The Smithsonian Intolerance

[Colossus_500]

If Sternberg published the article only by subverting peer review, applicable to all science articles, then he isn't publishing the article in the interests of science is he?

He must be publishing it for another reason.  Since the topic of the article in question refers to ID, I would conclude that he is pushing his religious ideas as hard as he can in contravention of the safeguards of peer review and science itself.

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, now we're getting somewhere!    YOU made that conclusion about Sternberg's personal belief jumping into the equation.  Also, if you didn't care whether or not this was a first with regard to not following standard peer review procedure, then why should you care now...other than to express you're own personal belief that Sternberg was biased??  Something not proved, but only concluded by you.  I appreciate your honesty though, bro.    

No.  Please explain why Evolution is a religious belief.  God is god and He always will be irrespective of my views.  I don't know what He is.  But I am grateful for living.  I don't know what all this is or what I am, but I am here and I love living.

He doesn't depend on anything from me except bad entertainment.

Have you checked out that icr.org site yet? There's plenty of explanation to back my opinion that evolution is religion.

You are happy you exist, yet you know not why you exist.  There's no purpose for your existence.  You're born, you live, you die...that's it.  Hmmm, I'll have to think about that....

[Decker]

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, now we're getting somewhere!    YOU made that conclusion about Sternberg's personal belief jumping into the equation.  Also, if you didn't care whether or not this was a first with regard to not following standard peer review procedure, then why should you care now...other than to express you're own personal belief that Sternberg was biased??  Something not proved, but only concluded by you.  I appreciate your honesty though, bro.    
Have you checked out that icr.org site yet? There's plenty of explanation to back my opinion that evolution is religion.

You are happy you exist, yet you know not why you exist.  There's no purpose for your existence.  You're born, you live, you die...that's it.  Hmmm, I'll have to think about that....

My original contention was:

"I don't see zealotry.  I see a scientist who was employed by the Smithsonian and made a decent living but permitted his personal beliefs to corrupt his professional work."

I stand by that conclusion b/c it follows from the premises.  It doesn't change the fact that Sternberger resorted to evasion and lying to get the ID article published in a science journal.

You are engaging in sophistry re my stance on peer review--I care about peer review, but your questioning whether PR happens all the time is not relevant to this test of the methodology on the topic at hand.  PR happens all the time.  You can't get an article of higher learning published in this country without peer review.

Unless of course you are an ID propagandist like Sternberger and you avoid the peer review process and publish the article as a tested work of science as if it had been peer reviewed.

Yes I did check out that web page, but I would like to hear it from you. 

Here's my fundamental grasp of it:  God is supernatural and evolution deals with the natural world. 

[Colossus_500]

My original contention was:

"I don't see zealotry.  I see a scientist who was employed by the Smithsonian and made a decent living but permitted his personal beliefs to corrupt his professional work."

I stand by that conclusion b/c it follows from the premises.  It doesn't change the fact that Sternberger resorted to evasion and lying to get the ID article published in a science journal.

You are engaging in sophistry re my stance on peer review--I care about peer review, but your questioning whether PR happens all the time is not relevant to this test of the methodology on the topic at hand.  PR happens all the time.  You can't get an article of higher learning published in this country without peer review.

Unless of course you are an ID propagandist like Sternberger and you avoid the peer review process and publish the article as a tested work of science as if it had been peer reviewed.

Yes I did check out that web page, but I would like to hear it from you. 

Here's my fundamental grasp of it:  God is supernatural and evolution deals with the natural world. 

Do you belief that the earth began it's existance from nothing?
Do you belief in Darwinism?
Do you base your particular models of philosophy, science or history on the theory of Evolution?

If yes, the your argument is not scientific, but more a creed or dogma, is it not?

 

[Decker]

Do you belief that the earth began it's existance from nothing?
Do you belief in Darwinism?
Do you base your particular models of philosophy, science or history on the theory of Evolution?

If yes, the your argument is not scientific, but more a creed or dogma, is it not?

I believe that the universe oscillates between big bangs and big crunches and in the interim nothing exists.  I also believe that the instant of creation is beyond our understanding scientifically.  There are mathematical theories that show something coming from nothing, but I doubt I could understand them.

Darwinism as a social evaluation is an undeniable fact.  Darwinism as natural selection has been shown to be true also.

Any perceived gaps in evolutionary theory just means more work has to be done....not that god exists in those gaps.

Science tells us about natural processes.  ID injects the supernatural into the natural. 

