Faith-Based

Re: Lies in defense of Creationism

Wrenn — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:32:44 GMT

And are we talking about the trademark Intelligent Design or the class of intelligent design? In my book, SETI belongs to the the class of intelligent design but not the trademark dealing with creationism.

We've gone over this before Patrick. You contexted this because SETI was the search for a design for intelligence in the Universe.

People CANNOT divorce 'intelligent design' from 'Intelligent Design' (I don't believe they've trademarked those words btw) but IN the US, any talk about Intelligent Design, whether capitalized or not MEANS the rehash of creationist beliefs in opposition to science in the classroom. It is so MUCH a part of 'social culture' that it does mean one thing and one thing only. Trying to is just an red herring. It's double speak.

SETI has nothing to do with Intelligent Design. Whether capitalized or not. It does search for intelligence (alien intelligence, other sentient species) by looking for scientific evidence of such - some sort of structure, scientifically, that may not be 'by accident' 'out there'.

I asked you before. 'Do you consider yourself Christian?' 'Do you IDENTIFY as a Christian?'

Calling SETI a case for intelligent design. then would = by your logic (and if you said 'yes' to the two above questions) Calling you affiliated with Christian Identity.

(When I stated this months ago I did not clarify for the masses. Christian Identity is a white supremacist organization).

Gotta disagree here, Patrick

Horus — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:22:14 GMT

What's your basis for making this claim?

Typical chemotherapy amounts to sorcery because it doesn't work and it often reduces the quality of life.

I'd have to say that's not been true for a long time, and that chemo, though initially painful and difficult, can indeed prolong and improve the quality of patients' life drastically.

Yep, it's about ideology

Horus — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:12:32 GMT

As with the political right, a lie told in defense of the ideology isn't a lie at all to adherents...it's a defense of the "right" way of looking at the world around them. In the case of Christianity this is even more powerful, since it's a defense of God Himself, and the "correct" faith. You can see why some of them really get carried away with their cultist activities, since it goes beyond mere human, earthly values and alliances.

Re: Patrick - time to get with the facts

Cooler Heads — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:14:20 GMT

Not without scientific research...

Re: Patrick - time to get with the facts

Patrick — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:09:36 GMT

You go girl!

P.S. Too bad it had to be chemo though and not a better treatment. Will there ever be a better treatment?

Re: Lies in defense of Creationism

Patrick — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:07:24 GMT

I think that would be an accurate assessment. The question is who runs the science? And when heretical science comes along, which is still science, who allows it's acceptance and practice? If the flat earth history has taught us anything, it's not that people believed in a flat earth, but rather something else: the scientific elite of the day suppressed advancement because it challenged their powers that be. Likewise, new science always challenges the current powers that be, so it will always be discounted at first. Science has proven itself to partake of that nature: automatic dismissal and discounting of the new. That's because when the "alpha male" is challenged, as a superorganism, it obviously does two things: 1) it ignores the challenge (which freaks the challenger out so he runs off), or 2) um, he fights the challenge whether justified or not. You guys are such big believers in evolution; yet it's odd that you cannot accept this fact. A simple tenet of such evolution is that when the alpha male (e.g. current scientific dogma) is challenged, he balks. Science isn't as pure as you think. It's supposed to be "open" to new ideas, but it's not. The little dogmatic "creatures" within science must defend themselves. The weakness of evolution is that, as an "alpha male", it can always be replaced by a new "male", one more fit, perhaps some sort of superscience as Relativity was to the Newtonian dominant world view. So I wouldn't be defending evolution as absolute if I were you. *whispers* "Cause it's dogmatic; as much of science is now as it was in the past" (the contention between a flat earth and round sphere should prove this to anyone; those who over look the obvious stick their heads in the sand).

Re: Lies in defense of Creationism

Patrick — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:46:44 GMT

Does all this boil down to simply that I've challenged the status quo science of the day? We can argue about the little quibbles you have all day.

Maybe I'm saying the best science is always heretical because that's the only way science seems to make faster progress.

