Has Science Morphed Into A New Religion Unto Itself?

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

You do realise I'm talking about massive amounts of natural selection compiled with mutations causing evolution to the extent of chimp-like creature (E,g common ancestor between humans and apes) not just simply "he who survives breeds" logic that you're pointing out.

It is unlikely that mutations are the driving force behind evolution, since no mutation has ever been shown to result in a beneficial quality that makes an organism more fit to it's enviroment. It is more likely that evolution is an intelligent response built into DNA that allows for adaptations. Take for example the domesticated swine, released into the wild within 2 generations it has reverted to the wild state, with tusks and hairy body. It's built into the DNA to be able to adapt.

[studiot]

I have it!

There are (or used to be) certain radio /TV call-in shows where the presenters made a specific point of insullting or brow-beating the callers.

The OP has escaped from radio GAGA where he was trained in these darkside arts.

 

 

May The Force be with you all

Edited September 15, 2017 by studiot

[Anonymous Participant]

I asked a question with this thread. I didn't make an assertion. I provided anecdotal evidence that perhaps at least with some people who believe they understand the scientific method and what science is are actually driven by religious faith based ideas that limit their ability to consider possibilities that conflict with their BELIEFS. There is no need to consider the existence of a personal God to entertain the possibility of intelligent design, and there is nothing inherently superstitious about such a belief.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I have it!

There are (or used to be) certain radio /TV call-in shows where the presenters made a specific point of insullting or brow-beating the callers.

The OP has escaped from radio GAGA where he was trained in these arts.

 

Who is brow beating who? Do you know what the psychological phenomenon called "projection" is?

10 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

It is unlikely that mutations are the driving force behind evolution, since no random mutation has ever been shown to result in a beneficial quality that makes an organism more fit to it's enviroment. It is more likely that evolution is an intelligent response built into DNA that allows for adaptations. Take for example the domesticated swine, released into the wild within 2 generations it has reverted to the wild state, with tusks and hairy body. It's built into the DNA to be able to adapt.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[DeoxyRiboRobert]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

It is unlikely that mutations are the driving force behind evolution, since no mutation has ever been shown to result in a beneficial quality that makes an organism more fit to it's enviroment. It is more likely that evolution is an intelligent response built into DNA that allows for adaptations. Take for example the domesticated swine, released into the wild within 2 generations it has reverted to the wild state, with tusks and hairy body. It's built into the DNA to be able to adapt.

Mutations can be beneficial to the environment and numerous examples are available online. For example, here's probably the best example of a mutation causing a benefit in Phenotype allowing for better survivability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

In the event you aren't totally interested in reading a wikipedia article for an hour to understand what's trying to state I'll abbreviate it as best I can: There was an area wherein there was lots of Lichen (Green-moss looking thing) and lots of photosynthetic (therefore green) trees. This environment was primarily green, therefore moths as close to the green colour of trees and lichen had the best ability to survive, and therefore went on to reproduce and survive. However, this changed when rapid industrialisation appeared causing the Lichen and other photosynthetic plants to die from the pollution. Therefore there's no longer this green environment for the moth to camo itself with. Through mutations a black variation of this previously grey-green moth was produced and it had a vastly superior chance of surviving in an environment where (due to pollution) things were black. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria - Nylonase production is a result of a bacterial cell which allowed bacteria to effectively live in a pond near a factory that used nylon in it's product. This is a form of a beneficial mutation.

