or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 2  

post #41 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
You have expanded your list to second hand smoking? Of all professions I must say medicine is the one who uses statistics with most discipline. And life studies that include second hand smoke as a factor for life expectancy explains a lot more than those who don´t

'The study' was proven to be fraudulent, it's not something that is widely reported, though:

Quote:
In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science.there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke bringsa whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #42 of 430
Thread Starter 
It's never that simple

wikipedia on secondhand smoke
post #43 of 430
giant, I don't see where the wiki article contradicts what that quote stated. Especially when you contrast the WHO claims in the wiki article with SHS being the "third-leading preventable cause of death." Then you need to consider the fact that 'the evidence' was used to shape public policy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #44 of 430
I´m not talking about "the study".

I am talking about studies I have verified myself. I did some work on the correlation between some life style choices and the use of hormone stimuli and the chances for women without any disease affecting pregnancy of becoming pregnant from artificial insemination. And as a preparation for that work I read up on some studies as close to the subject in hand (life expectancy, not fertility). And of the three studies I read the one that included data on exposure to smoke at home and in the working environment the model had much better explanatory power than the two others. Of course there were other differences but second hand smoke clearly changed the model.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #45 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I´m not talking about "the study".

I am talking about studies I have verified myself. I did some work on the correlation between some life style choices and the use of hormone stimuli and the chances for women without any disease affecting pregnancy of becoming pregnant from artificial insemination. And as a preparation for that work I read up on some studies as close to the subject in hand (life expectancy, not fertility). And of the three studies I read the one that included data on exposure to smoke at home and in the working environment the model had much better explanatory power than the two others. Of course there were other differences but second hand smoke clearly changed the model.

I can't speak to new studies, or the studies you are noting -- we may at some point discover new things about SHS, this is not the point at all.

The problem here -- the point I'm trying to make -- is that hugely exaggerated, fradualent claims were made by 'science' in order to effect public policy and were foisted on the public by scientists, not on their merits, but to produce a desired effect.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #46 of 430
Thread Starter 
Seems to me there are references to a bunch of studies and it appears there is a whole, whole lot more detail to look at than an excerpt from a michael crichton lecture. I have no interest in the issue of secondhand smoke, but it appears your opinion has been developed without a significant amount of research. It kind of hurts the validity of your statements about science as a whole.
post #47 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Seems to me there are references to a bunch of studies and it appears there is a whole, whole lot more detail to look at than an excerpt from a michael crichton lecture. I have no interest in the issue of secondhand smoke, but it appears your opinion has been developed without a significant amount of research. It kind of hurts the validity of your statements about science as a whole.

Crichton has an M.D. -- he ought to know what he is talking about.

Agian, even the wiki aritcle is light years away from the proclimation that SHS is 'the third-leading preventable cause of death." Public policy was based on fradulent reasearch, surely you cannot deny this.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #48 of 430
I always hinge my beliefs on tobacco-industry sponsored studies, too.
post #49 of 430
Arh. I don´t know. Some doctors believe that HIV can spread via kisses and sweat
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #50 of 430
Anders:

Quote:
Its extremely arrogant IF the only way they deal with ID is in this way. How am I to trust them to be open minded with new data?

Based on this spoof article, what data do you think they would be averse to publishing?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #51 of 430
Its not as much the spoof article in itself as the fact that thats the only way they are prepared to deal with intelligent design. Popular sciences must per definition be in the cross between science and the public discourse about science. And ID is where it is right now (unfortunately in my view. I would rather have seen environmental questions in the center of that discussion).

But to answer your question more directly: For me it looks like journalistic arrogance. If there is something I would like from science journalism to inherit from the field they are describing it is interested openness and it doesn´t look like they have that.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #52 of 430
You could always read other stories.
(From the old site... newer stuff can be searched from the link atop this thread)

Some issues require subscription, some don't.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
post #53 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by curiousuburb
You could always read other stories.

Some issues require subscription, some don't.

"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" is the only article on the search page that related to Creationism and that attitude doesn´t exactly convince me about their openness,..

But I´ll read it and comment it later.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #54 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Anders:



Based on this spoof article, what data do you think they would be averse to publishing?


This is from Bjorn Lomborg's website -- the bit about SA at the end is interesting.

