Science versus Intelligent Design: A reader explains

Do they leave experimentation and verification to others while claiming they themselves aren’t responsible for such activity?

Excellent summary. I agree on all points. This isn't question of wheater or not some ID-type idea is valid, it is question "Is it science?"

And they fail to show the scientific controversy, only ignorant one.

Wow.

Man, you have covered the mechanizations of true believers ( those who have everything on their side, saith the lord) with the naked light of day. It is good to see.

May you be cited and quoted widely.

I'm curious about this thing I often hear about creationists busing in hecklers. This seems like something that could be attacked as a distortion or lie, should a creationist choose to do so. Has this happened in recent history? Has it been documented in a particular debate, and did the hecklers truly lend significant support to the creationist?

You don’t need a federal judge to tell you.

Of course creationists have to use subversion to be heard. The Darwinati control the scientific world, doing everything and anything to prevent THE TRUTH from being heard.

gag.

Do they engage in word games that attempt to change the definitions of science in order to include the supernatural?

Actually, they do not. You and other evolutionists, do in fact engage in such word games, to protect your cherished evolutionary faith instead of allowing science to proceed in whatever direction the evidence may ultimately lead.

FL blathers... ... evolutionists, do in fact engage in such word games... However, science is defined by the scientific method, not the religion of materialism/naturalism.

FL: However, science is defined by the scientific method, not the religion of materialism/naturalism. FL :)

cronk, please give us some examples of "Darwinist control" of the scientific world.

Just two or three specific examples would be very interesting.

Also, cronk, just what do you think the "scientific world" is, who is in it, what does it do, and how, exactly, do "Darwinists" control it?

Mike Elzinga: It doesn’t require a federal judge to figure out if ID/Creationism is a science or not.

cronk: Of course creationists have to use subversion to be heard. The Darwinati control the scientific world, doing everything and anything to prevent THE TRUTH from being heard. gag.

Actually, they do not.

— FL

You and other evolutionists, do in fact engage in such word games,

to protect your cherished evolutionary faith

instead of allowing science to proceed in whatever direction the evidence may ultimately lead.

However, science is defined by the scientific method,

not the religion of materialism/naturalism.

So, what do you mean by the term “scientific method”, hmm?

I was being facetious, thus the (gag). Considering the mindset of our creationist friends, I was way too close to reality.
I should have been more careful, apologies to all.

cronk: I was being facetious, thus the (gag). Considering the mindset of our creationist friends, I was way too close to reality. I should have been more careful, apologies to all.

FL:

So, what do you mean by the term “scientific method”, hmm?

I was hoping you'd ask about that. This is the scientific method: “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” Agreed? FL

“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

FL offers the definition of science that was put into the Kansas Science standards by the ID creationists, and later taken out when good standards were reinstated. The kicker is that they substituted, more or less, the phrase "more adequate explanations" for "natural explanations", which is what the current standards say. In numerous ways, the ID creationists made it clear that the word "adequate" would leave room for supernatural explanations in science. This is why this was such an important issue to resist, and eventually resolve.

The stated goal of many is to paint the scientific community as the Darwinati who control the scientific world as evil and the creationati who control the unscientific world as inherently good. Us versus them, good versus bad, damned the consequences.

I did find one anomalous photograph in the word search using “morlocks”, it was this. Make of it what you will. I wonder what the bunny guy would think of it?

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

FL:

So, what do you mean by the term “scientific method”, hmm?

I was hoping you'd ask about that. This is the scientific method: “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” Agreed? FL

I have presented the idea that using vague (or supernatural) ideas in a hypothesis does not make the hypothesis non-scientific.

Mike Elzinga: So I don't feel it necessary to apologize for understandings I have achieved by "non-scientific" means. Maybe someday science will enhance that appreciation, but for now, it is "unscientific".

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

"The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it. This is done by making observations and collecting data about natural events and conditions, then organising and explaining them with hypotheses, theories, models, laws, and principles."

Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.... Scientific explanation must meet criteria that govern the repeatability of observations and experiments. The effect of these criteria is to insure that scientific explanations about the world are open to criticism and that they will be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrant.

I may have put my words in a wrong order. I am not a native speaker in English language.

Mike Elzinga,

Your comparisons are superb, cogent, and easily understood by the public and reporters. Each question is a little harsh light that needs to be shone on the IDcreationist movement. Outstanding work!

***************

FL - where is the peer-reviewed research done by scientists who are relying on “more adequate explanations” instead of “natural explanations?”

Before we teach kids your skewed definition of how science works, shouldn't we have some examples to show them? In fact, shouldn't we be able to show that most scientists look for "more adequate explanations" rather than "natural explanations?"

Or do you want kids to learn that science is done your way, when it isn't done that way at all? Why would you want me to lie to my students?

Time to go enjoy the 3.25" of crystalline precip before it melts . . . later!

Now, let’s compare my given definition of science:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

Do real scientists claim that mainstream scientists are engaged in a united, worldwide conspiracy to conceal evidence against mainstream theories, and then immediately refute themselves by quoting mainstream scientists publicly discussing current problems and issues with mainstream theories?

How about instead of "natural", we say that science is based on inferences made from repeatable verifiable observations.

The problem with using the word "natural" is figuring out what that word actually means.

Henry

FL quotes Mike Elzinga-- "Do they [ID/creationists] engage in word games that attempt to change the definitions of science in order to include the supernatural?"

and responds, "Actually, they do not. You and other evolutionists, do in fact engage in such word games..."

