Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Please read the 2002 Feb. First presidency message. It states that the 1909 statement represents the current official teachings of the church in regards to evolution. I not only countered, I did it with the First Presidency.

Sigh...  I am going to have to agree with Vort.  We have shown a very clear example of General Authorities disagreeing on the subject. The First Presidency listening to the arguments, pondering it and declaring that it did not matter as long a we all agree that it was with Adam, that God set things in motion.

Yet Rob Osborn demands "his interpretation" of that that means is the official doctrine. 

Clearly this is a waste of time

 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

But it's not science... I don't know why you keep trying to call a cat a dog.  All this does it hurt your pro-ID argument.  

 

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But it is...

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Honestly, folks, Rob Osborn's mind is not merely shut. It's hermetically sealed. None of your arguments will change his mind, because he already knows The Truth®. Let him believe what he wants. No skin off anyone else's nose. Who knows? He might yet have something of value to offer on other topics. In the meantime, let him be content in his sure knowledge that he knows Science. Whatever.

The thing is that we side with him more than he realizes.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The link doesn't have a peer reviewed article in it.  The link in the link doesn't.  The link in the link in the link doesn't.  And I'm not going to chase this rabbit any further.  If you want me to take you serious here, please provide some actual evidence.  Until then this is going no where and I should be focusing on work.

Yeah, Im getting tired of your arrogance on the issue. Good day.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Sigh...  I am going to have to agree with Vort.  We have shown a very clear example of General Authorities disagreeing on the subject. The First Presidency listening to the arguments, pondering it and declaring that it did not matter as long a we all agree that it was with Adam, that God set things in motion.

Yet Rob Osborn demands "his interpretation" of that that means is the official doctrine. 

Clearly this is a waste of time

 

You can ignore the 2002 clarification, thats fine. I already know, thats all that matters to me.

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You can ignore the 2002 clarification, thats fine. I already know, thats all that matters to me.

I did not ignore it...  It simply doesn't cancel what went before.  But hey "you know" so hermetically lock that in so when you hear other people who are just as intelligent, just as spiritual (if not more like our GAs) plug your fingers in your ears and go "nyah nyah nyah"

As for the rest of us we will know that you are not here to discuss or learn, you are here for an echo chamber and when that fails to blindly charge ahead without understanding what anyone else is saying, or considering why, smart and spiritual people might not agree with you...  Because hey "you know"

But as for me I am done trying to have any kind of discussion with you.

 

[MarginOfError]

Oy, took a long time to read all this. 

Let me add a true story from work today.

I work in a laboratory that analyzes substances that are highly regulated and monitored under very strict controls. We're talking regulations exceeded only by nuclear materials. 

One of the groups in the lab recently decided they wanted to use a part from a different manufacturer in one of our instruments. In order to make a change to our instrument configuration, we are required to collect data that demonstrates non inferiority to the original part. This data must be abail able for review should the government request it.

This group wrote up a test protocol,  ran their trial, gathered their data, and recorded in writing that the results showed no evidence of a difference, and were so convincing that they could even terminate their trial early.

They ran this trial last June. This week, their report ended up on my desk because a problem was discovered in the new parts that could trigger a non compliance review. As a trained statistician, I looked at a plot of the data and immediately recognized that the results returned by these two parts would show a statistically significant difference. When I did a formal analysis, I found overwhelming evidence that the statement made by the laboratory group cannot be supported by the data.

This prompted me to ask the laboratory group why they hadn't involved me, their statistician in neither the design nor the analysis of the data. Their response was that they didn't want to have to deal with the potential complications or revisions that would be required if the results did not reflect the outcome they desired. They didn't want a scientific inquiry. They wanted something that let them claim they had performed a scientific inquiry.

Why am I telling you this story? Because that approach to science is the same approach Intelligent Design employs. Namely, select the conclusion, then create a scientific looking presentation to justify it. 

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I did not ignore it...  It simply doesn't cancel what went before.  But hey "you know" so hermetically lock that in so when you hear other people who are just as intelligent, just as spiritual (if not more like our GAs) plug your fingers in your ears and go "nyah nyah nyah"

As for the rest of us we will know that you are not here to discuss or learn, you are here for an echo chamber and when that fails to blindly charge ahead without understanding what anyone else is saying, or considering why, smart and spiritual people might not agree with you...  Because hey "you know"

But as for me I am done trying to have any kind of discussion with you.