Quote:
Unfortunately, Scientific American has threatened legal action if I did not remove the text of their critique, so now I can only indicate my elaborate comments on their lengthy critique: Scientific American January 2002, comments. (Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has actually put out my original text on his website.)_


By April 15, Scientific American has now posted my entire critique and added their own comments, Scientific American web site. (I'm still waiting for Scientific American to allow me to reprint Rennie's comments and my comments.)_

See also The Economist 2-2-02 highly critical editorial and article on the Scientific American feature.

See letters to the editor from Matt Ridley, Steve Budansky, Richard Lindzen, Danish solar scientists. (Send an e-mail to the editors of Scientific American.)


Curious aside: While the US edition of Scientific American found it necessary to defend science against my book, the Italian edition of Scientific American, Le Scienze published a very positive review in November 2001. Click here an extract English translation. [Again, I have removed the December covers of the Scientific American and Le Scienze due to Scientific American's threat to sue.] In the February 2002 issue of Le Scienze, they have included the translated critique of the American Scientific American January critique.



The Danish Ecological Council published June 28 an updated translation of the critique of The Skeptical Environmentalist. I already replied in full (185 pages in Danish) to their previous edition. You can download their book from here, and you can also read my short reply.

The rest of this can be found on Lomborg's website.

Here is a quote from The Economist's editorial:

Quote:
The January issue of Scientific American devoted many pages to a series of articles trashing The Skeptical Environmentalist. The authors, all supporters of the green movement, were strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance. The arresting thing about Scientific American's coverage, however, was not this barrage of ineffective rejoinders but the editor's notion of what was going on: Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist, he announced.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #55 of 430
Oh my lord. Not Lomborg again.

(psst. Lomborg is married. To a man)

I´ll say this: If they try to debunk him based on his science they are utterly wrong and they prove yours and my point.

Not that there isn´t any problems with Lomborg. He is a statistician and when certain people LOOOVE to hear him say that the green house effect isn´t a problem, they don´t hear the rest of the message. Lomborg acknowledge that there is such a thing as green house effect and it will permanently change our clima. What he is saying is that it would be cheaper to repair the damage than hinder the rising of the sea level. Its cheaper to build dams in Indonesia than to use lesser energy. The problem is 1) he doesn´t account for ALL the consequences of the green house effect and 2) he can´t account for issues outside what can be measured. Like with what mechanisms can we assure that the Indonesian dams are build with the money from the west (who accounts for most of the green house effect)
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #56 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Oh my lord. Not Lomborg again.

(psst. Lomborg is married. To a man)

Ha! so was Cary Grant.

(Good points, though.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #57 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
If "Scientists" like to hate on ID'rs they have every right to.

I just find it bad policy for a magazine to egg on the hate.

Such a magazine is not true science nor is it worthy journalism.

If Fox news for example has a lot of hicks that hate Gays out there and then the network mocks gays on April 1st such as SA did with ID'rs I think that would be just as wrong.

Sure you would be correct to say that ID'rs are not Born ID'rs and you may argue that Gays are. That is not the point. The point is that born that way or not it is tasteless to endorse hating on a group of people.

I think it is bigotry.

...

Fellows

First, your use of the word "hate" is overboard. The article wasn't hateful, it was ironic with a dash of mockery.

What do you mean "true science" in this sense. SA is a general interest magazine that discusses and reviews scientific literature. These are not peer-reviewed research articles, but they are highly edited review articles.

Your bigotry comment is also way over the top. We are are arguing ideas not passing irrational judgements.
post #58 of 430
But creationism is nonsense.
And "intelligent design" is nonsense.
Why should they act like it's not nonsense? It is. It's nonsense.

It is religious belief, which has nothing to do with science. There is no science in creationism or "intelligent design".

People shouldn't feel like they have to take it seriously just because others believe it and will whine and get emotional about the fact that they believe nonsense.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #59 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
But creationism is nonsense.
And "intelligent design" is nonsense.
Why should they act like it's not nonsense? It is. It's nonsense.

It is religious belief, which has nothing to do with science. There is no science in creationism or "intelligent design".

People shouldn't feel like they have to take it seriously just because others believe it and will whine and get emotional about the fact that they believe nonsense.

THANK YOU.

