fundamental concepts that drives everything we know about the biological world, you are giving yourself the credibility of the flat earth society. And it certainly doesn't help that you keep lumping abiogenisis (a highly theoretical field) with biological evolution (a widely-accepted and extensively researched/documented scientific principle).

Religion vs. Science. Apples and oranges. Or to put it another way:

 

 

The alien seeding theory doesn't imply direct/intelligent intent. Any organic (or inorganic, for that matter) material that enters the Earth's atmosphere is, by definition, considered alien. This theory suggests the possibility that, in an entirely random event, an asteroid or other celestial object struck the Earth and that it just happened to have some sort of lifeform (most likely a single-celled organism) inhabiting it. Granted, this only answers the question of where life on Earth came from, not where the asteroid-hitching lifeform came from. And ultimately this theory has very little, if any, evidence backing it. It's merely been stated as something that's theoretically possible.

Please dont misquote me. Thanks.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I believe in intelligent design.  I have said that several times on this thread already.  

Just not the science behind it?

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Just not the science behind it?

There is no science behind it, because the question of a designer can not be tested with the scientific method.  Likewise, science can't prove Jesus is the Son of God.  Not all questions can be answered with science, and not all beliefs originate with science.  I do believe many things not proven by science, including the existence of a creator named Jesus Christ. 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

There is no science behind it, because the question of a designer can not be tested with the scientific method.  Likewise, science can't prove Jesus is the Son of God.  Not all questions can be answered with science, and not all beliefs originate with science.  I do believe many things not proven by science, including the existence of a creator named Jesus Christ. 

Lets just agree to disagree. I believe the question of design in nature can be observed and tested with scientific method. You dont, thats fine, lets move on.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Rob,

I'm really having difficulty figuring out what your position really is.  Could you please explain

1) What you believe ID actually says.
2) What you believe organic evolution actually says.
3) What you believe peer review actually is.
4) What you find to be strong and weak arguments in each.
5) What you think many here (who are apparently on the opposite side as you) believe about evolution.

1. The standard definition- "Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "

2. Im gonna rephash this a bit because we are speaking in terms of lifes origins here. Generally, the theory of evolution has all species coming from a common ancestor and from that common ancestor it was evolved from nonlife matter.

3. Peer review can mean many different things in context. Generally it refers to a common acceptance of your paper or works from your peers in that field. But, in this field its generally swayed automatically against intelligent design theory. ID theory papers and studies have gained acceptance in the peer review from time to time but its far from common.

4. Not sure what you are asking. If you are referring to ID and evolution then here is my response- I dont really see any weak arguments in ID theory. I find it very refined and worked out by established scientists who really know their stuff. The strong point of ID in my opinion is that it directly counters evolutions weakest point on the origin of life and how DNA is understood.

With evolution, its strongest point is micro evolution or change/varrience in species. We all are witnesses to variety amongst species. Its a no brainer, it exists. One of its weakest points besides explaining how life first arose, is how to explain how different species all come from a common ancestor. We cant observe it, we cant test it, it just sits there on paper as an ideaology. Science has no real answer here and because we cant observe or test it, it really shouldnt even qualify as a scientific theory. Its just a philosophy at this point in my opinion.

5. Im not sure what anyone in here really believes in honestly. Jane doe says she believes in ID but then argues against it scientifically. Kind of a paradox to me.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

1. The standard definition- "Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "

2. Im gonna rephash this a bit because we are speaking in terms of lifes origins here. Generally, the theory of evolution has all species coming from a common ancestor and from that common ancestor it was evolved from nonlife matter.

3. Peer review can mean many different things in context. Generally it refers to a common acceptance of your paper or works from your peers in that field. But, in this field its generally swayed automatically against intelligent design theory. ID theory papers and studies have gained acceptance in the peer review from time to time but its far from common.

4. Not sure what you are asking. If you are referring to ID and evolution then here is my response- I dont really see any weak arguments in ID theory. I find it very refined and worked out by established scientists who really know their stuff. The strong point of ID in my opinion is that it directly counters evolutions weakest point on the origin of life and how DNA is understood.

With evolution, its strongest point is micro evolution or change/varrience in species. We all are witnesses to variety amongst species. Its a no brainer, it exists. One of its weakest points besides explaining how life first arose, is how to explain how different species all come from a common ancestor. We cant observe it, we cant test it, it just sits there on paper as an ideaology. Science has no real answer here and because we cant observe or test it, it really shouldnt even qualify as a scientific theory. Its just a philosophy at this point in my opinion.

I respect you for stating your definitions and thank you for them.  Your definitions are different than those used in the scientific community.  

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Jane doe says she believes in ID but then argues against it scientifically. Kind of a paradox to me.

This is incorrect.  I do not argue for or against ID from a scientific POV because it's not a scientific question. 

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I respect you for stating your definitions and thank you for them.  Your definitions are different than those used in the scientific community.  

This is incorrect.  I do not argue for or against ID from a scientific POV because it's not a scientific question. 

At least point out where I am wrong. You cant just give a blanket statement like that. You make it sound like I have ID theory erong when I copied it word for word from a leading ID site.