How Can ID/Creationism Be Science? (Darwin, evolution, God, verse)

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

ID uses the same facts as orthodox Darwinists and point to inconsistencies in the accepted theory. Having so much invested in the status quo, mainstream scientists simply don't want to hear it.

I.D. proponents do make this claim, and Creationists have also been making exactly the same claim for decades. What is the difference you see?

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Rollingstone :

ID and Creationism are not the same. Pundants who equate them are either deliberately misleading people or ignorant.

Sorry But that's nonsense...I for one, am not deliberately misleading people, much less ignorant...If the universe and its biology are products of Intelligent design, then both must have been conceived ‘ a priori’ in the mind of a Creator, transcending all matter / space and time. . ID is not as some ideologically driven materialist zealots pretend , ‘ Creationsim in Disguise/ thinly masked Creationism ’...It IS Creationism, pure and simple...

However, it need NOT be the cartoonish/ paint by numbers version of Creationism/ religious zealotry , supported by most narrow minded Monotheistic ministers / modern-day Pharisees/ young earth creationists. etcetera..

I myself prefer terms like Creative-Evolution / Intelligent Evolution ...

since the universe is obviously perpetually in a state of flux...I think its safe to say that this Creative/ Evolutionary process is still ongoing, meaning that Homo Sapiens too are still a work in progress...I have no doubts about the existence of Man's free will , but I conceive of both Creator and Sentient Creation as being co-creators of the future ( a precept which some interpretations of quantum physics seems to share )

Rollingstone

:...ID uses the same facts as orthodox Darwinists and point to inconsistencies in the accepted theory. Having so much invested in the status quo, mainstream scientists simply don't want to hear it.

Well I mostly agree with everything you’re saying here...or at least I agree that this is what ID'ers at their best should always strive to do ( i.e. Divorce themselves from preconceived religious dogmas, and stick to the facts/scientific evidence ) .... Nevertheless, the implications of ID/ the inconsistencies/ weakness of Darwinian orthodoxy...in the final analysis, again lends credence to the Purposeful Cosmos/ Creationist/Beneficent Creator hypotheses...one cannot escape this IMO

Rollingstone:

English biologist Rupert Sheldrake posits what he calls "morphic fields," coherent fields of information that influence everything from cell growth to galaxies. He believes that something is needed to explain things like why crystals that are difficult to grow in a lab get easier to grow over time ( I recall that decades earlier biologist Lyall Watson, see ' Lifetide', ' SuperNature' wrote some insightful things vis a vis this subject too )... or how a learned behavior of birds interrupted by war is somehow instinctive to later generations, or how it is that rats seem to somehow pick up how to run a maze learned by unrelated rats an ocean away.

What I'm saying is that there's a hellava lot of information that has yet to be correlated into a coherent whole and biologists are stuck in a materialistic rut.

Yeah I agree with this commentary one hundred percent !...what’s needed I think is a new ‘ evolutionary paradigm’, perhaps incorporating not only the curious nexus of quantum physics and mysticism... but equally some of the ideas first proposed by Jean Baptiste Lamarck ( which predates Darwinism by some fifty years )

Neo-Lamarckian evolution ...which might also be labeled ‘ evolution by collective/unconscious volition’ , in my mind, somehow smacks of your /Sheldrake's above observations vis a vis birds/ rats, the phenomenon of animal instinct/ animal migration / the emergent phenomenon of social insect behaviors...etc. etc etc...

CHEERS
***

Hela :

... Wake up and smell the coffee, Darwinism is on its last legs

Sunstone :

Which drugs will allow one to see the truth of your statement?

If u have to engage in petty/childish insults/ insinuations , like so many increasingly desperate materialists/ Darwinist nowadays ( Richard Dawkins is a prime example ) are prone to doing...

Then arguing with u, is beneath me...Ergo, I’ll simply ignore u from now on...