Or here's one on an London underground mosquito  http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160323-the-unique-mosquito-that-lives-in-the-london-underground

 

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

Mutations can be beneficial to the environment and numerous examples are available online. For example, here's probably the best example of a mutation causing a benefit in Phenotype allowing for better survivability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

In the event you aren't totally interested in reading a wikipedia article for an hour to understand what's trying to state I'll abbreviate it as best I can: There was an area wherein there was lots of Lichen (Green-moss looking thing) and lots of photosynthetic (therefore green) trees. This environment was primarily green, therefore moths as close to the green colour of trees and lichen had the best ability to survive, and therefore went on to reproduce and survive. However, this changed when rapid industrialisation appeared causing the Lichen and other photosynthetic plants to die from the pollution. Therefore there's no longer this green environment for the moth to camo itself with. Through mutations a black variation of this previously grey-green moth was produced and it had a vastly superior chance of surviving in an environment where (due to pollution) things were black. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria - Nylonase production is a result of a bacterial cell which allowed bacteria to effectively live in a pond near a factory that used nylon in it's product. This is a form of a beneficial mutation.

Or here's one on an London underground mosquito  http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160323-the-unique-mosquito-that-lives-in-the-london-underground

 

The problem with your treatise is that there is no real evidence that an actual mutation occurred, and that the moths DNA didn't already include the traits in a recessive state for the black variation. It is much more likely that like the domestic swine example, the DNA adaptation is an intelligent response to environmental factors that is already present in the existing DNA. The "Wikipedia" article DOES NOT prove a beneficial mutation occurred, it doesn't prove a mutation occurred. ALos, if I were you I would not use Wikipedia as a source for evidence or proof, since it is a user edited source with dubious credibility. Basically anyone can post anything they want to it and if someone doesn't call them on it it stays.

[iNow]

 

46 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Why? Show me proof intelligent design is unscientific. Be specific.

Specifically:

[studiot]

I like miracles. +1

[Anonymous Participant]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Specifically:

Isn't that the big bang theory?

LMAO!

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Specifically:

That is such a great example of empirical proof....I'm CONVINCED NOW!

 

not

Edited September 15, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

ALos, if I were you I would not use Wikipedia as a source for evidence or proof, since it is a user edited source with dubious credibility. Basically anyone can post anything they want to it and if someone doesn't call them on it it stays.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-wikipedia-trustworthy-when-it-comes-to-science/2015/08/24/74c71904-4755-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html

Quote

A 2005 study in the journal Nature found that the information provided on Wikipedia is almost as reliable as that of the benchmark, Encyclopedia Britannica. A 2011 study found that Wiki articles were on a par with professionally edited databases for health-care professionals.

For the new study, which was published Aug. 14 in the journal PLOS One, Adam Wilson, a geographer at the University at Buffalo, and Gene Likens, a professor of ecosystem studies at the University of Connecticut, looked at Wikipedia entries on evolution, global warming and acid rain.

(...)

The study used only a few examples of inaccuracies and did not really show that the controversial articles that were edited more frequently were less accurate, they said. In fact, they continued, several past studies have found that the more an article is edited, the higher the quality.

 

[Anonymous Participant]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-wikipedia-trustworthy-when-it-comes-to-science/2015/08/24/74c71904-4755-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html

 

I am LITERALLY ROTFLMFAO!

The Washington Post?Using the encyclopedia Britannica as a benchmark? There's no secular humanist agenda there, is there?

Wow, I can't believe how ignorant some people can seem when they try to support nonsensical ideas.

[iNow]

You didn't bother attacking the sources they cited within to the actual studies. You're off your game. 

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

You didn't bother attacking the sources they cited within to the actual studies. You're off your game. 

Why should I bother? What difference would it make? The point is you cannot use clearly biased "studies" as proof of Wikipedia's credibility. They are all well known to be part of the same secular humanist (atheist-nihilist) agenda, it's whats known as a "circle jerk".

[Daecon]

I have a question: If your ideas were somehow wrong, what would have to happen in order to show this and prove your ideas are wrong?

If your answer is something along the lines of "nothing", then what you're doing isn't science.