 

Have a good night.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Oy, took a long time to read all this. 

Let me add a true story from work today.

I work in a laboratory that analyzes substances that are highly regulated and monitored under very strict controls. We're talking regulations exceeded only by nuclear materials. 

One of the groups in the lab recently decided they wanted to use a part from a different manufacturer in one of our instruments. In order to make a change to our instrument configuration, we are required to collect data that demonstrates non inferiority to the original part. This data must be abail able for review should the government request it.

This group wrote up a test protocol,  ran their trial, gathered their data, and recorded in writing that the results showed no evidence of a difference, and were so convincing that they could even terminate their trial early.

They ran this trial last June. This week, their report ended up on my desk because a problem was discovered in the new parts that could trigger a non compliance review. As a trained statistician, I looked at a plot of the data and immediately recognized that the results returned by these two parts would show a statistically significant difference. When I did a formal analysis, I found overwhelming evidence that the statement made by the laboratory group cannot be supported by the data.

This prompted me to ask the laboratory group why they hadn't involved me, their statistician in neither the design nor the analysis of the data. Their response was that they didn't want to have to deal with the potential complications or revisions that would be required if the results did not reflect the outcome they desired. They didn't want a scientific inquiry. They wanted something that let them claim they had performed a scientific inquiry.

Why am I telling you this story? Because that approach to science is the same approach Intelligent Design employs. Namely, select the conclusion, then create a scientific looking presentation to justify it. 

Sounds like how evolutionists do things. Thanks for the story.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Why am I telling you this story? Because that approach to science is the same approach Intelligent Design employs. Namely, select the conclusion, then create a scientific looking presentation to justify it. 

Perfectly said. 

[MarginOfError]

31 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Sounds like how evolutionists do things. Thanks for the story.

So you're going with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense. Classy.

[Guest Godless]

13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

So you're going with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense. Classy.

A pretty accurate summary of most of this discussion, actually.

[Blackmarch]

evolution is pretty much about at the point that black holes are. intelligent design can both work within or without evolution (altho i have no idea how to support an argument that totally dispenses with evolution)

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

So you're going with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense. Classy.

You kinda have to do that in the face of ignorance.

[Guest Godless]

21 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You kinda have to do that in the face of ignorance.

The only ignorance here is your ignorance of some very basic scientific facts.

FACT: Biological evolution exists. The science behind it, while not perfect, is more than sound enough to shape our modern understanding of the natural world. This fact is also directly responsible for many of the advancements in modern medicine that we've seen over the last couple of centuries. 

FACT: Biological evolution and abiogenisis are not the same thing. The fact that we can't definitively explain the origin of organic life does not disprove evolution. 

FACT: Evolution and ID theory are not necessarily incompatible. It's probably safe to say that a vast majority of ID-promoting scientists accept at the very least the basic principles of evolutionary theory. It's puzzling, therefore, that you do not.

These are not debatable opinions. They are facts. If you can't accept that, then you don't understand science at its most basic level and this discussion is over.

P.S. - It's very telling to me that the ranks of people who accept evolutionary theory are a mixed bag of theists, atheists, and religious non-theists, while those who reject evolutionary theory are always theists, and almost always biblical literalists to some extent. So where then does the confirmation bias lie?

[anatess2]

Guys, ID aside, I'm truly just dumbfounded that a group of college educated adults cannot get an agreement on what constitutes science,

I mean, I know that the American education system have challenges, but c'mon... 

What makes this even more ridiculous is everybody involved in the discussion believe in an intelligent designer except for one - our resident atheist who is very easy to spot because he calls himself Godless.  You would think this would be an easy topic.

Edited January 20, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

21 minutes ago, Godless said:

The only ignorance here is your ignorance of some very basic scientific facts.

FACT: Biological evolution exists. The science behind it, while not perfect, is more than sound enough to shape our modern understanding of the natural world. This fact is also directly responsible for many of the advancements in modern medicine that we've seen over the last couple of centuries. 

FACT: Biological evolution and abiogenisis are not the same thing. The fact that we can't definitively explain the origin of organic life does not disprove evolution. 

FACT: Evolution and ID theory are not necessarily incompatible. It's probably safe to say that a vast majority of ID-promoting scientists accept at the very least the basic principles of evolutionary theory. It's puzzling, therefore, that you do not.