The question is, do I have a right to question the current presumptions that are commonly made in science? If not, it simply proves that scientific dogma exists. Indeed, it's obvious that you are defending something tooth and nail. Is it really about Creationism? Or...has the status quo been challenged as the dominant "alpha male" within scientific dogma? Maybe ID is a poor example? Consider that chemo has been used for like, what, 50 years. Something new should be tried that is "heretical", cause chemo doesn't work (and when it "does"; you just get cancer from the chemo like 10 years later). However, when something challenges the status quo, say the National Cancer Institute, their social dominance in regards to cancer would be challenged. They either have to get on board and support the new heresy or they have to come up with new studies to discount the study. You can basically set up the parameters of any study to discount another study; or you can make X appear to work (until you get enough studies done, taking like decades probably). The point is dogma exists in science because there are various institutes that have a dominant interest in the finances and social status.

You guys always look at science like it's something pure. It's naive. The truth is that science is ruled by those who have powerful interests, social and financial. Because of this, dogma exists in science. Money and social status is the electricity that makes the science motor run so as to support the dogma that steers where the engine goes.

Re: Lies in defense of Creationism

silent.observer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:08:20 GMT

Patrick:

However, if it means anything, the trademark probably belongs to a different field, but I haven't studied much of it. Have you? Or are you just rehashing typical belief systems?

In order to counter claims made by cdesign proponentsists, yes, I have had to study these claims and research how they are debunked.

And...sometimes science postulates things that can't be proven too, like parallel universes. What cannot be proven and what can is not a litmus test for science. Parallel universes can't be proven, yet it's science.

What do you mean here by "yet it's science"? Do you propose that theories involving parallel universes are treated with the same trust and credibility as, say, the theory of relativity? As I see here, one prominent example, the Many-Worlds interpretation, is called an 'interpretation' and not a theory for a reason -- while some of its proponents contend it can make testable predictions and thus should be called a theory. In that light, the idea seems to be given as much credit as it's due. Likewise for M-theory or the brane world, these ideas propose testable predictions and so they're more than just postulates.

BTW, if you're going to talk postulates and such and quibble over what science can and can't do, you should already know that scientific theories don't 'prove' anything. Proof is the purview of mathematics.

So...there's no reason to automatically dismiss the trademark Intelligent Design as non-science by the same token. It's too quick to judge; must people who say such things don't know much of the details of ID but dismiss it out of contempt for Christians or because it's easier than arguing in it's defense. Or...they use the "short cut" and just lean upon some court ruling that announced it as "non-science". But I don''t let courts do my thinking for me in such matters. Right now I'm impartial but tend to lean on the court case to side that it's not proper science, but that's kind of the point. If it's not science today, will it ever be tomorrow? We could debate this a lot but I think I'll pass.

The Kitzmiller v. Dover case isn't merely leaned upon like a crutch or an argument from authority, the way xians use such fallacious rhetoric to back up their claims, Patrick. The court case is useful because it establishes facts and evidence supporting the assertion that ID is not science, but repackaged religion. Moreover, neither the court nor I has to do your thinking for you. The evidence is laid out there for you to examine. You can follow the line of reasoning to its conclusion. Here's an example.

Eric Rothschild gave the opening statement for the plaintiffs. He said that the plaintiffs would be able to provide many examples of school board members wishing to balance the teaching of evolution with creationism. He attacked prior defense claims that it was a minor affair by saying that there is no such thing as a "little" constitutional violation. He also provided the definition of creationism given by an early draft of Pandas:

Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

He compared this with what was eventually published:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.

(The definitions had come up in an earlier hearing in a July 14 pre-trial hearing.[8]) He also argued that intelligent design was not science in its infancy but rather was not science at all.

What thinking are they asking you to do here, Patrick? Is it difficult to see how the words 'intelligent design' are merely substituted for 'creation' here? Is it hard to see from the cdesign proponentsists typo from the same book that 'design proponent' was simply the more palatable label to swap in for 'creationist'?

Scientists continue to look for ID proponents to propose a theory, to make testable predictions, to test them, to submit their research for peer review. Instead, ID proponents avoid the peer review process, or try to sidestep it, or try to take over organizations and publications to subvert the process yet retain the veneer of scientific credibility. For it to ever be taken seriously, for it to 'become science tomorrow' ID proponents will have to abandon this deceptive, underhanded approach.