[Anonymous Participant]

What is not surprising is how many so called scientists that are adamant about denying intelligent design and censoring it forcibly in science are also "moral relativists" or secular humanists  who have a predisposition to moral degeneracy and opposition to long accepted social constructs of morality and ethics such as the importance of the  family, the sanctity of individual human life and the adherence to concepts of right and wrong. It would seem that the underlying agenda is attacking and destroying traditional ideas of morality and ethics. As result of this agenda we now have deviant , mentally ill men sharing the restroom with little girls, little children getting sex reassignment therapy, sexual deviants adopting and raising children, and abortion for the purposes of birth control. These things are clearly wrong and harmful, but if you remove the principals of morality and ethical behavior right and wrong no longer matter, and pure evil rules

12 minutes ago, Daecon said:

I have a question: If your ideas were somehow wrong, what would have to happen in order to show this and prove your ideas are wrong?

If your answer is something along the lines of "nothing", then what you're doing isn't science.

Intelligent design is probably the most falsifiable theory in science. Out of the entire body of known science facts and laws, all you have to do is demonstrate one that proves there is no intelligent design in the order of the universe. Because you cannot does not mean it isn't falsifiable, it means you can't prove it wrong.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Participant said:

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Not at all. The problem exists with your fanaticism and extreme unsupported views. Let me state it again...Evolution is as close to being a fact as anyone could wish for, with outstanding amounts of evidence that you will never invalidate.

Quote

I have no desire to convert you, I just want to see your religious convictions and beliefs removed from science as a limitation, because it has no place in it.

OK, that's nice, you certainly though have an agenda and an axe to grind, for the reasons I have already stated, not to mention your blatant dishonesty in claiming I have, or science is in anyway religious.....Where I come from we call that a cop out.

Edited September 16, 2017 by beecee

[Anonymous Participant]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not at all. The problem exists with your fanaticism and extreme unsupported views. Let me state it again...Evolution is as close to being a fact as anyone could wish for, with outstanding amounts of evidence that you will never invalidate.

OK, that's nice, you certainly though have an agenda and an axe to grind, for the reasons I have already stated.

1) I believe the basic premise of the theory of evolution is correct. I also also believe based on empirical facts that it's existence as a valid , likley correct theory supports intelligent design. Evolution and intelligent design are wholly compatible, but not holy compatible.

2) the only agenda I have is empiricism as a basis of scientific inquiry, absent of preconceived beliefs on religious ideas which are not falsifiable and therefore non scientific

 

It seems likely as we continue in this debate that eventually the proponents of the "non intelligent design presupposition" of modern science are going to reveal their agenda, and perhaps that is why it is such a censored and  un-debated subject, because there is an underlying agenda controlling scientific inquiry .. There is one obvious fact in all of this, and that is to believe in intelligent design does not necessarily include a religious belief, but a presupposition that is wrong clearly does.

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

the only agenda I have is empiricism as a basis of scientific inquiry

What empiricism supports the existence of a creator/designer?

Edited September 16, 2017 by iNow

[Anonymous Participant]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

What empiricism supports the existence of a creator?

Intelligent design does not in of itself define a creator, nor does it attempt to. Not where real scientists are concerned. It simply states that there is an intelligent arrangement. How it came into being is another idea entirely independent of it's supposed reality, it is not necessary to prove the existence of a "creator" to support intelligent design theory. because we cannot yet comprehend what this intelligence is does not really matter, I think if we ever did we would ourselves define God.

The existence or non existence of a "creator" are both un-falsifiable, and therefore are both non-scientific ideas. Both are unsupportable assertions based on belief, which as you should know has no place in real science. Science is supposed to take us where the evidence leads, not force us down a particular path,

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

Definitely not. The scientific theory of intelligent design is an effort to empirically determine whether or not  the apparently omnipresent design in nature acknowledged by virtually all serious scientists  is indeed and intelligent  design and therefore the product of an intelligent cause,  or is it instead the result of an un-ordered process such as some  disordered selection acting on random variations. Creationism  starts with a religious belied and tries to reconcile the findings of science  to a presupposed supernatural belief (not science) . Since Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and has the goal of determining what conclusions can can be drawn from that evidence, it is indeed valid science and therefore a valid scientific theory. As opposed to creationism, the theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern science can isolate whether the intelligence detected through science is somehow supernatural. Some proponents of intelligent design are creationists, but certainly not all.