I have no interest in communicating directly with FL, but for the benefit of lurkers, I'd like to mention that I once pointed out to FL that he was conflating evolution (i.e., descent with modification) with abiogenesis (i.e., the origin of life.) I asked him please to stop, because it simply derailed the thread and made it impossible to reach any conclusion. At the same time, Stanton asked FL politely to explain what logical connection FL saw between the origin of life and descent with modification. (Stanton used simpler words, but that was the gist of his question.)

FL totally ignored Stanton's post, which Stanton repeated and which I also quoted. FL replied to me that he had no intention whatsoever of stopping his conflation of evolution and abiogenesis, and cited a biology text that had a short segment on abiogenesis as "proof" that abiogenesis and evolution were the same thing-- which is absolutely not the case. Darwin himself made it clear that evolution applied only after life began on earth. That has never changed in the 148 years since the first edition of The Origin of Species.

I would like any lurkers out there to understand just how hypocritical FL is being here. He is claiming that it's the scientists who indulge in word games-- in the face of the very people whom he has insulted with his bogus redefinitions!

If you want to know why scientists end up despising creationists, take a look at FL.

Mike Elzinga: I wasn’t criticizing your point; rather I felt you raised a good issue indirectly. I had hoped I had elaborated on it approvingly. (And my Finnish is not very good either. :-) )

Still, I feel that you didn’t answer my question. Is it allowed to use even supernaturally sounding concepts in hypotheses?

Considering the mindset of our creationist friends, I was way too close to reality.

— cronk

I speak reasonably fluent French, and what I've noticed is that when there's a solid object to refer to, the language doesn't make much difference. It's funny to Americans that the French use the same word-- baguette-- for a long loaf of bread and a conductor's baton. But in practice, it's easy to see which one people mean.

I've been playing around more with the idea that the supernatural has become defined in practice as things science can't find. We've all become used to the idea that we're surrounded by, and even composed of, things we can't see, from subatomic particles to bacteria. Nobody thinks of them as supernatural-- although in ages past, the actions of bacteria were often given supernatural explanations.

I suspect that if the seraphim themselves came flying into, say, PZ Myers's lab on their six wings and announced, "Hey, we're real. Check us out," that within a short time, angels would be just one more species-- maybe a highly evolved hominid or another living, flying dinosaur, related to birds. And the creationists would be insisting, "No, no, there are REAL angels. We can't see them, but they answer our prayers...."

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

bjm:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

Unfortunately for ID none of these words mean what they want them to mean; Observation does not mean; goddidit. Hypothesis testing does not mean; we think goddidit. Measurement does not mean; goddidit so many times. Experimentation does not mean; obviously goddidit so we don't need to do any work. Logical argument does not mean; obviously goddidit. Theory building does not mean; goddidit so we don't need to replicate your pathetic level of detail...... If you look at how these words are applied scientifically then ID will never be elligible - even a judge could see that.

Before we teach kids your skewed definition of how science works

The problem with using the word “natural” is figuring out what that word actually means.

Before we teach kids your skewed definition of how science works, shouldn’t we have some examples to show them?

The only way to get around this fact, is for you evolutionists to play word games and arbitrarily injert “naturalistic gatekeeper” wording into the definition of science...

But I have shown in this thread that the Kansas 2005 definition of science is no word game. It fits the scientific method perfectly, and it perfectly fits and in fact exceeds in rigor and detail, the acceptable Biology-Online.org definition of science. Both definitions clearly show that the scientific method defines science, not the religion of materialism and naturalism. I await your specific refutation of the above factual analysis. Perhaps some other posters could help you out if necessary, mmmmm.

On February 13, 2007, a New Kansas Board replaced the November 8, 2005 Standards with new materialistic standards that permit only material causes to explain natural phenomena and that allow no criticisms of evolutionary theory.

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes.

It should be noted that the proposed change seeks only natural or materialistic explanations rather than more adequate ones.

Les Lane:

The only way to get around this fact, is for you evolutionists to play word games and arbitrarily injert “naturalistic gatekeeper” wording into the definition of science...

Collecting definitions of science is hardly an insightful road to understanding. If "natural" is an unjustified "gatekeeper" perhaps you can enlighten us by citing a piece of modern research that employs non-naturalistic methods or which draws non-naturalistic conclusions other than by extrapolating (hypothesizing) from naturalistic methods.

PvM: Well, uh... now... you see... Poof...

FL is a Biblical literalist: his view on such things as the age of the earth and the rise of species is that the more adequate explanation is the one that is laid out in Genesis.

Seeking natural (material) explanations is what science has been doing for about 500 years: making this limitation is the key move that allowed science to become what it is today. Nowhere, ever, has a non-material explanation for a natural phenomena been offered, tested and found to be convincing by the scientific community: in fact, the history of science is one long story of supernatural explanations being supplanted by natural ones.

FL is a Biblical literalist: his view on such things as the age of the earth and the rise of species is that the more adequate explanation is the one that is laid out in Genesis.

— Jack Krebs

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If creotard fuckwits like FL and his odious ilk want to shove superstitious bullshit down the throats of impressionable children, why aren't their churches an adequate venue? Isn't putting intellectual hobbles on their own spawn damaging enough without them seeking to drag others' children down with them? I don't think they'd like a scientist coming to their houses of brainwashing to "teach the controversy" surrounding the idiocy of their holy texts.