The point is that what can be proven begs a lot of questions. Ultimately, you can't really prove anything in science 100% because you will eventually arrive at basic axioms that cannot be proven. You can prove those axioms, but you have to totally step out of the normal system of thought to to do so, and even if you did, you would have to step out into a new system ad infinitum. So...these "proofs" must ultimately be taken upon faith, ironically. We only call things "fact" and "proven" when it's well established empirically.

No, actually, you use 'proven' because you evidently don't know any better. This is why I ask for credible evidence that can withstand scrutiny instead of 'proof.' In the end, there is some trust one has to place in the evidence of one's senses, but in this the skeptic and the believer are no different. I realize that believers often try to equate this with their faith in a god-concept, but this additional article of faith is unnecessary to explain phenomena. That you confuse 'fact' with 'proof' is just poor knowledge of English.

But sometimes something can happen that makes a mess of the empiricism like parallel univeses or quantum mechanics. I mean, like say a chemical type of reaction goes on smoothly like it's supposed to in all the universes that lead up to this current one. But you eventually come across a universe where you spontaneously get cold fusion. Can it be proven the cold fusion in our universe wasn't a rare instance of one of these weird quantum hick-ups for example? Guess the point is that science cannot be proven absolutely 100%. Not sure where I was going with that actually (lol). Can't see what it has to do with dogma now. (Maybe my brain just had one of those weird quantum hick-ups. Lol.)

Yeah, I think I'll just let that stream of incoherence speak for itself. :)

Meanwhile, the theory of evolution will continue to be put to use. It proposes to explain phenomena, it makes predictions we can test, it stands or falls on its own merit. Evolution is what allowed scientists to discover Tiktaalik -- they knew where to look, what to expect, what features to look for. Whereas ID, well, it is what it is; it's creationism in disguise, and its proponents spend their time attacking science, not doing science.

Re: Lies in defense of Creationism

kgswiger — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:40:51 GMT

The set of SETI <> the set of UFOlogists.

Re: Patrick - time to get with the facts

Boss Greer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:48:54 GMT

Freedom Lady:
"It's no fun to sweep hair off the bed, off the floor, off the dogs, out of refrigerator and even off the ceiling...but it beats the hell out of dying!

I don't think any of us knows if that's true or not, but I'm not anxious to test the theory anytime soon...

Patrick - time to get with the facts

Freedom Lady — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:42:30 GMT

"Typical chemotherapy amounts to sorcery because it doesn't work and it often reduces the quality of life"

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

Gee, Patrick, I know quite a few people who have survived cancer through chemotherapy and have gone on to live very happy lives. There are forests of studies - rational thought and empirical evidence up the wazoo - to back this up. As someone who is living a far longer, healthier and productive life thanks to chemo for a non-cancer illness, I'm happy to agree that my quality of life was temporarily shot to hell, but well worth the misery. It's dishonest and unfair to lump real science in with UFO's.

The largest longitudinal study regarding cancer survivors published a few years ago showed a dramatically higher survival rate and higher quality of life for those who dealt with a variety of cancers with Western medicine. As a matter of fact, those who made other choices were likely to die sooner AND leave behind more financial wreckage for their families to deal with after their death. Pretty dramatic.

Not everyone survives serious illnesses like cancer, but every year there are folks surviving cancers and other diseases that were death sentences just 10 years ago. It's no fun to sweep hair off the bed, off the floor, off the dogs, out of refrigerator and even off the ceiling...but it beats the hell out of dying!

Re: Lies in defense of Creationism

Patrick — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:03:58 GMT

That's the point; it has been proven but the pharmaeceuticals keep the stuff around for profit motive. Yet conventional medicine continues to see what it believes instead of believing what is seen. Science is highly dogmatic. I could debate this all day but just look at what other countries accept as medical practice and what others don't. For example, they use vitamin K2 therapy in Japan. In the U.S. they come up with some kind of bogus drug that give you strontium, but all you really need is a strontium supplement - instead you get side effects. I could go on and on but am trying not to and i'm not discussing the side notes like K2 and strontium. Just looking for comparisons so you guys aren't blind your whole life. Science truly IS dogmatic. That's why you have paradigms in science for instance and why they only change when you get enough people banned together. Some of the dogma is rooted in getting grant money too. Blah blah.