ID is not science at all but a religious conclusion.

[Colossus_500]

I believe that the universe oscillates between big bangs and big crunches and in the interim nothing exists.  I also believe that the instant of creation is beyond our understanding scientifically.  There are mathematical theories that show something coming from nothing, but I doubt I could understand them.

Darwinism as a social evaluation is an undeniable fact.  Darwinism as natural selection has been shown to be true also.

Any perceived gaps in evolutionary theory just means more work has to be done....not that god exists in those gaps.

Science tells us about natural processes.  ID injects the supernatural into the natural. 

ID is not science at all but a religious conclusion.

Your statment highlighted in red is a religious conclusion.

[Colossus_500]

 

[Decker]

Your statment highlighted in red is a religious conclusion.

Why?  Do I have faith that science will answer all questions?  No.  I'm not that sort of a materialist.

Science uses natural/material explanations of natural/material phenomena.  Those explanations can be good, they can be attenuated, they can be provisional and they can be wrong.

ID is wrong from the outset b/c it is nothing more than a religious conclusion about the actions of a supreme creator of whom we cannot conceive let alone integrate into a scientific hypothesis.

[Colossus_500]

Why?  Do I have faith that science will answer all questions?  No.  I'm not that sort of a materialist.

Science uses natural/material explanations of natural/material phenomena.  Those explanations can be good, they can be attenuated, they can be provisional and they can be wrong.

ID is wrong from the outset b/c it is nothing more than a religious conclusion about the actions of a supreme creator of whom we cannot conceive let alone integrate into a scientific hypothesis.

where do the materials come from that are measured for explanation? 

if you're dogmatic about science, then science = religion (evolution = religion)

[Decker]

where do the materials come from that are measured for explanation? 

if you're dogmatic about science, then science = religion (evolution = religion)

As I've said before, religion and science may be compatible in one's world view, but they are not and cannot be the same thing.

Science uses rational analysis--the scientific method, models, etc on which conclusions are drawn and predictions are made.

Religion uses irrational analysis--faith is the stuff one hopes for and that is what informs one's understanding and then there's the bible for predictions/prophecy.

Where does the material of existence come from?  Hawking has a quantum mathematical theory that shows something can come from nothing.  A more relatable idea is that the material world is on the back of a giant tortoise which is on the back of another giant tortoise. 

We don't know.

Positing God as the cause does nothing to change the mystery.  It is inherently unscientific.

[Colossus_500]

As I've said before, religion and science may be compatible in one's world view, but they are not and cannot be the same thing.

Science uses rational analysis--the scientific method, models, etc on which conclusions are drawn and predictions are made.

Religion uses irrational analysis--faith is the stuff one hopes for and that is what informs one's understanding and then there's the bible for predictions/prophecy.

Where does the material of existence come from?  Hawking has a quantum mathematical theory that shows something can come from nothing.  A more relatable idea is that the material world is on the back of a giant tortoise which is on the back of another giant tortoise. 

We don't know.

Positing God as the cause does nothing to change the mystery.  It is inherently unscientific.

Then why are there not other life forms like ourselves elsewhere in existence?  Why has man no longer evolved?  I read somewhere (can't remember at the moment) about the 3 mistakes Darwin made:

(1) he dismissed mass extinction as artifacts of an imperfect geologic record;
(2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially with time; and  (again, why haven't we "evolved" more, why did we stop?)
(3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause of species extinction.

[Colossus_500]

Where does the material of existence come from?  Hawking has a quantum mathematical theory that shows something can come from nothing.  A more relatable idea is that the material world is on the back of a giant tortoise which is on the back of another giant tortoise. 

Again, you are saying that materialism is the only ultimate reality, meaning the cosmos and our individual lives can be chalked up to interrelated matter.  Where does the matter come from

[Decker]

Again, you are saying that materialism is the only ultimate reality, meaning the cosmos and our individual lives can be chalked up to interrelated matter.  Where does the matter come from

I'm saying I don't know.  Mathematically it can be shown to come from quantum fluctuations in nothingness.  But that's another turtle.

Darwin was a prescient scientist.  But he wasn't a perfect scientist.  Like with all other earthly endeavors, it is an ongoing journey.

Now look what you've done.  Discussing Metaphysics gives me gas.  I have to stand tall until 4 pm central till I can get out of the office.

This is what I get for thinking too much.

[Colossus_500]

I'm saying I don't know.  Mathematically it can be shown to come from quantum fluctuations in nothingness.  But that's another turtle.