FL: Csadams said,

Before we teach kids your skewed definition of how science works

Ummm, let's start there. Why do you say "skewed"? I have openly compared my proffered definition of science (Kansas 2005) to that of Biology-Online.org's definition of science. As it turned out, not only is my definition 100 percent fully compatible with Biology-Online.org's definition of sience, it actually goes much further, much more specific, much more rigorous, than Biology-Online.org's definition,. It (he Kansas 2005 definition) goes the extra mile and clarifeies terms like "hypothesis" and "theory", and reminding us all that scientific explanations about the world must be "open to criticism", which clearly implies the importance of peer-review. At this point, you'll have do a LOT more than arbitrarily, baldly, kneejerkedly, assert that "it's skewed." You now have to deal with the specific facts that have been placed on the table and RATIONALLY DEMONSTRATE, (not merely baldly assert to the choir), exactly why you believe the definition of science I offered is skewed. **** (snip) I await your specific refutation of the above factual analysis. Perhaps some other posters could help you out if necessary, mmmmm. FL :)

BTW, FL,

What do you think of Michael Behe's acceptance of common descent, or his belief that to read the Bible as a science book is silly? If you disagree on either, have you challenged him, or if not do you plan to?

...why aren’t their churches an adequate venue?

— Wolfhound

Note for Bjm: The phrase “God did it” does NOT appear in either Biology-Online.org’s definition of science NOR in the Kansas 2005 definition of science. Please re-read both. (Carefully.)

Serious question for FL - can/will you accept a(ny) scientific line of enquiry that excludes a supernatural (god) explanation? Y/N?

Also, FL, please explain how saying that your three-plank explanation is "not religious" is a demonstration of Intelligent Design's explanatory power?

bjm:

Note for Bjm: The phrase “God did it” does NOT appear in either Biology-Online.org’s definition of science NOR in the Kansas 2005 definition of science. Please re-read both. (Carefully.)

Note for FL: That may be so but it's what ID wants it to say (implicitly or explicitly).

all sides can accuse each other of playing word games till the cows come home. We both very sincerely believe that “the other side” is playing those word games, and our minds are made up.

Notes to lurkers:

1.) I am not now, and never have been, a 'he,' as my husband and children can attest.

2.) See what I mean about FL? You can't get anywhere. He (I presume) just plays more word games. Mike Elzinga has that point-- among others-- absolutely nailed.

It’s funny to Americans that the French use the same word– baguette– for a long loaf of bread and a conductor’s baton.

When French conductor Stéphane Denève raised his baton in front of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra at Roy Thomson Hall Wednesday night, it was an invitation to dance.

Creationists like FL seem to think that a scientific theory is just an explanation tacked on after experiments are completed. He forgets science is an ongoing process and that the theory must provide the foundation for generating new testable hypotheses. "Adequate explanations" that point to a supernatural entity cannot do that.

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena, explanations that are open to further testing, revision, and falsification, and while not "believed in" through faith may be accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence.

Mike Elzinga: Ah, “supernaturally sounding concepts”; I suppose it depends on what that really means. [...] Many times in scientific exploration one doesn’t know just how to define a testable concept or what would constitute evidence for a test.

However, they are not really established scientific ideas, and a reputable scientist wouldn't go to a forum in front of a naive audience to promote them. He or she would "gut it out" in the lab and with colleagues to get the ideas clarified.

So, if I understand what you are getting at, I think the English use of the word “supernatural” (above or beyond the natural) would, by definition, put it out of the reach of scientific investigation.

I am not competent to comment on what the idea of “supernatural” would connote in another language. If it has meanings in other languages which overlap what science does, I can’t say. Even my German is very rusty. Perhaps those intimately familiar with other languages could comment.

Maybe this designer hypothesis is in this stage of development. We should not criticize their choice of words, but we, most certainly, are allowed to criticize the hypothesis, since it does not present any predictions for testing.

The problem with using the word “natural” is figuring out what that word actually means.

Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses….

Serious question for FL - can/will you accept a(ny) scientific line of enquiry that excludes a supernatural (god) explanation? Y/N?

"There's nothing inherent in the scientific enterprise that requires restricting it to natural causes or natural explanations only. Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic." --chemist Dr. John Millam, May 2005 Kansas Science Standard Hearings. "There is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition in exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context. Some design theories may be inapproriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate. It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions." -- philosopher of science Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science, c2001. "To insist that postulations of past agency are inherently unscientific in the historical sciences (where the express purpose of such inquiry is to determine what happened in the past) suggests we know that no personal agent could have existed prior to humans. Not only is such an assumption intrinsically unverifiable, it seems entirely gratuitous in the absence of some non-circular account of why science should pre-suppose metaphysical naturalism." --philosopher of science Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent."

If FL thinks all the working scientists in this world have been faked-out in their understandings of science, then why isn’t he taking advantage of the clear field to a Nobel Prize for himself?

With all these stupid scientists groping around in all the wrong places, he should have no competition.

Why not build the god detector and win the race instead of wasting all his time here?

He should put his mouth where the money is.

The rational answer is necessarily a “No.” That’s my answer. Why is “No” the rational answer? Because of these three compelling, unrefuted reasons:

As it turned out, not only is my definition 100 percent fully compatible with Biology-Online.org’s definition of sience[sic], it actually goes much further, much more specific, much more rigorous, than Biology-Online.org’s definition,.

— FL

The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it. This is done by making observations and collecting data about natural events and conditions, then organising and explaining them with hypotheses, theories, models, laws, and principles. The organised body of knowledge about the material universe which can be verified or tested. A particular branch of either the process of study or the body of knowledge, such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics.

The study of the immaterial universe or non-physical reality in order to understand it. This is done by making observations and collecting data about supernatural events and conditions, then organising and explaining them with hypotheses, theories, models, laws, and principles. The organised body of knowledge about the immaterial universe which can be verified or tested. A particular branch of either the process of study or the body of knowledge, such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and theology.

