1. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    19 Jul '05 23:08
    What are the differences, would anyone care to explain?
  2. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    19 Jul '05 23:13
    Originally posted by aardvarkhome
    What are the differences, would anyone care to explain?
    ID advocates have at least a thin list of refereed publications; Creationists have none.
  3. Standard memberMoldy Crow
    Your Eminence
    Scunthorpe
    Joined
    16 Dec '04
    Moves
    13395
    19 Jul '05 23:14
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    ID advocates have at least a thin list of refereed publications; Creationists have none.
    94 !!! Well played !
  4. Joined
    24 May '05
    Moves
    7212
    20 Jul '05 01:19
    Originally posted by aardvarkhome
    What are the differences, would anyone care to explain?
    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.
  5. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    20 Jul '05 07:22
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    ID advocates have at least a thin list of refereed publications; Creationists have none.
    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.
  6. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    20 Jul '05 07:49
    Originally posted by Halitose
    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.
    And the differences are?
  7. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    20 Jul '05 08:00
    Originally posted by Halitose
    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.
    The 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.

    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.
  8. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    20 Jul '05 08:01
    Originally posted by yousers
    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.
    What is the difference in terms of science? Both sets deny evolution but what on what basis?
  9. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    20 Jul '05 08:041 edit
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    ID advocates have at least a thin list of refereed publications; Creationists have none.
    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 nevertheless, deceitful shananigans like this provide yet another false security for those in the public that really want to believe.
  10. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    20 Jul '05 08:07
    Originally posted by telerion
    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.
    So they don't go for publications in journals such as Nature?
  11. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    20 Jul '05 13:341 edit
    Originally posted by Halitose
    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.
    Please supply a list of referred publications advocating creationism, if there are any.

    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.
  12. Joined
    24 May '05
    Moves
    7212
    20 Jul '05 16:51
    Originally posted by aardvarkhome
    What is the difference in terms of science? Both sets deny evolution but what on what basis?
    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 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
  13. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    20 Jul '05 17:33
    Originally posted by yousers
    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
    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 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.

  14. Joined
    24 May '05
    Moves
    7212
    20 Jul '05 17:44
    Originally posted by aardvarkhome
    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.

    I 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:
    -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.
Back to Top