Why fear ID?

Village Journals

Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.

"What has led to bones of contention within the scientific community are the newest discoveries which bring us to the quite justified reasoning of ?following the evidence wherever it may lead.? It?s about the fact that research and discoveries over the last 30 years in biochemistry, cells and organs, and the cosmology of the universe (Big Bang theory) justify following the hypotheses which have arisen out of science itself. Both ends of the spectrum strongly point to some kind of intelligent force birthing both the universe and life. The Naturalist-Atheists are the ones fighting against the paradigm shift in Science."

"When a science teacher announces that we are all accidents, ?nature is all there is,? then this is philosophy and not ?empirical science.? Instead of following the evidence where it leads, the scientific community is enclosing itself in a box of its own making. Science teachers will have a difficult time as more Americans educate themselves and their children about Darwinism and the naturalist worldview.

Keep asking the questions!"
www.opinioneditorials.com

Question: Is science synonymous with the pursuit of "truth"?

Add Comments

Add

Comments on this journal

i will repeat. millers experiment is not about evolution it is biochemistry. the TOE deals with, and only with, change over time. speciation and whatnot. those studies do fit with it, that is good, if they didn't there would need to be more studies to find out how it could have all started. but TOE is speciation, not creation. creation has it's own theories and experiemnts to back it up, and "let there be life" is not science.

Plato, check out www.harunyahya.com and look under "Miller's Experiment" to see what a joke the so-called "test of Evolution" really was ... the only argument against ID that's worth attention is untestibility of it as you have said ... I'll write up a brief piece and post it here soon describing at least my personal view on it ... i'm going to LA this week so iA when i get back :)

safe travels

Miller experiment was a failure ... i'm not talking about Creationism ... this village is called ID for a reason ... it's ridiculous to compare gravity with evolutionists' blind love for TOE ... m traveling at the moment, will post some details when i get back iA

creationists read more into it that they should, they see these ideas as attacks on our humanity, or on God or on their belief systems, which htey are not. it is just an explanation of natural law that we saw in action. change over time, natural selection, genetic variability, mutations and more offspring increase fitness

science. testable, refutable, fluid with new information. the new information gathered by these suprisingly simple experiments support TOE, but TOE is defined as " theory of evolution Biological theory that postulates that animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution, as put forth by Charles Darwin, is one of the keystones of modern biological theory. " by aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov

www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de en.wikipedia.org

intelligent person at one time or another encounters this question. A divine origin has been proposed by many religions but the possibility of divine origins falls outside the realm of science because it cannot be tested. The same can be said for notions of life coming here from outer space or from a space probe from another planet billions of years ago. We cannot scientifically test these things

the studies you are talking about, amino acids aggregating, electircity and nutrient rich ponds forming up spontaneuously into some sort of order have been studied, and senarious have been recreated in labs showing how from random nutrient baths one could get nucleic acids (DNA) and carbon chains. it's been shown, it's been studied. the TOE deals with, and only with, change over time. speciation and whatnot. those studies do fit with it, that is good, if they didn't there would need to be more studies to find out how it could have all started. but TOE is speciation, not creation. creation has it's own theories and experiemnts to back it up, and "let there be life" is not science.

TOE doesn't talk about living matter, TOE isn't an "atheist" doctrine, it's a scientific one. Gravity isn't an "atheist" doctrine, electron excitability isn't an "atheist" doctrine, they are scientific ones. but God isn't considered as a factor because they study natural laws, not theologic ideas.

I am quite aware of the TOE not talking about humans only but life in general. The reference to humans was only to keep the discussion focused. You need to do a little bit more homework on the TOE ? when you do you?ll see that it doesn?t just account for ?overtime change? as you so conveniently put it, it goes much further than that as to how life was started from ?non-living matter?. Random pond, lightening strike etc. ring a bell? When I said man?s existence, I meant man?s creation ? I didn?t used the term creation just to be appropriate ? am not talking about man?s ?purpose? on this earth. The TOE when taken in its ENTIRETY is indeed an atheist doctrine. One may look at bits and pieces of it and claim otherwise, but whoever has done some a relatively comprehensive research on it would conclude otherwise. Evolutionists cannot come up with answers to the questions posed and the way they decided to get around it disqualify the questions - and the inevitable conclusion, by claiming it?s not science. Way to go...

TOE doesn't want to address the quesiton at the hearth of man's existacne. that isn't it's job, it is science not philosophy.

science has no say in man's existance, it gives a probably mechanism for change over time, the existance of disticnt but related species (yes including man, but man is not the sole purpose of TOE, creationists, even those who claim ID, forget that), and the development of increasingly complex biologic forms over the millenia through incremental changes. TOE does not pretend to claim a non-existance of God, it give a mechanism of change, compatible with our observation of natural world, and our understanding of natural law. TOE doesn't pinpoint "mans" evolution, it deals with speciation over time, including man's, but the existance of a species called homo sapiens is neither the purpose, the "pin" or the reason for TOE, i'm sure you know that it started with bird beak on the galapagoes, and pea's in a monks garden. IDists believe that TOE is some sort of attack on the divine. it's not, no more than gravity, they think it defiles man's place, it does not, man is a species, as amazing as a banana (but not as sweet) TOE is based natural law, observation, study, experimentation, review and repeat. it is science. it can be disproven and if it is wrong it will be. ID cannot, and if it is wrong it will never be. It is not science, and should not be taught as such.

ID is an alternative because the TOE simply FAILED to address questions that lie at the heart of man's existence. If ID renders "not-testable" in a laboratory setting as you'd like, tough. After all this argumentation in the world, if you still argue ID isn't science, then may be science shouldn't address the question of man's existence altogeter instead of the fantasy-filled stories that evolutionists like to tell to the rest of the world? It's the proponents of TOE who like to chalk up an image pin-pointing man's so-called evolution, so it's inevitable that there horrendous claims be unveiled and alternatives are set forth. ID has done just that.

testability, is the only possible thing that will differenciate your valued "truth" from "truths" that are in fact untrue. If ID is wrong without testability, then how would we know ID is wrong. If it is wrong, then how will we ever know? it is not science. though it may or may not be true (i don't believe it)

i am not aware of what the salesman problem
.

ok, allow me to question you this. if i make an unfalsifiable claim. how is it scientific, and how is it "true" if it is unable to be proven?

www.salon.com

Those who hide behind the argument of ?we won?t be able to ?test? it hence it?s not science? are imposing their own definition of science upon others. Why do we have tools such as models, theories etc.? So that we could unveil the ?truth?, is it not? So if we are coming to a conclusion that certain phenomena is not explicable by these tools, isn?t it a time to reexamine these tools instead of stripping science of it?s supremacy i.e., the pursuit of ?truth? and reinforcing the same old mantra?

Plato, this is precisely where the fissure b/w your and my views occurs. I uphold science?s ONLY and ULTIMATE aim to be the pursuit of ?truth? and that is all. The question of creation is slightly more important than your liking for pina colada. If the hypothesis, theories, models etc. lead us to a conclusion that seems ?incredible?, that does not throw the result outside the realm of science. I consider science to be more capable than that. I?m sure you have heard of the problems like Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) where it?s been mathematically proved that it?s not possible to find a solution for them? What?d be your reply to that? It?s not mathematics?

Village Journals Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.

Why fear ID?

Add Comments

Comments on this journal

Village Journals

Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.