Darwin was a prescient scientist.  But he wasn't a perfect scientist.  Like with all other earthly endeavors, it is an ongoing journey.

Now look what you've done.  Discussing Metaphysics gives me gas.  I have to stand tall until 4 pm central till I can get out of the office.

This is what I get for thinking too much.

LOL  sorry, bro.     Let's take a break for today.  This was great! 

[gcb]

Then why are there not other life forms like ourselves elsewhere in existence?  Why has man no longer evolved?  I read somewhere (can't remember at the moment) about the 3 mistakes Darwin made:

(1) he dismissed mass extinction as artifacts of an imperfect geologic record;
(2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially with time; and  (again, why haven't we "evolved" more, why did we stop?)
(3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause of species extinction.

Whether Darwin got it all right or not is really irrelevant - it simply means that his theories were incomplete it does not mean that evolution is all wrong.

[Dos Equis]

It's not just that Darwin's theories have "gaps."  It's that there are such gaping holes in his theories that a great deal of faith, or willful suspension of disbelief, is required to embrace his theory. 

There is a common argument that evolution is based on science.  This is not entirely true.  Part of evolution is based on science and part is based on faith.  For instance, the origin of life has not been scientifically proved.  Those who embrace the evolution theory ignore this fact.   

[Decker]

It's not just that Darwin's theories have "gaps."  It's that there are such gaping holes in his theories that a great deal of faith, or willful suspension of disbelief, is required to embrace his theory. 

There is a common argument that evolution is based on science.  This is not entirely true.  Part of evolution is based on science and part is based on faith.  For instance, the origin of life has not been scientifically proved.  Those who embrace the evolution theory ignore this fact.   

Theories have provisional aspects.  The one binding tie amongst all scientific theories is fidelity to nature--natural phenomena.  Introducing the supernatural supposition of God to a scientific theory is akin to blaming the crash of thunder on gnomes bowling in the mountains.  The concept of god cannot and never will be subject to the scientific method or mathematical model analysis b/c by the nature of logic itself, rational inquiry cannot grasp ultimate reality let alone reflect it in mathematical formulae and subject it to scientific scrutiny.

God is beyond rational thought and empirical analysis and therefore impossible to integrate into scientific analysis in a meaningful way.

[Colossus_500]

Theories have provisional aspects.  The one binding tie amongst all scientific theories is fidelity to nature--natural phenomena.  Introducing the supernatural supposition of God to a scientific theory is akin to blaming the crash of thunder on gnomes bowling in the mountains.  The concept of god cannot and never will be subject to the scientific method or mathematical model analysis b/c by the nature of logic itself, rational inquiry cannot grasp ultimate reality let alone reflect it in mathematical formulae and subject it to scientific scrutiny.

God is beyond rational thought and empirical analysis and therefore impossible to integrate into scientific analysis in a meaningful way.

Thus the very reason that I believe you and others who do not believe in the deity cannot conceptualize His presence.  You are looking for ways to measure his presence.  I say that you can measure God's existence in some ways, whereas you would say that it's not possible, simply because God does not exist in you mind. 

[Decker]

Thus the very reason that I believe you and others who do not believe in the deity cannot conceptualize His presence.  You are looking for ways to measure his presence.  I say that you can measure God's existence in some ways, whereas you would say that it's not possible, simply because God does not exist in you mind. 

Now we are getting somewhere.

I am not saying that I don't believe in God.  I am not passing judgment on God's existence.  I'm just saying that God does not and cannot fit into the scientific paradigm.

Science measures things in the natural world.  God cannot be measured or quantified therefore God is not subject to or part of science--ever.

In no way does that attack God's existence.  It is more of an indictment of humanity's ability to understand existence.

[Colossus_500]

Now we are getting somewhere.

I am not saying that I don't believe in God.  I am not passing judgment on God's existence.  I'm just saying that God does not and cannot fit into the scientific paradigm.

Science measures things in the natural world.  God cannot be measured or quantified therefore God is not subject to or part of science--ever.

In no way does that attack God's existence.  It is more of an indictment of humanity's ability to understand existence.

My argument is that you cannot separate God from science, because He is the originator of the natural world.

[Decker]

My argument is that you cannot separate God from science, because He is the originator of the natural world.

That's quite possibly true.  But your conclusion is not science and it never will be subject to scientific validation.

[Colossus_500]

That's quite possibly true.  But your conclusion is not science and it never will be subject to scientific validation.