Mike Elzinga,

I have clearly failed to make my point. It is not due to the (various) grammatical mistakes I tend to make. Maybe my thinking is basically flawed in some way.

I do not wish to carry on this particular exchange of messages, although I will welcome any further topics for discussion that you might propose.

We seem to agree on what constitutes science and what does not.

I found your specification for a god-detector quite detailed and complete. Even then, I will not leave an offer to build one.

Regards

Eric

FL seems like a truly despicable human being.

"Word games will NOT save you! (Tee-hee!)"

How mature.

Ever notice how modern Christian philosophy books, besides shamelessly wallowing in tedium(like FL), usually tend to present things in a really hyperbolic and cartoon-ish sort of way?

There's a reason for that.

FL and his moron brethren represent the biggest stumbling-block to progress currently facing our species.

I say give the IDers, the young-earthers, the old-earth-young-lifers, the young-earth-old-lifers, and of their friends a nice, big waste-dump where they can fill THEIR kids' heads full of horse-shit in peace,and live happily ever after, away from the evil Evolutionists and Heliocentrists.
And KEEP them there.

But before you leave for the dump, FL, please tell us all about how your Ancient Near-Eastern sky god meticulously designed the HIV Virus, the E-coli Bacterium, the Crab-louse, and those microscopic things that live in our eye-lashes.

Then, if you aren't too tongue-tied, please explain to us why an Omnipotent and Omnipresent being needs to constantly have it's fragile ego flattered by legions of bowing and scraping sycophants.

Inquiring minds want to know.

FL - you seem to be way ahead of me here so please can you give us an examples of a valid, accepted scientific investigation that resorted to a supernatural explanation - I'm having trouble with my recall? I don't want a quote that says it is possible - I can do that myself - I want an actual example of this in print please. Can you help me - remember the criteria - valid, accepted scientific investigation.

Serious question for FL - can/will you accept a(ny) scientific line of enquiry that excludes a supernatural (god) explanation? Y/N?

“There’s nothing inherent in the scientific enterprise that requires restricting it to natural causes or natural explanations only. Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic.” –chemist Dr. John Millam, May 2005 Kansas Science Standard Hearings.

FL: Stanton even directly quotes me but immediately, like instantly, changes the subject even after directly quoting me and immediately starts asking another question from an old thread (and he's still not answered every point I offered him from that old thread.)

I don’t know if the Kansas Board of Education attributed The Ohio Academy of Science (OAS) when they adopted their statement, but I could check with OAS.

— Brian McEnnis

You have never answered my request for a demonstration of the explanatory of Intelligent Design.

— Stanton

"where is the peer-reviewed research done by scientists who are relying on 'more adequate explanations' instead of 'natural explanations?' Before we teach kids your skewed definition of how science works, shouldn’t we have some examples to show them? In fact, shouldn’t we be able to show that most scientists look for “more adequate explanations” rather than “natural explanations?” Or do you want kids to learn that science is done your way, when it isn’t done that way at all? Why would you want me to lie to my students?"

Maybe FL will finally explain which came first, birds or humans? After all, Genesis 1:20 says birds came on Day 4, and Genesis 1:26 says Man came on day 6. But Genesis 2:19 says Man (Adam) was already lounging around Eden by the time God formed Birds, and presented them to Adam for Naming.

— Dave Thomas

Brian McEnnis: FL provided this definition, which some have identified as originating in the 2005 Kansas standards:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

The definition has a more ancient pedigree - it was taken from The Ohio Academy of Science's document What is Science?, adopted in April 2004. Here's the first paragraph:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena, explanations that are open to further testing, revision, and falsification, and while not "believed in" through faith may be accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence.

I don't know if the Kansas Board of Education attributed The Ohio Academy of Science (OAS) when they adopted their statement, but I could check with OAS. Meanwhile, any criticisms of the Kansas statement could probably also be leveled at the OAS version. I'm active in OAS and could forward any constructive criticisms that are sent to me at mcennis.1 at osu.edu.

explanations that are open to further testing, revision, and falsification, and while not "believed in" through faith may be accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence.

No response from Csadams. But no hurries, no worries: those crystalline precip expeditions can take a while to complete, and for evolutionits, comparing snowballs can be a lot easier than comparing definitions of science.

Gosh, and FL failed to answer my query as why he and his compatriots aren't satisfied with teaching creationism and its whore of an ugly stepsister, ID, in church. I suppose the AiG talking points would advise that ID/creationism is "science" and should be taught in science class. Clearly a falsehood but when has that ever stopped the Good Christians(tm)? I must then surmise that FL's pathetic attempt to explain to the resident scientists on this board that ID/creationism is TOO science (nanny-nanny-boo-boo!) is just another page from the playbook to try to equate superstition with an actual scientific discipline. Thus the silly word games and mental gymnastics. I repeat: Pathetic. Go brainwash your own kids whom you want to condemn to a lifetimes of ignorance and ineptitude. Leave my kids and everybody else's alone. If we want a dose of superstitious stupidity, we'll drop by on a Sunday morning, 'kay?

Wolfhound,

I'm in no way a fan of AIG, but they are at least up front in demanding that not just creationism, but specifically young-earth creationism, be taught. In fact they have publicly criticized ID's "don't ask, don't tell" approach. They are probably even more vocally critical of the designer-free phony "critical analysis" approach that is ID's latest scam.

Now would AIG encourage a YEC-OEC debate in class? My guess is "at best grudgingly."

