20 Jul 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeCreationists generally claim that there is a god and that he is their own God, who has created all things.
What are the differences, would anyone care to explain?
ID attempts to show the necessity of a designer. In its purest form, ID does not make any claims about the nature of the designer.
20 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrAs irrational as every Wulbgr. Have you read all the publications to be able to make such as sweeping statement. Anyone who has studied logic would know that a Universal Negative is unprovable and illogical.
ID advocates have at least a thin list of refereed publications; Creationists have none.
20 Jul 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThe truth is, Halitose, that your argument is coming from ignorance. ID scientists (the only notable ones are Michael Behe and William Dembski) do not publish ID related material in mainstream peer reviewed journals. Michael Behe is the important case because he is still, as far as I know, the only one from the Discovery Institute with full professorship at a reputable university.
As irrational as every Wulbgr. Have you read all the publications to be able to make such as sweeping statement. Anyone who has studied logic would know that a Universal Negative is unprovable and illogical.
Behe is careful to keep his ID ideas in the popular press by publishing books for the scientifically illiterate and away from science journals where his anti-science would be clearly recognized. The articles upon which he established his tenure are articles unrelated to ID. So basically he does biochemistry work like other biochemists in the scientific community, and he does anti-science in the popular press.
20 Jul 05
Originally posted by yousersWhat is the difference in terms of science? Both sets deny evolution but what on what basis?
Creationists generally claim that there is a god and that he is their own God, who has created all things.
ID attempts to show the necessity of a designer. In its purest form, ID does not make any claims about the nature of the designer.
20 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrCareful. Those IDer's and YEC's got around this argument by starting there own peer reviewed jounals. Basically, they write some hogwash and then a few friends sign off on it. Voila! Another publication!
ID advocates have at least a thin list of refereed publications; Creationists have none.
Of course, a reputable research university is going to give that article about as much weight as if it appeared in Astrology Weekly, but nevertheless, deceitful shananigans like this provide yet another false security for those in the public that really want to believe.
20 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionSo they don't go for publications in journals such as Nature?
Careful. Those IDer's and YEC's got around this argument by starting there own peer reviewed jounals. Basically, they write some hogwash and then a few friends sign off on it. Voila! Another publication!
Of course, a reputable research university is going to give that article about as much weight as if it appeared in Astrology Weekly, but neverthele ...[text shortened]... ike this provide yet another false security for those in the public that really want to believe.
20 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitosePlease supply a list of referred publications advocating creationism, if there are any.
As irrational as every Wulbgr. Have you read all the publications to be able to make such as sweeping statement. Anyone who has studied logic would know that a Universal Negative is unprovable and illogical.
My own expertise is good enough for me, as I read all the creationist literature that I could find more than twenty years ago, and now visit their websites ofetn enough to see that they have not broken any new ground since then.
Also, please note the e you suppressed in my name.
20 Jul 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeWell the major difference I just pointed out is that creationism is necessarily theistic, while ID can remain atheistic.
What is the difference in terms of science? Both sets deny evolution but what on what basis?
Creationism seeks to show that certain lines of evidence are more supportive of the existence of a creator than TOE. Creationists will take evidence that presents problems for evolutionary explanation and use it to point to a supernatural power.
ID, on the other hand, seeks to identify that which has natural cause and that which requires intelligent intervention. This process is quite similar to that which occurs with crime scene investigators (not the TV shows). They seek out that evidence which is indicative of human intervention. Dembinski has come up with a "filter" for identifying this intervention, I understand. I don't know how or if it works, but the idea behind it is to allow only those things which are virtually inexplicable by natural means to be considered as designed.
Hope this helps
20 Jul 05
Originally posted by yousersPresumably they have published some form of testable evidence for the intelligent causative agent? If ID is a scientific theory then is will have been based on empirical evidence which is reproducible in any laboratory and provide explainations on the nature of the causative agent.
Well the major difference I just pointed out is that creationism is necessarily theistic, while ID can remain atheistic.
Creationism seeks to show that certain lines of evidence are more supportive of the existence of a creator than TOE. Creationists will take evidence that presents problems for evolutionary explanation and use it to point to a supernatura ...[text shortened]... which are virtually inexplicable by natural means to be considered as designed.
Hope this helps
A filter which identifies phenomena as 'inexplicable' does that and that alone. Inexpliable and therefore caused by by intelligent intervention needs to show a link between the inexplicable phenomena and the causative agent whatever its nature. Without evidence on the nature of the agent and a link showing how the agent acted then and inexplicable phenomena is nothing more than an interesting avenue for further research.
20 Jul 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI can't and don't want to defend either of these two viewpoints. I agree there is a lack of published works and/or well-known empiricle evidence. Some possible reasons for lack of publishing could be:
Presumably they have published some form of testable evidence for the intelligent causative agent? If ID is a scientific theory then is will have been based on empirical evidence which is reproducible in any laboratory and provide explainations on the nature of the causative agent.
A filter which identifies phenomena as 'inexplicable' does that an ...[text shortened]... and inexplicable phenomena is nothing more than an interesting avenue for further research.
-a small number of ID/creationists actually doing publishable work
-a fear of the harsh criticism they would undoubtedly face
-a lack of interest from the publishers to stray from the dominant paradigm
-a flat out lack of evidence
Can we reproduce evolution from one species to the next in the lab??
I have not read up on Dembinski's filter. I assume you have not either. If that is the case, you have made some bold statements about something which neither of us know anything about.
Again, I am not advocating either of these two positions. Nor am I an expert who can point out all of the major works to you. I simply seek to weigh the evidence and avoid rejecting alternatives to evolution a priori.