1. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    20 Jul '05 22:30
    In 1987 the US Supreme Court decided that creationism was religion rather than science and could not be taught in US state schools as science. In 1988 the Intelligent Design concept was postulated on the assumption that if god was not explicitly named in the theory it would circumvent the Supreme Court Ruling while leavding the reader or pupil to the implicit requirement for god.

    To what extent is this cynical ploy equivelent to the Nazi and Communist perversion of science in the 1930s
  2. Joined
    20 May '05
    Moves
    2728
    21 Jul '05 14:38
    I as a German am of the opinion that nothing was, is or will be more cruel than what Mengele did.
  3. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    21 Jul '05 14:58
    "In 1987 the US Supreme Court decided that creationism was religion rather than science and could not be taught in US state schools as science."

    Isn't it true that a key witness for the Darwinists has since retracted his position that science doesn't have philosophical presuppositions?
  4. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    21 Jul '05 15:49
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    "In 1987 the US Supreme Court decided that creationism was religion rather than science and could not be taught in US state schools as science."

    Isn't it true that a key witness for the Darwinists has since retracted his position that science doesn't have philosophical presuppositions?
    Back that up with a name.
  5. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    21 Jul '05 16:26
    Dr. Michael Ruse, sir.
  6. Joined
    24 May '05
    Moves
    7212
    21 Jul '05 16:54
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    "In 1987 the US Supreme Court decided that creationism was religion rather than science and could not be taught in US state schools as science."

    Isn't it true that a key witness for the Darwinists has since retracted his position that science doesn't have philosophical presuppositions?
    I'd say anyone who claims that there are no philosohpical presuppositions within science is only fooling themselves.
  7. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    21 Jul '05 18:30
    Is aardvarkhome satisfied? Have you any more to say to this issue?
  8. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    21 Jul '05 19:52
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    Is aardvarkhome satisfied? Have you any more to say to this issue?
    Plenty. Usually a new theory arises because of new discoveries or new techniques are used to re-examine and re-interprete old data.

    If a new theory arises because of a political or legal decision you can bet your bottom dollar that its proponents are frauds deviants and liars. That seems to cover the case of ID
  9. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    21 Jul '05 20:02
    In what way is Information theory, especially as it relates to DNA and its language structure, not new information?
    Is not the idea of irreducible complexity also a recent line of thought?
  10. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    21 Jul '05 20:04
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    In what way is Information theory, especially as it relates to DNA and its language structure, not new information?
    Is not the idea of irreducible complexity also a recent line of thought?
    In general they're rubbish science the specifics of which have been debated in a number of other threads.
  11. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    21 Jul '05 20:07
    Well, having been masterfully labled as "rubbish science," I suppose we can put this matter to rest. Thank you for you lucid, convincing, and singularly scientific case.
  12. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    21 Jul '05 20:11
    Irreducible Complexity--Rubbish Science

    A basic mouse trap, without a spring, catches how many mice? Let's say it had a spring, but no lever? A complete mouse trap can catch mice. If any of its components is missing, it not only catches fewer mice, but it catches no mice. It cannot survive as a mousetrap unless all its parts are in place. A mouse trap is irreducibly complex.
  13. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    21 Jul '05 21:50
    Oh no, look who's here! Look out folks, we're about to get some serious Spirituality on. I may have to come out of forum sabbatical.

    I know this particular theologian and I anticipate some serious debate rather than the typical tripe and nonsense that we've all grown accustomed to and bored with here.
  14. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    21 Jul '05 22:00
    Originally posted by aardvarkhome
    In general they're rubbish science the specifics of which have been debated in a number of other threads.
    What is the antecedant of 'they'?
  15. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    21 Jul '05 23:041 edit
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    Irreducible Complexity--Rubbish Science

    A basic mouse trap, without a spring, catches how many mice? Let's say it had a spring, but no lever? A complete mouse trap can catch mice. If any of its components is missing, it not only ca ...[text shortened]... all its parts are in place. A mouse trap is irreducibly complex.
    Irreducible complexity is fallacious on these grounds:

    The blood clotting process in humans is said to be irreducibly complex because it requires the interaction of ten proteins. Ten protein all of which interact, must be too complex to happen by chance and there usually follows some maths demonstrating that had there been a large pile of amino acids being jumbled together the chances of those particular proteins forming is very small.

    This assumes that the ten specific proteins are all unique and all required, I've never studied blood clotting but I have studied plant enzymes and one this I have learned is that functional proteins occur in different forms in individuals within a species (even in siblings) so we are not looking at one unique outcome but a number of outcomes (yet the maths always seems to ignore this). I also know that the functional domain of proteins is often a small part of the whole structure so the so called complexity is exageragted as only the form and function of the active domain need be conserved, yet this too is ignored in the maths. Looking slighly aside we find that many nonhuman animals have the same functionality for blood clotting yet they use different combinations of ten proteins which further reduces the irreducible complexity and others use fewer proteins. Yet the maths of irreducibly complexity ignores all of this which is what makes it rubbish science.

    Any questions?

    Oh, the mouse trap. You are describing the classic 'break-back mouse trap' There are other designs of mouse trap; I have two in my shed. They have no springs, no levers but they catch mice. Along with blood clotting, mousetraps are not irreducibly complex
Back to Top