…why is FL placing so much importance on biology-online.org’s definition of science?

I found your specification for a god-detector quite detailed and complete. Even then, I will not leave an offer to build one.

Rolf Aalberg asks:

"We may agree that science is about what is testable, but why can’t we also agree that the supernatural is untestable? Doesn’t supernatural imply non-testable? If it is testable, it is not supernatural."

That's about what I've come up with-- science can only study those things which obey natural, physical laws, and are, therefore, in principle, predictable. Supernatural events-- miracles-- are pretty much defined as events which cannot be explained by the ordinary laws of physics. If a natural explanation emerges, the event is no longer seen as supernatural.

So, scientists are pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place if they attempt to study supernatural events. Assume, for the moment, that supernatural phenomena do occur. If the scientist discovers a natural law which allows him or her to predict when the phenomenon will occur, the phenomenon will no longer be considered supernatural. If the phenomenon is truly supernatural, the scientist will be unable to make any predictions which are consistently confirmed, and the scientific process will be useless for studying that phenomenon.

What the ID movement is demanding is that scientists stop doing research the moment it looks like a phenomenon MIGHT be supernatural, and to accept that explanation. It stops science dead in its tracks.

What FL and other hard-core biblical literalists are demanding is that scientists reject explanations which HAVE ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE PREDICTIVE POWER. They are not only stopping science dead in its tracks, but trying to shove it back to the dark ages.

What FL and other hard-core biblical literalists...

— hoary puccoon

Grasping science by propositional logic beginning with definitions is precisely how argument would have proceeded in the 15th century. If this method of inquiry seems tedious and unprofitable, then you grasp the significance of the scientific world view. If this method of inquiry seems an exciting intellectual challenge, then you're operating from a prescientific world view and are unlikely to profit from communicating with scientists.

Some design theories may be inapproriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate. It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions.” – philosopher of science Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science, c2001.

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

— Johnson

Grasping science by propositional logic beginning with definitions is precisely how argument would have proceeded in the 15th century. If this method of inquiry seems tedious and unprofitable, then you grasp the significance of the scientific world view. If this method of inquiry seems an exciting intellectual challenge, then you’re operating from a prescientific world view and are unlikely to profit from communicating with scientists.

Dave T writes... Oh, and why is FL placing so much importance on biology-online.org’s definition of science?

It is standard creationist practice to latch on to one statement and assume/pretend that it stands for the position of an entire field rather than understanding and synthesizing a large body of opinion and rather than looking at the larger meaning behind the words.

I think this is related somewhat to a fundamental difference between creationists and scientists: creationists believe that the Word comes first and that the Word, as written in the Bible, is a more primary truth than the world. Playing with Words, and making the world fit the Word, is what Biblical literalists do with the most important topic of all to them, so it is no wonder that they carry this same attitude over when they try to read and understand science.

Dave Thomas: Oh, and why is FL placing so much importance on biology-online.org's definition of science?

If FL wants to propose a scientific research program that includes the supernatural then it is up to him to show that such venture has any possibility of success.

— PvM

Oh, and why is FL placing so much importance on biology-online.org’s definition of science?

How can two things be “100 percent fully compatible,” and yet so different?

OK, let's see if I have this straight. FL searches out lots of fairly similar definitions of science. All of them emphasize that science rests on evidence. Nearly every other poster here has said, all right, where is your evidence? Where is your research? Where are your predictions?

And FL responds with yet more definitions of science! As far as I can tell, he does this only so that he can repeat that naturalism/materialism is a religion, and then pat himself on the back. Meanwhile, everyone else knows that FL has no evidence, and never will. And science as practiced continues to rest on what can be observed and tested. And he thinks lurkers can't understand this?

OK, let’s see if I have this straight. FL searches out lots of fairly similar definitions of science. All of them emphasize that science rests on evidence.

Nearly every other poster here has said, all right, where is your evidence? Where is your research? Where are your predictions?

FL,

Thank God I have learned to turn off my irony meter. But it is deliciously ironic that your last post would immediately follow - and 2 hours later, so you couldn't have missed it - my 3rd (or is it 4th) attempt to give you a golden opportunity to provide something that would make your quibbling over the definition of science totally unnecessary.

Speaking of Kansas, 2005, even those pathetic folks squirming on the stand at the Kangaroo Court gave their best guess as to the age of the Earth and common descent. But not before making it clear that they would have preferred to evade the questions. My favorite is Bryan Leonard's "I tell my students" qualifier that he put before conceding mainstream science's age of the Earth.

The Kansas 2007 standards are quite thorough about what science is, especially if you look not only at the introduction but also at the standard on the nature of science in the high school section.

Also, there is nothing in the Kansas standards that elevates the search for natural explanation to a "religion." The standards recognize explicitly that there are many important issues outside the realm of science.

No, all of them emphasize what we call the scientific method of observation hypothesis forming, hypothesis testing, and drawing conclusions.

Please tell me you’re not really this stupid.

all of them emphasize what we call the scientific method of observation hypothesis forming, hypothesis testing, and drawing conclusions.

FL: Having said that, let's look again:

Nearly every other poster here has said, all right, where is your evidence? Where is your research? Where are your predictions?

All these questions apply to (for example) the intelligent design hypothesis or the prebiotic chemical evolution hypothesis, or some other hypothesis. What those question DO NOT apply to, is ANY of the the definitions of science that have been given so far. That's the real meal deal, Flint. What'cha say now? FL :)

FL believes that the explanation that the earth is young and that all the kinds of creatures were created during the 6 days of creation is a more adequate explanation than the scientific perspective of an old earth and the evolution of life because the former agrees with his literal reading of the Bible and the latter does not. That is why he likes the "more adequate" phrase.

