|
On December 11 2007 07:13 Mayson wrote:
But, as much as I hate to say it, I can't agree that firing him was correct. It is not the job of his employer to force his views on him, no matter how "correct" said employer may feel said views are. It is the right of the individual in this country to be free from religious prosecution. That's what the United States of America were founded on.
Then how do you explain all of the state-sanctioned religious persecution that took place both before and after the ratification of the Constitution? Massachusetts still had a state church into the 1830s. Pennsylvania, and (iirc) Maryland had state churches during the same period. Several states barred non-Christians and even Catholics from holding office or serving on juries.
EDIT: Oh, and you can still find a few state constitutions that bar non-monotheists from holding office.
|
Man, what a misleading topic title.
"Beliefs OF evolution" and ON evolution are so different.
|
On December 11 2007 07:13 Mayson wrote:
Well, I can't say I'm surprised to hear that a Creationist denies a theory that's more-or-less been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't doubt the anguish he's experiencing, although said cognitive dissonance is really his own fault for failing to look at the information available, compare and contrast that to his religious beliefs, and then realize that his religious beliefs are just that: beliefs; they are nothing more. They are not founded on any tangible, quantifiable evidence.
But, as much as I hate to say it, I can't agree that firing him was correct. It is not the job of his employer to force his views on him, no matter how "correct" said employer may feel said views are. It is the right of the individual in this country to be free from religious prosecution. That's what the United States of America were founded on.
He did not refuse to do his job; he refused to accept another's view of the given topic. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I think it's BECAUSE it's a religious issue we are forcing ourselves to try and be tolerant, to try and overlook the stupidity. The theory of evolution is not something that should be shrugged off so easily, though it may be considered a "theory", much like gravity, it has stood the test of time and is still being reinforced and expanded. If someone were to out right reject this theory because of an irrational belief in some deity, and that man is a biologist, well I would say he was somewhat unfit to do his job. Though this highly depends on the nature of his job.
Edit: I just read the article after skimming through it:
The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories.
I think firing him was wholly justifiable.
|
On December 11 2007 07:13 Mayson wrote:
He did not refuse to do his job; he refused to accept another's view of the given topic. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
Yeah, but his job is to take that scientific theory and apply it to real-life instances and publish results with federal money. His writings could very easily be influenced by his beliefs and could damage the reputation of the other scientists in his group and risk losing their federal money.
There's a big difference between someone gettin fired from their 9-5 accountant's job for being religious from this.
|
I have a hard time agreeing with half of the things that evolutionary psychologists say, but I've never had trouble completing an assignment on it.
He can still do his job while personally disagreeing with the theory he's working with. Hawk, I'm sure that with his education, and his placement at a federally-funded program, both parties are aware of what "researcher bias" is and how to control for it.
It's the first thing you learn in how to conduct research.
|
My take on this is that if he is teaching a science class, he should teach science. I am all about acceptance and tolerance and compassion, but a science class is about science, not about God and 7 day creation stuff.
Similarly, I wouldn't want calculus to be taught in an english class. If the dude can teach biology and carry out good work, then I don't care if he is a Christian. But if he is trying to teach Christianity in a biology class, especially with federal dollars... it just doesn't seem right.
|
this is tipical and evolution is not a fact no matter how many post you say it is, its just a theory like many others.
|
|
|
ill leave you guys with something to discuss.
+ Show Spoiler +Hypothesis: Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design.
Prediction: ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics which are measurable in terms of complexity, objective patterns and functional complexity.
Mechanism: The mechanism of Intelligent Design is "design," the means by which engineers build sophisticated systems. Design is a tool in the toolkit of the designer. We can say that "design" is driven by intelligence, like "natural selection" is driven by the environment. Look up the synonyms for design and there is no contradiction, they fit quite plainly for those who understand the English language. Mechanism... synonym: means. Method. System. Procedure. A finch's beak adapts to the environment by changing it's shape/size by the mechanism of "natural selection." (Darwinists call it evolution, it is adaptation)
The rigorous criteria of the scientific method:
1. Formulate an hypothesis, make a prediction.
2. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.
3. Observe the experiment and produce data.
4. Repeat the experiment. Verify repeatability.
To test the ID hypothesis we utilize the scientific method as follows:
1. Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design. Anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics.
2. Employ the Explanatory filter: a three stage flow chart, a classic method of induction/deduction for detecting design.