I'm surprised I haven't been able to say it so succinctly all these years. Too much stifling rage at the thought of having to, probably.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #60 of 430
DMZ, you are not making any kind of case for your assertions.

There is scarcely a scientific theory, principle, axiom, hunch or revered foundational understanding that doesn't have its critics or deniers. As you have demonstrated with your chosen links, a great many of these are the work of industry flaks, who not infrequently find scientific consensus to be inconvenient for their chosen means of production.

One need look no further than the sorry narrative of the tobacco industry and their endless legions of "studies", presented with all due gravity by bought and paid for "doctors", all designed to create in the public mind an aura of "plausible deniability" around the issue of smoking and cancer. Presto, "consensus" becomes "controversy".

Using the internet to locate and disseminate this kind of stuff has all the persuasive value of linking to a holocaust denier website in a discussion of anti-Semitism.

I find it telling that you can blithely declare science itself to be an agenda driven affair while going hook, line and sinker for counter arguments that yield clear economic advantages to the entities that fund them.

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate what similar gains are to be had by, for instance, the epidemiologists that do the research into second hand smoking.

It is clear why "research" calling into question the links between second hand smoke and illness would get funded, there are literally billions of dollars at stake. I suppose the researchers who find evidence of such links are getting paid under the table by, um, somebody who stands to make a lot of money from smoke free bars? Or maybe it's just such researcher's irrational hatred of smokey rooms, leading them to falsify evidence and conspire with their colleagues to fake the peer review process.

Wait, I know, it's because scientists, in general, despise personal freedoms and will stop at nothing to enslave us.

Ditto global warming, green house emissions, species extinctions, etc. On the one hand, the most powerful economic entities in the world using their deep pockets to create the impression that "the jury is still out", therefore costly amelioration of their most egregious behavior will just have to wait.

On the other hand, "science', inexplicably overrun by hippies and leftists, pushing an "agenda" that somehow ensnares 90% of their community in its web of deceit.

You want to believe in "creationism", or "intelligent design", or whatever, that's your lookout.

But this bizarre notion that because the well tested, exhaustively supported, fantastically good at accounting for the available evidence theory of evolution doesn't conform to your religious prejudices, that you are therefore obliged to conclude that science itself is a hollow shell of (somehow) self-serving misrepresentations is astonishingly pig headed.

I've remarked on this before, but how much of the world has to be dismantled to satisfy the right's obsession with never being inconvenienced by the facts?

Science, the judiciary, the rule of law, cause and effect, common sense, all must be supplanted by a malleable, faith based wonder land where truth is whatever serves the power of the christian/corporate right, even when the contradictions are there for all to see. "Contradictions? I don't see any contradictions! All I see are tree huggers and fags and liberals. And scientists. And judges. And the intelligence community. And the diplomatic community. And doctors. And our former allies. Did we leave anybody out? Step up, because there's still plenty of room in the ash bin of history for anybody that can't get with the program!"
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #61 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
There is scarcely a scientific theory, principle, axiom, hunch or revered foundational understanding that doesn't have its critics or deniers.

Particularly within the scientific community itself! As it should be. But by using the scientific method, not fantasies and skillful lies.

It is this fundamental element of science which people like DMZ claim is it's weakness (that everything is "only" ever a theory, that "facts" can be reanalyzed later and be deemed "wrong"), and he then takes that very "weakness" and tries to use it like it is an Achilles' heel that will help him market his arbitrary dogmatic beliefs as a "science". (And when the scientific method is applied to religion it is deemed "hate" and an "attack", because not only can religions co-opt science, they can co-opt social phenomenon such as "political correctness" and use it to their advantage when it suits them.)

Religions and science by definition of both cannot ever mix....not without ending up with silly and dangerous cults.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #62 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Ditto global warming, green house emissions, species extinctions, etc. On the one hand, the most powerful economic entities in the world using their deep pockets to create the impression that "the jury is still out", therefore costly amelioration of their most egregious behavior will just have to wait.

addabox you are all over the road on this.

Here is what happening, read carefully.

We all 'know' (myself included) that pollution, species extinction, fisheries abuse by whoring coroporations, smoking, smoking around those who find it obtrusive -- is wrong. I know it, and you know it, I dare say groverat even knows it.