And are we talking about the trademark Intelligent Design or the class of intelligent design? In my book, SETI belongs to the the class of intelligent design but not the trademark dealing with creationism. Intelligent design, the class, is not an entirely different field. But right now that class is largely empty with only SETI belonging to it. You can think what you want to though. However, if it means anything, the trademark probably belongs to a different field, but I haven't studied much of it. Have you? Or are you just rehashing typical belief systems? And...sometimes science postulates things that can't be proven too, like parallel universes. What cannot be proven and what can is not a litmus test for science. Parallel universes can't be proven, yet it's science. So...there's no reason to automatically dismiss the trademark Intelligent Design as non-science by the same token. It's too quick to judge; must people who say such things don't know much of the details of ID but dismiss it out of contempt for Christians or because it's easier than arguing in it's defense. Or...they use the "short cut" and just lean upon some court ruling that announced it as "non-science". But I don''t let courts do my thinking for me in such matters. Right now I'm impartial but tend to lean on the court case to side that it's not proper science, but that's kind of the point. If it's not science today, will it ever be tomorrow? We could debate this a lot but I think I'll pass. The point is that what can be proven begs a lot of questions. Ultimately, you can't really prove anything in science 100% because you will eventually arrive at basic axioms that cannot be proven. You can prove those axioms, but you have to totally step out of the normal system of thought to to do so, and even if you did, you would have to step out into a new system ad infinitum. So...these "proofs" must ultimately be taken upon faith, ironically. We only call things "fact" and "proven" when it's well established empirically. But sometimes something can happen that makes a mess of the empiricism like parallel univeses or quantum mechanics. I mean, like say a chemical type of reaction goes on smoothly like it's supposed to in all the universes that lead up to this current one. But you eventually come across a universe where you spontaneously get cold fusion. Can it be proven the cold fusion in our universe wasn't a rare instance of one of these weird quantum hick-ups for example? Guess the point is that science cannot be proven absolutely 100%. Not sure where I was going with that actually (lol). Can't see what it has to do with dogma now. (Maybe my brain just had one of those weird quantum hick-ups. Lol.)

Re: Lies in defense of Creationism

NightSwimmer — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:28:48 GMT

Patrick,

It appears to me that you don't have a problem with 'science' so much as you do with corporations attempting to profit from bad science. The CEO and Marketing Director of a pharmaceutical company are not scientists.

Re: Lies in defense of Creationism

BritBailey — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:33:57 GMT

Patrick:

"Both doggedly pursue their beliefs without regard for rational thought or empirical evidence."

The same could be said about many things in science. Typical chemotherapy amounts to sorcery because it doesn't work and it often reduces the quality of life. Maybe there are better treatments? Or take the use of statins? Many purse the belief that statins prevent heart attacks, but it's not true. This is pursued without regard to rational thought or empirical evidence. The evidence suggests that statins don't work because they lower cholesterol but because they function as a lipid anti-oxidant. These days dogma in science can be just as bad as anything else. I wouldn't perch on that pedestal of superiority if I were you, talking about rational thought and such. Dogma can exist in science just as surely as other systems.

These comments on chemotherapy and statins--whether they are correct or not--can at least be proven or disproven.

Intelligent design belongs in an entirely different category: those ideas which cannot be proven at all.

Re: Lies in defense of Creationism

Patrick — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:08:40 GMT

"Both doggedly pursue their beliefs without regard for rational thought or empirical evidence."

The same could be said about many things in science. Typical chemotherapy amounts to sorcery because it doesn't work and it often reduces the quality of life. Maybe there are better treatments? Or take the use of statins? Many purse the belief that statins prevent heart attacks, but it's not true. This is pursued without regard to rational thought or empirical evidence. The evidence suggests that statins don't work because they lower cholesterol but because they function as a lipid anti-oxidant. These days dogma in science can be just as bad as anything else. I wouldn't perch on that pedestal of superiority if I were you, talking about rational thought and such. Dogma can exist in science just as surely as other systems.