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

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by I Panicked! At the Disco

Part of science is asking "Why?" questions and then formulating an opinion to answer it. Then you have to back-up your opinion with proof to evolve into a hypothesis and perhaps a theory. Don't evolutionists and creationists alike ask how we came to be, then come up with an answer, then try to back up their answer?

No. Creationists decide their answer, then go looking for evidence to support it. That's the opposite of science.

I think we also need to ask "What is science?". How do you define science?

Anything along these lines:

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system.

from here.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

First, I just want to say that this has nothing to do with my theology.

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

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. The aggressiveness on the part of biologists we see towards the Sheldrakes and others is a kind of defense, as in the best defense is a good offense.

After a lengthy trial, in which ID proponents did their best to prove your assertion, Judge Jones differed from you, based on the evidence. "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

It is difficult to understand this issue without first understanding that both creationists and ID proponents are liars, as Judge Jones held. Once you understand this, everything falls into place.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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, 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.

I would say that's because they are scientists. Science uses methodological naturalism. No methodological naturalism, aka materialism, no science.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

1. The strong anthropic principle is NOT an argument for ID, rather actually an argument against it.

It is an argument against a theory of Intelligent Design that posits a "Creator" other than the action of human minds observing, organizing and communicating about the content and form of the Universe. It is an argument for a theory of Intelligent Design that posits as the "Creator" the action of human minds "oberserving" organizing and communicating about the content and form of the Universe.

You are falling victim to a game of "Whac-A-Mole" aka "The Old Switcheroo." The modes of using "Creator" and "God" change back and forth with some people as their rhetorical needs change. Aquinas was an example of this, but it's also on display with a few of our RF members.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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 )

Yes, most creationists seek to turn back the clock and unlearn what we have worked so hard to establish over the last two centuries--such as that Lamarck was wrong, and the evidence showed this over 100 years ago

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...

And is as equally crackpot and unsupported.

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

That remains to be seen.

[Autodidact]

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
CHEERS AGAIN KEMOSABEY !

And a cigar goes to the little lady in comfortable shoes who can predict creationist behavior--from years of experience.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Eh, the materialistic rut is an awfully productive one. Bioscience is expanding at a fantastic rate. If there's more to it and these morphic fields have any relevance (I'm sceptical) biology can only benefit.

Yes, it is productive and expanding at a fantastic rate. But remember the fuss they made when acupuncture first made it to the West? I do. (Jeez, I'm old). And why is the West just now beginning to open to Ayurvedic medicine even though it's been ariund much, much longer? Biologists still haven't seriously studied the effect fields have on the body even though there's plenty of evidence they do have an affect. Heck, a living human body generates a field of its own that can be measured. I suggest reading The Field by Lynne McTaggart, especially Chapter 4. Read it and then tell me whether the author is lying or mainstream biology is in a rut.