BUT

Most here are functioning athiests, so you can't go around saying "thus says C. Everett Koop" or, "thou shalt not...." becuase we are all supposedly "free" to do as we please.

Supposedly.

But since you have the image of God in you --- you, we, they, are all driven to collectivley establish ourselves, even if only out of a fear that, in our dying we were never part of something that will outlive our existence. Science is a collective statement of that belief, that humans -- humanity -- through exploration, can order this universe and make sense of ourselves in the process.

So scientists study and tell us about VD, rickets, radiation poisoning and that setting the Monongahela River on fire, are all bad things for all us to collectively allow. Science then takes on the mantel of savior for many -- that it can save us from ourselves and bind our sensibilities. And that means power, and power can, I'm told, corrupt.

But sometimes the image of God, which most here deny, gets to the scene of the crime before the reasearch does, sometimes that subverted image invents fairytails of Monarch Butterflies forming from muck, and sometimes the true image invents what it needs to save the population from itself, and asks the hard quesitons later.

Enter SETI, Nuclear Winter, bad humors in the air that cuase the flu, Physicians not washing in between birthings, and second-hand smoke risks circa 1993. None of these things are science -- and you cannot argue this with me logically. They are not science, they cannot (could not) be found to be true using scientific principles --- they were tools of bullies who wanted something other than reproducable results to inform science.

That is the problem, not whether you call Evoution reproducable scientific fact, and then sneer at theists who point to it's obvious flaws. It's not about what you can produce in a laboratory --- everyone knows that anything short of reproducable results is speculation --- it's about who you can control.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #63 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
everyone knows that anything short of reproducable results is speculation --- it's about who you can control.

The identical thing can be said of religion. So where does that leave us?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #64 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
The identical thing can be said of religion. So where does that leave us?

Exactly, but this was more about SA's fairly narrow approach to what was 'science' -- that someone like Lomborg went and did his homework, wrote his book, had it peer reveued -- but that SA went and took a massive asparagus whizz all over it becuase it wasn't 'scientific'.

Sort of science against science.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #65 of 430
Creationists and ID'rs have used so many bogus arguments, lies and deceptions, that even if in some strange parallel universe, they stumbled across something that might be true, absolutely no-one with half a functioning brain cell would believe them.

That you want something to be true, no matter how hard you try to deceive everyone else into believing it's true, does not make it true.

The truth is the truth regardless of emotion. The truth is the truth even if you're the only person in the universe who sees through the lies.

The truth, no one knows the truth, all you can do is establish what are lies. Creationism is a lie.
post #66 of 430
Saying that evolution is not a valid scientific theory because it is not proven reflects a total lack of undrstanding about what a theory is. Scientific theories are NEVER proven, only supported through evidence. Proofs only exist in mathematics and philosophy.

Last I checked quantum mechanics wasn't proven, but its a damn useful theory and none of us would be posting to this forum without it.

ID, by contrast, is not a scientific theory, is not supported by evidence, makes no testable predicitions and is often mistated by its own proponents (some of the leading IDers concede that evolution Did happen, just that SOME things are hard to explain).

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

post #67 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Saying that evolution is not a valid scientific theory because it is not proven reflects a total lack of undrstanding about what a theory is. Scientific theories are NEVER proven, only supported through evidence. Proofs only exist in mathematics and philosophy.

Last I checked quantum mechanics wasn't proven, but its a damn useful theory and none of us would be posting to this forum without it.

Yes, it's a theory, but it's a theory that somehow got itself promoted at the exclusion of all other theories. To the point of making universal negative statements about what may exist, and what may not. Something that gives it all the earmarkings of a fanatical religious belief.

Also, the probabilites that theory of evolution 'obeys' are significantly different than the ones that quantum mechanics obeys.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #68 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
The truth, no one knows the truth, all you can do is establish what are lies. Creationism is a lie.

Actually, to say that Creationism and Intelligent Design (I know you didn't say this, but I'm assuming that it's bound up in there) are "lies" is a bit over the top. Technically, they are simply pre-20th century notions of what used to be called "Natural Science." ID is very much in line with Darwin's Origin of Species in many, many ways, since Darwin is essentially a Romanticthat is, he views the natural world as a way of communing with the mind of god.