These are not debatable opinions. They are facts. If you can't accept that, then you don't understand science at its most basic level and this discussion is over.

P.S. - It's very telling to me that the ranks of people who accept evolutionary theory are a mixed bag of theists, atheists, and religious non-theists, while those who reject evolutionary theory are always theists, and almost always biblical literalists to some extent. So where then does the confirmation bias lie?

There are some facts about evolution. Like I said before- we readily see micro evolutionary changes within specues. These are well documented and I readily accept it. Thats not the "evolution" we are speaking about. We are discussing the major macro evolutionary changes and if evolutionary theory is correct. Its a fact that no direct observance of evolution from a common ancestor has taken place. Its not even testable. But, Im fine with calling it "science" nevertheless. What bothers me is that any inferrence in science discussion that leads to intelligent design and suddenly its a drug out debate back and forth about stupid things like "peer review". Who gives a crud! Lets discuss the merits of all angles including intelligent design in a science discussion instead of getting all wrapped up in defining the bias of scientific philosophy.

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There are some facts about evolution. Like I said before- we readily see micro evolutionary changes within specues. These are well documented and I readily accept it. Thats not the "evolution" we are speaking about. We are discussing the major macro evolutionary changes and if evolutionary theory is correct. Its a fact that no direct observance of evolution from a common ancestor has taken place. Its not even testable. But, Im fine with calling it "science" nevertheless. What bothers me is that any inferrence in science discussion that leads to intelligent design and suddenly its a drug out debate back and forth about stupid things like "peer review". Who gives a crud! Lets discuss the merits of all angles including intelligent design in a science discussion instead of getting all wrapped up in defining the bias of scientific philosophy.

*Bangs head on table*

You can't have a science debated on a non-science topic.

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Guys, ID aside, I'm truly just dumbfounded that a group of college educated adults cannot get an agreement on what constitutes science,

I mean, I know that the American education system have challenges, but c'mon... 

What makes this even more ridiculous is everybody involved in the discussion believe in an intelligent designer except for one - our resident atheist who is very easy to spot because he calls himself Godless.  You would think this would be an easy topic.

I have watched the wholevunfolding of the ID movement and I was really excited about it because I was like "yeah, finally we are going to use science to infer purpose and dedign for our existance." But sadly, since then it never took hold and Im sitting around waiting for the next motion.

[Guest Godless]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Guys, ID aside, I'm truly just dumbfounded that a group of college educated adults cannot get an agreement on what constitutes science,

I mean, I know that the American education system have challenges, but c'mon... 

What makes this even more ridiculous is everybody involved in the discussion believe in an intelligent designer except for one - our resident atheist who is very easy to spot because he calls himself Godless.  You would think this would be an easy topic.

Even more ironic, I'm not college educated. I had to learn about evolution (outside of the fraction of a chapter dedicated to it in high school) by reading books in my free time and reaching my own conclusions.

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

*Bangs head on table*

You can't have a science debated on a non-science topic.

How is it not a non-science topic? Tell you what lets change it up a bit and talk about probabilities of AI creating useful information on its own. Thats science isnt it?

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

How is it not a non-science topic? 

Because the idea of a deity cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.  

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

How is it not a non-science topic? Tell you what lets change it up a bit and talk about probabilities of AI creating useful information on its own. Thats science isnt it?

Yes, that's science.  Why?  Because, like any programmer (yeay! Intelligent designer!) can tell you, we can program a computer and measure the useful information you can take out of it,  This is different from ID because we can SEE the programmer as a reality and not have to prove there is one.

[estradling75]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Guys, ID aside, I'm truly just dumbfounded that a group of college educated adults cannot get an agreement on what constitutes science,

Take a closer look... One person is in disagreement on what constitutes science...  The rest of us pretty much agree.

 

[Rob Osborn]

31 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Because the idea of a deity cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.  

Not trying to prove deity through science. Its trying to prove that nature is designed, not just a random product of chaos.

[Rob Osborn]

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, that's science.  Why?  Because, like any programmer (yeay! Intelligent designer!) can tell you, we can program a computer and measure the useful information you can take out of it,  This is different from ID because we can SEE the programmer as a reality and not have to prove there is one.

Do you think its a science inquiry to find out if strong AI can be developed from computer programs?