If you are willing to possibly acknowledge that God is nature's originator, how then can He not be subject to scientific validation?   

[Dos Equis]

Theories have provisional aspects.  The one binding tie amongst all scientific theories is fidelity to nature--natural phenomena.  Introducing the supernatural supposition of God to a scientific theory is akin to blaming the crash of thunder on gnomes bowling in the mountains.  The concept of god cannot and never will be subject to the scientific method or mathematical model analysis b/c by the nature of logic itself, rational inquiry cannot grasp ultimate reality let alone reflect it in mathematical formulae and subject it to scientific scrutiny.

God is beyond rational thought and empirical analysis and therefore impossible to integrate into scientific analysis in a meaningful way.

But Decker, "science" has no explanation for the origins of life.  I'm talking about our planet and the organism that supposedly started life on earth.   

[Decker]

If you are willing to possibly acknowledge that God is nature's originator, how then can He not be subject to scientific validation?   

As soon as you prove the existence of God, then science can incorporate that proof into a methodological analysis.

This is the problem with ID, God is a complete mystery.  Science deals with measuring stuff in the real world.  How can god be subjected to the scientific method if He's an unquantifiable mystery?

He can't.

Therefore, god cannot be a premise or conclusion in scientific analysis.

[Decker]

It's not just that Darwin's theories have "gaps."  It's that there are such gaping holes in his theories that a great deal of faith, or willful suspension of disbelief, is required to embrace his theory. 

There is a common argument that evolution is based on science.  This is not entirely true.  Part of evolution is based on science and part is based on faith.  For instance, the origin of life has not been scientifically proved.  Those who embrace the evolution theory ignore this fact.   

How so? 

I've told you why God, (inherently unquantifiable and anti-empirical), is not permitted in the scientific method as either a premise or a conclusion.

What's the matter with evolution exactly?

[Colossus_500]

As soon as you prove the existence of God, then science can incorporate that proof into a methodological analysis.

This is the problem with ID, God is a complete mystery.  Science deals with measuring stuff in the real world.  How can god be subjected to the scientific method if He's an unquantifiable mystery?

He can't.

Therefore, god cannot be a premise or conclusion in scientific analysis.

But here again, you are basing your argument from a naturalist point of view, which I don't believe is proven any more than the existence of God (actually, I believe the proof of God is more credible)

Check this out, it's the definition of science per author Babu G. Ranganathan:

"First, it is important to understand that science itself can deal only with how the universe works or operates, because this is what we can actually observe or test. Human observation, either directly through the senses or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of all scientific knowledge. The subject of the origin of life and the universe is outside the scope of human observation and, therefore, does not technically come under the definition of science per se. Since no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by chance or evolution, and no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by design or creation, both evolution and creation are ultimately remain positions of faith and not science. However, it is possible to evaluate which faith, evolution or creation, is better supported by the actual evidence from science.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

The creationists believe that the scientific evidence from genetics, biogenesis, thermodynamics, paleontology, information theory, laws of probability, and other areas of science better support faith in creation (the belief that an intelligent power was behind the origin of life, natural species, and the universe) than chance or evolution.

One problem with the evolutionary theory is that it attempts to explain the origin of the universe by laws which describe its operation. It's much like attempting to explain the origin of a TV set by the various laws which govern the operation of the TV. Such laws are adequate in explaining how the orderly system in a TV set operates and functions, but those same laws of physics, if left to themselves, would not be adequate or sufficient in explaining the origin of the T.V. Similarly, the laws of physics and chemistry are adequate in explaining how the order in life and the universe functions and operates, but, those same laws of physics and chemistry, if undirected and left to themselves, can never be adequate in fully explaining the origin of life and the universe. As we shall examine later in this essay, some properties of life (i.e. amino acids) have been shown to be able to come into existence by the chance, but other properties of life (such as the sequential arrangement of amino acids into proteins and the sequential arrangement of nucleic acids into DNA) have never been shown to be able to occur by chance. Once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and the biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The problem for evolutionary theory is how did the cell come into existence when there was no directing mechanism. In fact, if the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait for millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate, especially without the protection of a complete and fully-functioning cell membrane. It's a classic Catch-22 situation for the evolutionary theory. More will be said on this matter later."  

Whoa!!!  I sure wish I could articulate things the way Ranganathan does so.  I linked the entire article if you are interested.  If you do read it, let me know what you think? 

http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/creation.html