3. Observe tests of known designed systems/objects and *non-designed artifacts of nature.
4. The test is repeatable and verifiable.
*non-designed artifacts: There were formative rocks that we observed spewing out of Mount St. Helens in the form of lava. These young rocks are clearly not the direct work of an intelligent agent. We could use one of those rocks. Or maybe another rock of your choice. We observe crystals "growing" which embody complexity and objective patterns, some might argue that a crystal even contains rudimentary information. We could use one of those crystals.
ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics. When you run a "snow flake" through the "Explanatory Filter" the results tell us that the snow flake was not designed. Put a "simple cell" (as Darwin put it) in the "Explanatory Filter" and the results tell us that the "simple cell" was designed. Evolutionists have difficulty with this because they are emotionally attached to evolution, Darwin is their prophet and Nature is their God.
Scientists assert that design is detectable in "molecular machines," like the bacterial flagellum (there are thousands of such examples.) We observe that this tiny motor needs all of its parts to function, it is "irreducibly complex." Remove one part and the motor doesn't work. It is not the result of Darwinian evolution: a long slow unguided process of successive microscopic changes, by which unintelligent matter gives rise to intelligence with zero intelligent input. There is no proof of evolution in this sense, or evolution of the bacterical flagellum for that matter. Because of their purposeful and sophisticated feedback mechanisms, these designed systems also required forethought in the design process which is the power of an intelligent driving force.
There are specific features that cause us to recognize prior intelligent activity. The reliable, empirical and scientifically rigorous criteria that we employ are improbability (complexity) and specification (objective patterns). We conclude that what we observe is the product of intelligence when it meets the criterion of improbability and specification.
Only intelligence can produce highly organized information such as the English language. How much more sophisticated is DNA, hmm? There is nothing in the known universe that stores and processes more information as efficiently as the DNA molecule. Everything we know affirms that information transferring languages are the product of intelligence. The argument is not based on what we don't know; it is based on what we know.
We know that there is no natural cause that produces an information transferring language. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes and not pure chance. Yet we know that intelligence produces these kinds of sophisticated systems, but human intelligence has quite a ways to go before it can match the ultra-sophisticated DNA/RNA system. These aren't God's gaps, they are Darwinist's Gaps.
When we infer design from the presence of information in DNA we are making an inference to the best explanation. Intelligent causes are real and they leave evidence of their existence. We arrive at this conclusion based on the scientific foundations of inference and deductive reasoning.
|
Norway10161 Posts
On December 11 2007 07:41 TesisMech wrote:
this is tipical and evolution is not a fact no matter how many post you say it is, its just a theory like many others.
But the bible is not even that. You can chose to believe it, but it is based on _no_ facts at all. A lot of the theory of evolution can be proven, so it is a much stronger base for belif than the bible.
EDIT: Sorry, I should have said that better. The theory of evolution can be based on experiments we can create (splitting populations, pairing different species, placing species outside their usual "home", etc), and this can be combined with studies of species and how they have changed over the years and thus we have a strong case for the whole theory of evolution.
|
Irreducibly complex: We don't know yet, so it must have been God.
|
This guy's pretty clever: even if his case is total frivolous BS (and it sounds like it is) he'll have 298374567 bible thumpers' rabid support anyway.
|
On December 11 2007 07:51 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 07:41 TesisMech wrote:
this is tipical and evolution is not a fact no matter how many post you say it is, its just a theory like many others. But the bible is not even that. You can chose to believe it, but it is based on _no_ facts at all. A lot of the theory of evolution can be proven, so it is a much stronger base for belif than the bible.
edit: nvm Its been many debates about this and i dont want to start again in attacking those "facts" you call of evolution
|
You guys I asked you, why are you saying I didn't.
|
On December 11 2007 07:41 TesisMech wrote:
this is tipical and evolution is not a fact no matter how many post you say it is, its just a theory like many others.
Again, you have no idea what a scientific theory is.
|
On December 11 2007 07:49 TesisMech wrote:ill leave you guys with something to discuss. + Show Spoiler +Hypothesis: Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design.
Prediction: ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics which are measurable in terms of complexity, objective patterns and functional complexity.