What he in entirely incapable of acknowledging is that the scientific view is vastly more adequate in accounting for the evidence than his young earth creationism: if he really believed in the definition of science he is offering, he would give up his Biblical literalism.

Jack,

Do you have a reference that shows that FL specifically endorses the YEC model - thus implying that OEC models, with or without common descent, are just as "wrong" as evolution?

He refuses to answer my questions on it, despite the fact that it could only help him.

OK, let’s see if I have this straight. FL searches out lots of fairly similar definitions of science. All of them emphasize that science rests on evidence. Nearly every other poster here has said, all right, where is your evidence? Where is your research? Where are your predictions? And FL responds with yet more definitions of science! As far as I can tell, he does this only so that he can repeat that naturalism/materialism is a religion, and then pat himself on the back. Meanwhile, everyone else knows that FL has no evidence, and never will. And science as practiced continues to rest on what can be observed and tested. And he thinks lurkers can’t understand this?

Read the thread at http://kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=419

I would argue that FL is a full-blown case of the effect of absolutist...

There is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence

for me, the only "rational" view is that of the Biblical literalist.

Anyone else also notice how FL never actually states how Biblical Literalism is necessary or even helpful in trying to understand science in that thread in the exact same manner he undiscreetly avoids showing what sort of explanatory or descriptive power Intelligent Design allegedly has?

Jack Krebs: Read the thread at http://kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=419

I also found that an interesting thread - and kind of disturbing. I keep doing my best to imagine what it must be like to be utterly, incurably convinced in the absolute Truth of my personal interpretation of one particular passage many-times translated from tales based on ancient superstition, to the point where all of reality must either be force-fit to my convictions, or rejected through sheer intellectual doublespeak. And I admit I just keep bouncing off.

I picture FL, as he comes across in that discussion, like a man drowning in shallow water because he is unwilling to let go of a heavy rock. And the ONLY reason to hang on to the rock is because he was raised to believe anything else is unthinkable, and he has no longer any neurological options but to drown without thinking it. He is a casualty, serving only to reinforce the cautionary power creationism holds. Yet the tales of Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Sam Patch, etc. are FAR more plausible.

I no longer think FL is dishonest. We see the absence of sanity, not integrity.

Please tell me you’re not really this stupid. What do you think is being observed here? What criteria do you think hypotheses are tested against?

Straight-up, there is simply no rational, biblical-data-driven "non-literal" interpretation of Genesis 2:7 and 2:21,22. It just doesn't exist. The only rational, data-driven, sustainable interpretation available regarding these two Genesis texts, happens to be the literal, historical one.

me [FL] a rational, biblical-data-driven, textual and contextually consistent, non-literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 and 2:21,22,

me [FL] a rational, biblical-data-driven, textual and contextually consistent, non-literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 and 2:21,22,

me [FL] a rational, biblical-data-driven, textual and contextually consistent, non-literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 and 2:21,22,

Spooky - a trinity of posts

My bad. I got impatient when the first one didn't go through.

And there was I thinking there might be something in what FL is ranting about - nah

FL - are you trying to argue the merits of a few consistent statement in an otherwise inconsistent document? Isn't that cherry-picking? Not sure where this is going?

For FL -

Here is a biblical-data-driven disproof of the literal truth of Genesis:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Fischer.pdf.

I hope you find it useful.

Vaughn

It’s a sane, rational request (not that you’ve got any credentials to offer any psychological assessments of sanity or insanity, but I want you to know the request is sane and rational)…. ….Just show me a rational, biblical-data-driven, textual and contextually consistent, non-literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 and 2:21,22, because when I pointed that out in Jack’s thread, nobody–including Jack himself–could come up with one.

...but I wouldn’t even dream of wading into such sectarian waters. FL’s position is a dogmatic, faith-based position that denies vast amounts of empirical evidence, and is not accepted by millions of his fellow Christians.

And the trolls here on PT seem to be mostly unsupervised adolescents.

Here is a biblical-data-driven disproof of the literal truth of Genesis: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Fischer…. I hope you find it useful.

Just show me a rational, biblical-data-driven, textual and contextually consistent, non-literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22.

Moreover, Dick Fischer’s article does have the clear effect of rationally undercutting Jack Kreb’s claim that “For FL to think that “refuting” his stance on Biblical literalism is even a reasonable thing to request shows how caught he is in an unrealistic world of words.”

So, FL, can you explain how reading the Book of Genesis literally sheds light on understanding the lifestyles of extinct organisms, such as trilobites, placoderms or ammonites?

Overall, Dick Fischer is a far better example for “non-literalists” to emulate than what you get from Flint, Mike, or Jack. So on that score, much thanks Vaughn.

However, my belief is that the particular Scriptures he points to, have been explained and answered successfully in favor of a literalist interpretation. Let me simply offer, by way of rebuttal, Robert McCabe’s article for anyone interested:

And since Fischer actually doesn’t mention nor discuss the two verses in question at all, the only rational interpretation left to adopt on the verses that I asked about, remains the literal one at this time.

Nevertheless, I sincerely appreciate somebody taking time to at least try to rationally explain and defend a “non-literalist” Genesis position for once. Like a breath of fresh air around here!

You can refute the factual claims (earth is 6000 years old, etc.), and that has been done.