What we're seeing here is just a renaissance of the typical anti-enlightenment attitude that's been around forever. But as someone rightly noted, the argument they're making is that science ought to be the realm of facts, not theories. And so they're hammering science for not being fact-strong.

Which is, of course, absurd.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #69 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
What we're seeing here is just a renaissance of the typical anti-enlightenment attitude that's been around forever. But as someone rightly noted, the argument they're making is that science ought to be the realm of facts, not theories. And so they're hammering science for not being fact-strong.

Which is, of course, absurd.

Actually evolutionists get themselves in trouble by saying 'all that exists is matter and mathematical principles -- and nothing else may exist. Nothing."

These statements simply can't be logically made; you cannot use the laws of contradiction to speak to what may or may not exist outside your perception. This is the fallacy of the evolutionist, not that statistical impossibility is worshipped as creator, and illogically posited to create where it is observed to destroy or confuse in all cases, it is the notion that they can speak everywhere, and to everything, but without the depth and breadth of experience to speak authoritatively -- it's a completely nonsensical proposition.

You evolutionists have nowhere to run on this, either take exhaustive responsibility for what can or cannot exist, or let the ID guys in --- you have no other choice. Puerile editorials from SA and other quarters only postpones the inevitable.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #70 of 430
Can't keep track? Try this handy chart: Evolution - vs.- ID / Creationism

McNeil/Lehrer News Hour on PBS had a recent segment specifically on ID and Evolution in schools.
(Kansas, Georgia and a few other states).

Video/audio/transcripts here

My favourite segment was the "Creation Museum".

Quote:
In 1987, the Supreme Court declared that creation science was a form of religion and could not be taught in the classroom. Ham sees his $25 million creation museum as one way to correct that.

KEN HAM: Clearly the purpose of the creation museum is to equip Christians to have answers to defend their faith in today's world. Because let's face it, what's taught through the public schools and much of the secular media, it's really an attack on the Bible's history. It's really saying the Bible is not true. And many Christians just don't know how to handle those sorts of questions.

JEFFREY BROWN: When the museum opens in 2007, visitors will walk through a world in which dinosaurs and men lived side by side, one dinosaur even has a saddle.


Adam and Eve, as the Bible says, will be presented as the first, fully formed, humans. Ham's view is that scientists are limited in their ability to look at the past, so they rely on assumptions that may or may not be correct.

Mind boggling.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
post #71 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Actually evolutionists get themselves in trouble by saying 'all that exists is matter and mathematical principles -- and nothing else may exist. Nothing."

So that's why the hot new thing in science is "dark matter," which makes up 90% of the universe and cannot be seen or felt. Although, I don't know why you're limiting this stance to "evolutionists" (the term itself is bizarre, since it implies that they're some sort of "group"). This is a simple matter of empiricism.

Quote:
These statements simply can't be logically made; you cannot use the laws of contradiction to speak to what may or may not exist outside your perception.

Didn't you just do the same thing to make your argument?

Quote:
This is the fallacy of the evolutionist, not that statistical impossibility is worshipped as creator, and illogically posited to create where it is observed to destroy or confuse in all cases, it is the notion that they can speak everywhere, and to everything, but without the depth and breadth of experience to speak authoritatively -- it's a completely nonsensical proposition.

I have no idea what you're arguing here, although it seems to be that unless someone advances a theory that explains, quite literally, everything, they should just shut up.

Quote:
You evolutionists have nowhere to run on this

I didn't realize that I was being chased. You anti-intellectuals really should make more noise when stomping about through the woods.

Quote:
either take exhaustive responsibility for what can or cannot exist,

Now, why on earth should this be a requirement? I hope you're not going to go to your pharmacist and make the same kinds of claims. Or NASA.

Quote:
or let the ID guys in --- you have no other choice. Puerile editorials from SA and other quarters only postpones the inevitable. [/B]

The ID guys STARTED IT. Their ideas ("It's all MAGIC! Or aliens. Maybe.") didn't pan out. Hell, the ID guys started ALL MODERN SCIENCE, because they were looking for ways to find evidence of God in the world.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #72 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Actually evolutionists get themselves in trouble by saying 'all that exists is matter and mathematical principles -- and nothing else may exist. Nothing."

Science does not say this. Some scientists do. Very large difference there.