Honest criticism of intelligent design by real scientists always acknowledges the difference between intelligent design and creationism, and those that don't always have a clear atheist agenda.

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

Definitely not.

https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists

Quote

For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down.

The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!

Scanned images of this passage, in its various versions, are shown below.

 

"Cdesign Proponentsists"

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists

 

Again, some creationists and coreligionists are obviously proponents of intelligent design, but not all proponents of intelligent design are creationists or coreligionists. The existence of non-scientists withing the ranks of intelligent design proponents is no different than the existence of non scientists supporting relativity.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

not all proponents of intelligent design are creationists or coreligionists.

Just the originators of the idea and authors of their textbooks then?

[Anonymous Participant]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just the originators of the idea and authors of their textbooks then?

Intelligent design has been a pervasive belief among all noteworthy scientists in the history of the intellectual discipline that is science. It was never given a label because there was no need to, there was an almost universal  consensus that precluded the need for debate on the subject in science. It wasn't until the atheist agenda seized control of science and converted it into some kind of new age religion that the debate began in earnest.

I am not certain who created the specific label "intelligent design",  and neither are you. NOR DOES IT MATTER. It is a succinct nomenclature regardless of who came up with it.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I am not certain who created the specific label "intelligent design",  and neither are you.

So, you claim knowledge of a designer with no evidence and now you claim knowledge of what I do and do not know, as if you have access to my mind and experiences. Do you have any other skills I should know about? Are you available for party tricks?

[Anonymous Participant]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, you claim knowledge of a designer with no evidence and now you claim knowledge of what I do and do not know, as if you have access to my mind and experiences. Do you have any other skills I should know about? Are you available for party tricks?

I have SPECIFICALLY stated that I DO NOT seek to explain the nature of a creator or have nay knowledge thereof.

 

You ARE NOT certain how the term came into existence. I can say this with absolute certainty because I saw it being used as far back as the late 70's in conversation , Pual Harvey mentioned it on radio in the same period. it goes back to at least the 1800's:

[Snip]

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/06/on_the_origin_o_5/

Charles Darwin himself referred to “intelligent design” in a 1861 letter:

One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this.¹

In fact, the term was in use throughout the 19th century. A search of Google books from prior to 1900 confirms this, with multiple instances.² Here’s one from 1847 in Scientific American:

And where must we look for this fountain but to the great store-house of nature — the innumerable and diversified objects there were presented to our view give evidence of infinite skill and intelligent design in their adaptation to each other and to the nature of man.³

It is not a new concept, it is a relatively new THEORY in science, with a lot of support from respected scientists,. How it came to represent a particular theory and what that theory actually is raises debate because it has been misrepresented intentionally by organized atheist-nihilist activists intent on removing any mention of it from academia and specifically the public school system .The reference you gave of a particular example of its use by substituting it for creation in a book is not proof of it's origin. Apparently you don't understand what proof is.

 

Have a NICE day

What I have seen on this board thus far is a lot of bluster, and claims of knowledge but very little evidence of it. How anyone can claim they KNOW the intelligent design theory is invalid as science and look another straight in the face and claim adherence to scientific principals of investigation baffles me. I think they're just unintelligent and suffering from some sort of belief enhanced delusion.

 

"one ounce of independent thought is worth 2 tons of education"

What most of you do not understand is that the atheist/nihilist  agenda is being promoted by people who are actually Luciferian deists themselves. You're a tool, nothing more.

Their intent is to make people more pliable to moral relativistic ideas that make their control more complete. If it were allowed to run it's course things like pedophilia and euthanasia of weak or problematic children or even extermination of entire races of people are inevitable. Many of you would never have live to adulthood under a system of moral relativism .

Edited September 16, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Apparently you don't understand what proof is.

Proof is for math, not science.