— Jack Krebs

Update,

From a quick read of the Dick Fischer article, it looks like he takes the Hugh Ross position (OEC) and approach (Bible as evidence), and FL politely disagrees. If that's a defense of YEC, it's the lamest one I've ever heard.

I'm not sure what "literalism" could mean about stories that were developed and passed down orally for centuries before the invention of writing. Can you have a concept of "literal" i.e., word-for-word, without a written text to check against?

In any case, the classical scholar Robert Graves has a completely different explanation of the story of Adam and Eve.
According to Graves, the legend refers to a goddess-worshipping cult that was widespread in the Mediterranean basin for centuries, and survived in watered-down form at Delphi, Greece right through classical times. The cult was run by priestesses, who claimed to receive oracular messages from serpents. (The oracle at Delphi was always a woman, called the pythoness.)

The priestesses chose a man as their king, but offered him as a human sacrifice after a set period of time (originally six months, later 49 years. This is what you get when you let power get entrenched.) The fruit was the sacrificed king's token of entry into paradise. The story has been given a twist in the bible to come out as anti-pythoness-cult propoganda and warning.

(Incidentally, there's a good chance the orb of the British monarch is a lingering trace of this cult, and the interpretation of the orb as symbolizing the globe of the world was tacked on much later.)

The oldest stories in the bible were not only passed down orally for centuries, they had to be hand-copied for many centuries after that. In the process, transitions were smoothed out, and notes that were originally annotations became incorprated into the original text. Note, for instance, the clumsy way in which alternative names for the same character-- Abram and Abraham-- gets rationalized. It definitely looks like some ancient scholar was trying to placate two groups with slightly different variations of the same story.

It's very likely that the creation of Adam and Eve from nothing was simply a way of introducing the oldest extant story involving humans-- the pythoness cult was, in fact, very ancient-- and smooth it into the unrelated creation myth. What a slender thread upon which to hang one's entire world view!

When I wrote, "For FL to think that “refuting” his stance on Biblical literalism is even a reasonable thing to request shows how caught he is in an unrealistic world of words,” I was referring to his request that I do such rebutting: as I also said, "I wouldn’t even dream of wading into such sectarian waters."

To rebut someone means to supply evidence and arguments against a position, but in the case of the sectarian disagreement about whether the Bible, and especially Genesis, should be taken literally, we merely have different chosen interpretations. One can, as Fischer did, explain his case, but as we have seen, such an explanation means absolutely nothing to someone like FL who has chosen to commit himself to the other side. If FL his not going to be swayed by actually physical evidence about the world itself, it is unlikely he is going to be swayed, much less consider himself "rebutted", by sectarian arguments about the interpretation of words.

That is why I, personally, consider it a futile waste of time to ever argue about whether Biblical literalism is "correct" from a Christian point of view: for me, the important point is that millions of Christians think it is not. (Note: both for me personally, and for the millions of Christians who reject literalism, the scientific evidence that Genesis is not true is sufficient, making the sectarian arguments about interpretation irrelevant and superfluous.)

It’s good to see somebody who understands that you need to offer something substantially more rational than a knee-jerk “FORGET your dumb bible, Science is concerned with reality” if you’re going to challenge “biblical literalism”.

I sincerely appreciate somebody taking time to at least try to rationally explain and defend a “non-literalist” Genesis position for once. Like a breath of fresh air around here!

FL’s magic book *does not matter* to anything being discussed or explained here. It is NOT RELEVANT.

— Flint

Friendly John Marley says, Please tell me you’re not really this stupid. What do you think is being observed here? What criteria do you think hypotheses are tested against? That criteria you speak of, John, applies to ALL of the definitions of science that have been offered here. All of them. Including Kansas 2005. Now, refute that one, please. Double-dog-dare ya, even. Take your time, sir, I can afford to wait. FL :)

FL, I’m giving you another chance. Either Ross is wrong or right. Same for Behe. Same for Gish. Or maybe Ray Martinez, with his old-earth-young-biosphere. At most one can be right. Which one is?

1.The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. 2.The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship. 3.The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created. 4.Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life. 5.Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution. 6.Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth. 7.Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system. 8.Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its content. It describes God’s "very good" creation in the space of six days. 9.Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago. 10.All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve.

What do theology journals have to do with science?

So here’s the deal. Nobody, on any side, is going to always have the same interpretation about things. The task is to be able to rationally show, explain, justify, defend why your interpretation is of greater merit than the next person’s.

The task is to be able to rationally show, explain, justify, defend why your interpretation is of greater merit than the next person’s.

— FL

You don’t see a lot of (indeed, any at all?) disagreement between Gish, Ross, and Behe when it comes to discussing what’s wrong with the prebiotic evolution hypothesis.

— FL

FL:

FL, I’m giving you another chance. Either Ross is wrong or right. Same for Behe. Same for Gish. Or maybe Ray Martinez, with his old-earth-young-biosphere. At most one can be right. Which one is?

The honest answer is that depending on the issue, more than one person can be right. Or wrong. Which is why it is important to be able to rationally explain, justify, and defend why your particular interpretation of things(whether scientific or Scriptural) should be considered better-supported and hence substantially more likely than the next interpretation. The same people agree on some things and disagree on other things. You don't see a lot of (indeed, any at all?) disagreement between Gish, Ross, and Behe when it comes to discussing what's wrong with the prebiotic evolution hypothesis. Nor will they disagree with Behe, AFAIK, with regards to the existence and significance of irreducible complexity. And as for Ross, there's actually some items with him that many YEC's would surely appreciate and many evolutionists would hate. For example, did you know that Ross believes.....