Many things are assumed to be impossible until science proves them possible or reaffirms their impossibilities. Science may one day present tangible proof of God. Such proof would be looked at skeptically initially, but if it is valid evidence it will hold up to testing over years and years unless and until it is either ridiculous to deny it or new evidence forces a reexamination of that theory.

That's how science works. And it leaves plenty of room for things beyond only the existence of matter and mathematical priciples. Science accounts for the understanding that we can only know what we can observe and subject to scrutinization, as well as the understanding that we can't always observe everything that may be subject to scrutinization.

It has happened before that new mathematical principles get developed as a direct result of scientific study that breaks the rules of current mathematics. While some would argue that the creation of new mathematical priciples is an attempt by science to claim every must be subject to mathematics, others will argue it is an ackknowledgement by the scientific community that current math does not hold up. Perhaps one day we'll come across a problem where no amount of mathematical retooling can account for observations we've made. Science allows for that possibility, though many would think that over time it would be unlikely that some mathematical would not apply.

In summation:

Science does not pretend to know all; it attempts to prove all. ID pretends to know all; it does little to prove anything. (IMO)

---

If some parts don't make sense or seem like fractured thoughts, forgive me. My Tar Heels are losing at the half and I'm a bit flustered.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #73 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
So that's why the hot new thing in science is "dark matter," which makes up 90% of the universe and cannot be seen or felt. Although, I don't know why you're limiting this stance to "evolutionists" (the term itself is bizarre, since it implies that they're some sort of "group"). This is a simple matter of empiricism.

yes, but they have built machines to test these things, and this is ongoing -- if they come up snakeyes, they will eventually move on to other theories. Evolution is stuck in an unprovable, unresearchable postion.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter

Didn't you just do the same thing to make your argument?

Absolutely, but I can be consistant in my conception of knowledge -- and -- I don't use contradictory statements or dialectical systems.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter

I have no idea what you're arguing here, although it seems to be that unless someone advances a theory that explains, quite literally, everything, they should just shut up.

When you say what cannot be you have started down a path you must finish, if you are to be logical.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Now, why on earth should this be a requirement? I hope you're not going to go to your pharmacist and make the same kinds of claims. Or NASA.

this is the basis of your theory of life, you make definitive statements that a superintelligent COULD NOT have done this -- you have to be consistent on what sort of philosophical pandora's box you have opened.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
The ID guys STARTED IT. Their ideas ("It's all MAGIC! Or aliens. Maybe.") didn't pan out. Hell, the ID guys started ALL MODERN SCIENCE, because they were looking for ways to find evidence of God in the world.

Actually, no the ID guys did not start this, the SA guys and those like them are as asleep at the switch as the evangelicals are on marriage/gay marriage -- both have brought this on themselves. You see, you have no comprehensive theory of existence, and the ID guys have a theory that rationally accounts for the meticulous order around you, but does not contradict itself by saying what cannnot be responsible, and yet still want to hold chaos as the mother of its polar opposite.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #74 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
addabox you are all over the road on this.

Here is what happening, read carefully.

We all 'know' (myself included) that pollution, species extinction, fisheries abuse by whoring coroporations, smoking, smoking around those who find it obtrusive -- is wrong. I know it, and you know it, I dare say groverat even knows it.

BUT

Most here are functioning athiests, so you can't go around saying "thus says C. Everett Koop" or, "thou shalt not...." becuase we are all supposedly "free" to do as we please.

Supposedly.

But since you have the image of God in you --- you, we, they, are all driven to collectivley establish ourselves, even if only out of a fear that, in our dying we were never part of something that will outlive our existence. Science is a collective statement of that belief, that humans -- humanity -- through exploration, can order this universe and make sense of ourselves in the process.

So scientists study and tell us about VD, rickets, radiation poisoning and that setting the Monongahela River on fire, are all bad things for all us to collectively allow. Science then takes on the mantel of savior for many -- that it can save us from ourselves and bind our sensibilities. And that means power, and power can, I'm told, corrupt.

But sometimes the image of God, which most here deny, gets to the scene of the crime before the reasearch does, sometimes that subverted image invents fairytails of Monarch Butterflies forming from muck, and sometimes the true image invents what it needs to save the population from itself, and asks the hard quesitons later.