Have urself a nice day Sunstone/staff

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Hela

If u have to engage in petty/childish insults/ insinuations , like so many increasingly desperate materialists/ Darwinist nowadays ( Richard Dawkins is a prime example ) are prone to doing...

Then arguing with the u, is beneath me...Ergo, I’ll simply ignore u from now on...

Have urself a nice day Sunstone/staff

If you can insinuate that "Darwinism is on its last legs" and that Richard Dawkins is "desperate", I am forced to reserve the right to ask which drugs would best allow me to see the truth of your statement. Apparently, beer alone won't do it. Have a nice day, Hela!

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Sunstone :

If you can insinuate that "Darwinism is on its last legs" and that Richard Dawkins is "desperate", I am FORCED to reserve the right to ask which drugs would best allow me to see the truth of your statement. Apparently, beer alone won't do it. Have a nice day, Hela!

Au contraire...You’re NOT ‘ forced’ to do anything...much less to cast aspersions vis a vis my alleged use of illicit drugs...Did I personally insult you ? I haven't to this point at least

No worries, you’re certainly in good company since this is common fodder for staunch materialists/ Darwinists nowadays, as per my earlier Richard Dawkin’s commentary...


Dawkin’s basically labels all those who believe that the cosmos could NOT be an accident , based on the vast preponderance of scientific evidence ( see the strong Anthropic Principle ) ‘ delusional’

Yet there are solid / rational arguments for asserting/contending as I do that:
’ Darwinism is on its last legs’

To reiterate : You claim this leaves u feeling free to insinuate that I must be drug addled? Well then , my *cough cough* friend...I would submit that it is most probably you, not me, who is living in a fantasy world...

***

OK Enjoy / Smoke em/ drink em... if u got em Sunstroke ...sorry I meant Sunstoned.....damn these typos

Hope I wasn’t * wink , wink * inadvertently disparaging of ur obvious acumen
/ wit

CHEERS AGAIN KEMOSABEY !

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Sunstone :

Au contraire...You’re NOT ‘ forced’ to do anything...much less to cast aspersions vis a vis my alleged use of illicit drugs...Did I personally insult you ? I haven't to this point at least

No worries, you’re certainly in good company since this is common fodder for staunch materialists/ Darwinists nowadays, as per my earlier Richard Dawkin’s commentary...


Dawkin’s basically labels all those who believe that the cosmos could NOT be an accident , based on the vast preponderance of scientific evidence ( see the strong Anthropic Principle ) ‘ delusional’

Yet there are solid / rational arguments for asserting/contending as I do that:
’ Darwinism is on its last legs’

To reiterate : You claim this leaves u feeling free to insinuate that I must be drug addled? Well then , my *cough cough* friend...I would submit that it is most probably you, not me, who is living in a fantasy world...

***

OK Enjoy / Smoke em/ drink em... if u got em Sunstroke ...sorry I meant Sunstoned.....damn these typos

Hope I wasn’t * wink , wink * inadvertently disparaging of ur obvious acumen
/ wit

CHEERS AGAIN KEMOSABEY !

It seems you think I was insinuating that you use drugs. Please go back, and read what I wrote.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

More to the point, though, biologists are way behind when it comes to the the physics of biology. They understand the mechanics quite well, but they will be increasingly on the defense as long as the refuse to consider coherent fields of influence.

I haven't found this to be the case at all. For example, geology and evolutionary biology are inexorably joined together.

And here's an example from my own experience: when I was in university, one of my profs, who was a structural engineering and analysis expert, was working with researchers into the causes of spina bifida, a birth defect that occurs when the embryo's neural tube doesn't fully close. By doing computer modelling of the embryo, he was able to take the "long list" of about 50 (IIRC) potential causes that the researchers had developed based on their medical evidence and, by analysing the effects that each would have on the cell structure, was able to eliminate all but ~10 (IIRC) of them.

I suppose some biologists might get "silo syndrome" and try to maintain a wall between their research and the work of others, but co-operation between disciplines is common.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

It seems you think I was insinuating that you use drugs. Please go back, and read what I wrote.