1.The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. 2.The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship. 3.The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created. 4.Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life. 5.Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution. 6.Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth. 7.Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system. 8.Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its content. It describes God’s "very good" creation in the space of six days. 9.Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago. 10.All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve.

Utterly delicious, at least to me! But there are many other places where everybody will disagree with each other on SOMETHING or other. Ross, Gish, Behe, all of us. (And even with the supposed points of agreement, there are sometimes problems!) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0209Ross_YE_v_OE.asp Gish and Behe won't agree on common descent, for example. Others won't agree on other things. ****** So here's the deal. Nobody, on any side, is going to always have the same interpretation about things. The task is to be able to rationally show, explain, justify, defend why your interpretation is of greater merit than the next person's. If you look at science journals and theology journals, you can see this process happening literally all the time. It's just that important. FL :)

Stanton,

The bigger point is that people who think that Genesis and/or theology is necessary for scientific inquiry - like FL - and many who don't - like Behe - nevertheless resort to nearly all the same habits ant tactics (see Mike Elzinga's title post) that puts them solidly in the category of pseudoscience.

Ummm .....

1. Let say that explanations given by ID if correct. Or Ross is correct. Or Dr King is correct (anybody knows him?). I still cannot see why the "Creator" must be a Christian God.
Maybe the Designer was Allah? Or maybe It was Shiva? Or maybe It was Beelzebub? Or maybe Zarathos the Ghost Rider?

2. Once a Spanish friend said, "I don't want clerics to control my life." I strongly agree with him. I realise sometimes the Creationists and IDers act as if everybody is evil, and they only will inherit heaven. Peoples with minimum education and unpleasant personality try to "lead" and "guide" and sometimes "judge" others, just because they think (or have a delusion) that they are role model Christians. Well. Why should we listen to you? Why should you bug us? Honestly, I think many Christians are unpleasant - they're bossy, and judging, filled with jealousy, and dominating. And they use "the Bible" or any of the so-called "God given authority" delusion to justify those acts.

3. Why can't Creationists and IDers just leave evolution alone? If you want to believe what you want to believe, fine. If you want to educate your children with those anti-evolution junks, well, pretty fine. Just stop sending your kids to such schools. Stop praying to god so that your kid can enter the Ivy Leagues. And of course: stop hoping the best for your children of yourself, because everything good, rich, and considered as the best in this world is pretty worldly - very un-Christian, you see. Start to create your own community, a community which does not require current secularly standardised education and social system. But don't force those who doesn't want to follow you. Everybody has their own right to conduct life and to believe whatever religious creed they want to believe - as long as the acts and faith do not cause others to suffer. It is pretty funny that such people want to stop secular science while they love to live in a secular world - with them as the reference / leaders.

4. Sometimes hardline Creationists and IDers are too aggressive that they act very un-christian. I thought Christians are supposed to observe the two love rules given by Jesus. I don't think a jihad at all costs against science and the world, which on the contrary show bitter and evil personality, is a good example of Christianity. Please, read your bible again.
It is really crazy that they force people to believe exactly the same thing, and the same way as they do.

5. I honestly think that this ID / Creationism vs. Evolution is just another political and economical clash - and also an act of jihad to acquire lost past glories of the religious geeks. C'mon, these guys attacks even Christian scientists! I would say that this is just another unintellectual geeks vs. handsome smart kids - that is, unpopular kids trying to get back on the smart and popular guys at school who got all the babes.

6. I still cannot see the "greater merrit" of a "Biblical explanation", besides halting scientific progress. If "Biblical explanations" can be accepted, that means that an explanation given by one of my Indonesian moslem friends who believed that she is a paranormal, that invisible djinns transmitted knowledge to those who study "age measuring" science (such as history and archaeology or palaeontology) by whispering to the ears of those people, must have a chance to be accepted as correct also then. Her "explanation" must have a chance to be right also, because I haven't been able to find any explanation from IDers or the Creationists which are able to satisfyingly explain why it must be the Judaic / Biblical God - which means ALL theistic explanations must be given a fair chance - even those coming from old myths and other non-Christian religions! It is very funny that IDers and Creationists would state strongly that explanations coming from outside the Bible or different belief system as erroneous as evolution, while the way how they interpret the bible, interpreting the interpretation, and modify those to give an explanation is pretty similar to methods given by any belief system!

7. IDers and to some extent, Creationists, claim that they just want to say that a "Designer" or a "Creator" created, but the essence of that creator is not yet known - hence they claim that they are not attached to any particular belief system namely Christianity. If that so: Anybody knows Harun Yahya? He is a creationist, but being a moslem, he explains and defends his ideas using verses from the Holy Qur'an. How come IDers - who claims that they refer to no specific God - does not use his sharp analyses based on the Qur'an? Or, I haven't been able to see any ID or Creationism refering to Dr. Maurice Buccaille. Or, there is this Buddhist monk in my country who thinks that Black hole is the place where Buddha Gautama and the incoming Buddha Maitreya live. Nobody refers to that explanation. So, it is pretty clear that IDers and Creationists, despite their claim of no attachment to a particular religion, is just another Christian movement.

Please pardon my poor English, I do not know if I was able to transmit my ideas properly.

But, one more info.
I am an Evangelical Christian, a member of the Campus Ministry, and an Evolutionary biologist in training (I'm a PhD student in molecular phylogenetics) at the same time. I am at ease with my faith, and greatly love my research.
But honestly, the most unpleasant and hurtful remarks and comments come mostly from .... the pious and religious ones, and not from the scientists or "darwinati" or whatever you want to call the paper-publishing intelligent peoples ......