Mechanism: The mechanism of Intelligent Design is "design," the means by which engineers build sophisticated systems. Design is a tool in the toolkit of the designer. We can say that "design" is driven by intelligence, like "natural selection" is driven by the environment. Look up the synonyms for design and there is no contradiction, they fit quite plainly for those who understand the English language. Mechanism... synonym: means. Method. System. Procedure. A finch's beak adapts to the environment by changing it's shape/size by the mechanism of "natural selection." (Darwinists call it evolution, it is adaptation)
The rigorous criteria of the scientific method:
1. Formulate an hypothesis, make a prediction.
2. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.
3. Observe the experiment and produce data.
4. Repeat the experiment. Verify repeatability.
To test the ID hypothesis we utilize the scientific method as follows:
1. Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design. Anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics.
2. Employ the Explanatory filter: a three stage flow chart, a classic method of induction/deduction for detecting design.
3. Observe tests of known designed systems/objects and *non-designed artifacts of nature.
4. The test is repeatable and verifiable.
*non-designed artifacts: There were formative rocks that we observed spewing out of Mount St. Helens in the form of lava. These young rocks are clearly not the direct work of an intelligent agent. We could use one of those rocks. Or maybe another rock of your choice. We observe crystals "growing" which embody complexity and objective patterns, some might argue that a crystal even contains rudimentary information. We could use one of those crystals.
ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics. When you run a "snow flake" through the "Explanatory Filter" the results tell us that the snow flake was not designed. Put a "simple cell" (as Darwin put it) in the "Explanatory Filter" and the results tell us that the "simple cell" was designed. Evolutionists have difficulty with this because they are emotionally attached to evolution, Darwin is their prophet and Nature is their God.
Scientists assert that design is detectable in "molecular machines," like the bacterial flagellum (there are thousands of such examples.) We observe that this tiny motor needs all of its parts to function, it is "irreducibly complex." Remove one part and the motor doesn't work. It is not the result of Darwinian evolution: a long slow unguided process of successive microscopic changes, by which unintelligent matter gives rise to intelligence with zero intelligent input. There is no proof of evolution in this sense, or evolution of the bacterical flagellum for that matter. Because of their purposeful and sophisticated feedback mechanisms, these designed systems also required forethought in the design process which is the power of an intelligent driving force.
There are specific features that cause us to recognize prior intelligent activity. The reliable, empirical and scientifically rigorous criteria that we employ are improbability (complexity) and specification (objective patterns). We conclude that what we observe is the product of intelligence when it meets the criterion of improbability and specification.
Only intelligence can produce highly organized information such as the English language. How much more sophisticated is DNA, hmm? There is nothing in the known universe that stores and processes more information as efficiently as the DNA molecule. Everything we know affirms that information transferring languages are the product of intelligence. The argument is not based on what we don't know; it is based on what we know.
We know that there is no natural cause that produces an information transferring language. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes and not pure chance. Yet we know that intelligence produces these kinds of sophisticated systems, but human intelligence has quite a ways to go before it can match the ultra-sophisticated DNA/RNA system. These aren't God's gaps, they are Darwinist's Gaps.
When we infer design from the presence of information in DNA we are making an inference to the best explanation. Intelligent causes are real and they leave evidence of their existence. We arrive at this conclusion based on the scientific foundations of inference and deductive reasoning.
Was that Behe or Dembski? It doesn't really matter, they're both idiots.
|
On December 11 2007 07:49 TesisMech wrote:ill leave you guys with something to discuss. + Show Spoiler +Scientists assert that design is detectable in "molecular machines," like the bacterial flagellum (there are thousands of such examples.) We observe that this tiny motor needs all of its parts to function, it is "irreducibly complex." Remove one part and the motor doesn't work. It is not the result of Darwinian evolution: a long slow unguided process of successive microscopic changes, by which unintelligent matter gives rise to intelligence with zero intelligent input. There is no proof of evolution in this sense, or evolution of the bacterical flagellum for that matter. Because of their purposeful and sophisticated feedback mechanisms, these designed systems also required forethought in the design process which is the power of an intelligent driving force.
This was addressed shortly in the video I posted. They've actually found that another mechanism, on the organism that causes the plague, is similar to "tail" part found on the bacterial flagellum.
I see the concept of "irreducibly complex" as one of the biggest cop outs in "science", there are many things we don't understand, but we should never label something impossible to understand. Think about it and see if it seems foolish to you, should we base a theory on the creation of life on a LACK of evidence?
|
Galileo opposed geocentricism, pushed for the acceptance of Copernicanism, and was ostracized for it.
My point is this: personal beliefs are not inherently correct or incorrect. Firing him because of his personal beliefs is discrimination. They can say that it negatively impacted his job, but the simple fact of the matter is that researcher bias is a controllable confounding variable. Saying his beliefs negatively impacted his job is asinine.
Or maybe they really should lose federal funding since they don't allow diversity.
|
|
|
On December 11 2007 07:55 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 07:49 TesisMech wrote:ill leave you guys with something to discuss. + Show Spoiler +Hypothesis: Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design.
Prediction: ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics which are measurable in terms of complexity, objective patterns and functional complexity.
Mechanism: The mechanism of Intelligent Design is "design," the means by which engineers build sophisticated systems. Design is a tool in the toolkit of the designer. We can say that "design" is driven by intelligence, like "natural selection" is driven by the environment. Look up the synonyms for design and there is no contradiction, they fit quite plainly for those who understand the English language. Mechanism... synonym: means. Method. System. Procedure. A finch's beak adapts to the environment by changing it's shape/size by the mechanism of "natural selection." (Darwinists call it evolution, it is adaptation)
The rigorous criteria of the scientific method:
1. Formulate an hypothesis, make a prediction.
2. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.
3. Observe the experiment and produce data.
4. Repeat the experiment. Verify repeatability.
To test the ID hypothesis we utilize the scientific method as follows:
1. Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design. Anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics.
2. Employ the Explanatory filter: a three stage flow chart, a classic method of induction/deduction for detecting design.
3. Observe tests of known designed systems/objects and *non-designed artifacts of nature.
4. The test is repeatable and verifiable.
*non-designed artifacts: There were formative rocks that we observed spewing out of Mount St. Helens in the form of lava. These young rocks are clearly not the direct work of an intelligent agent. We could use one of those rocks. Or maybe another rock of your choice. We observe crystals "growing" which embody complexity and objective patterns, some might argue that a crystal even contains rudimentary information. We could use one of those crystals.
ID predicts that anything that is designed will have detectable characteristics. When you run a "snow flake" through the "Explanatory Filter" the results tell us that the snow flake was not designed. Put a "simple cell" (as Darwin put it) in the "Explanatory Filter" and the results tell us that the "simple cell" was designed. Evolutionists have difficulty with this because they are emotionally attached to evolution, Darwin is their prophet and Nature is their God.
Scientists assert that design is detectable in "molecular machines," like the bacterial flagellum (there are thousands of such examples.) We observe that this tiny motor needs all of its parts to function, it is "irreducibly complex." Remove one part and the motor doesn't work. It is not the result of Darwinian evolution: a long slow unguided process of successive microscopic changes, by which unintelligent matter gives rise to intelligence with zero intelligent input. There is no proof of evolution in this sense, or evolution of the bacterical flagellum for that matter. Because of their purposeful and sophisticated feedback mechanisms, these designed systems also required forethought in the design process which is the power of an intelligent driving force.
There are specific features that cause us to recognize prior intelligent activity. The reliable, empirical and scientifically rigorous criteria that we employ are improbability (complexity) and specification (objective patterns). We conclude that what we observe is the product of intelligence when it meets the criterion of improbability and specification.
Only intelligence can produce highly organized information such as the English language. How much more sophisticated is DNA, hmm? There is nothing in the known universe that stores and processes more information as efficiently as the DNA molecule. Everything we know affirms that information transferring languages are the product of intelligence. The argument is not based on what we don't know; it is based on what we know.
We know that there is no natural cause that produces an information transferring language. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes and not pure chance. Yet we know that intelligence produces these kinds of sophisticated systems, but human intelligence has quite a ways to go before it can match the ultra-sophisticated DNA/RNA system. These aren't God's gaps, they are Darwinist's Gaps.
When we infer design from the presence of information in DNA we are making an inference to the best explanation. Intelligent causes are real and they leave evidence of their existence. We arrive at this conclusion based on the scientific foundations of inference and deductive reasoning.
Was that Behe or Dembski? It doesn't really matter, they're both idiots.
Yes, agreed. Any "science" they have done regarding evolutionary theory is either non-existent in actual journals or has been instantly refuted upon publication (embarassingly so). They must believe their crap or are trying to get famous by finding their niche outside of science. ugh anyways... maybe science is still understood in some countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