Enter SETI, Nuclear Winter, bad humors in the air that cuase the flu, Physicians not washing in between birthings, and second-hand smoke risks circa 1993. None of these things are science -- and you cannot argue this with me logically. They are not science, they cannot (could not) be found to be true using scientific principles --- they were tools of bullies who wanted something other than reproducable results to inform science.

That is the problem, not whether you call Evoution reproducable scientific fact, and then sneer at theists who point to it's obvious flaws. It's not about what you can produce in a laboratory --- everyone knows that anything short of reproducable results is speculation --- it's about who you can control.

I'm not sure what half this tuff means, but I can tell you most scientists don't have any illusion of power. Really, you don't go into science to rule the world. I'd suggest an MBA, law degree or even an MD degree will give you a better chance at that.

Seeing that the Pope died today, when was the last time you saw the world pay so much attention to the death of a scientist?
post #75 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Evolution is stuck in an unprovable, unresearchable postion.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #76 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
In summation:

Science does not pretend to know all; it attempts to prove all. ID pretends to know all; it does little to prove anything. (IMO)

Well it does and doesn't, there is a real idealogical difference between the ID and SA guys, on the one hand there is trouble in that the SA crowd who would intentionally hold the 'God' spot blank, but then they have to account for what they can't, even by thier own standards.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think true science should logically be closed to any theory -- but at the same time you will never prove the existence of God, or the that evolution was functionally possible. I think the tendency by the secular crowd is to first rule out God and then get to work on science -- which is bad. I think all timeframes/possibilites/theories should be on the table. I mean, as soon as you write code what's the first thing you do? Nuke it UNMERCILESSLY-- to see if you can break it. Science should be the same way -- like OSS, bring it submit it and if it works, use it. The problem in the Lomborg case is that, his ideas were DOA -- and that's horrible, we've got to hit science as hard as we can to know how strong it is.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #77 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Actually evolutionists get themselves in trouble by saying 'all that exists is matter and mathematical principles -- and nothing else may exist. Nothing."

These statements simply can't be logically made; you cannot use the laws of contradiction to speak to what may or may not exist outside your perception. This is the fallacy of the evolutionist, not that statistical impossibility is worshipped as creator, and illogically posited to create where it is observed to destroy or confuse in all cases, it is the notion that they can speak everywhere, and to everything, but without the depth and breadth of experience to speak authoritatively -- it's a completely nonsensical proposition.

You evolutionists have nowhere to run on this, either take exhaustive responsibility for what can or cannot exist, or let the ID guys in --- you have no other choice. Puerile editorials from SA and other quarters only postpones the inevitable.

Well any good scientist shouldn't be making comments on what can't exist. Science deals with what we can observe and measure. To say something doesn't exist suggests we know everything that does exist- and we don't.

But this is also the reason ID etc don't belong in science. They start with an assumption based on an untestable idea and then build their arguemnet to fit the assumption. That isn't science as we now practice it. It worked for most people a couple of thousand years ago perhaps.
post #78 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Seeing that the Pope died today, when was the last time you saw the world pay so much attention to the death of a scientist?

I hear you.

I guess when Stalin wanted to do something or other in WWII, someone asked him 'what would the Pope think?' -- he remarked 'how many divisions does the Pope have?'

I remarked on another forum of the irony of having the head of the country who tried to have you wacked, come and kiss your ring.

Sweeeeeeeeet.


I just bought the third season of 24, I'm going to go Pig out.

see you guys in the A.M.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #79 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Can't keep track? Try this handy chart: Evolution - vs.- ID / Creationism

Great link. Suddnely i find myself to the far right on the issue
post #80 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I think the tendency by the secular crowd is to first rule out God and then get to work on science -- which is bad.

Well I understand and respect what you think, but as far as Science goes this is simply untrue. Science starts with a question and attempts to discover the answer. These attempts are made using all the applicabale obervations, studies, hypotheses, theories, etc. to reach a conclusion. Things aren't just ruled out for the hell of it. They are ruled out because there is no reasonable reason to include them.

Science starts with an empty plate. Those such as ID want to start out with God immediately in play, and then defy people to disprove His involvement. Which is utterly absurd because you must first prove there is a God to be able to disprove His involvement.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism