PeterS wrote:
When did science start dealing with the supernatural or with logical fallacies for that matter which begs the question of just who were the peers who reviewed the papers?
And if we have a god then what is the purpose of the universe? I mean after all, if there is a god than all that is necessary for life to exist as it does today is a planet, a moon, a sun, and a god to fill in all the details. You guys keep talking about purpose well with a god you guys rendered the universe completely without any. I mean it's pretty but when you have a god the supernova that created the elements that make up all life on this and every planet is unnecessary. I mean god could wiggle his nose or simply make a model out of clay and it certainly would be just as good.
And of course if there was no universe then god could have made the earth just 6,000 years old and the numbers would work just fine. No need to become a master at defining the meaning of the Greek version of the old testament though if you did I'm willing to wager that's what the scripture meant all along.
And this from Nature on your peer review article by
Critics of evolution score publishing success
A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism.
A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. The paper appeared in a low-impact journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. But critics say that it could still be used by advocates of intelligent design to get the subject on to US school curricula (see Nature 416, 250; 2002).
The article comes from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, a leading promoter of the theory. In the article, senior fellow Stephen Meyer uses information theory and other techniques to argue that the complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by darwinian evolution (S. C. Meyer Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 117, 213–239; 2004).
Many of Meyer's arguments have already been aired by advocates of intelligent design, but critics say that publication will be used to back up claims that the theory is scientifically valid.
Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has argued against Meyer in public debates, does not doubt that this will happen. “They've tried very hard to get material into peer-reviewed journals.”
Richard Sternberg, a taxonomist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information in Bethesda, Maryland, was editor of the journal publishing the Meyer paper when it was reviewed and accepted. Sternberg is also on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, which publishes papers on “scientific research in creation biology”. He says the paper was seen and approved by three well-qualified referees.
Meyer's article has attracted a lengthy rebuttal on The Panda's Thumb, a website dev**ed to evolutionary theory. But Miller says that, despite criticism of the journal, versions of the theory will find their way into the scientific literature at some point. Arguments for it can be written, he says, as reappraisals of certain aspects of evolution rather than outright rejection. “Peer review isn't a guarantee of accuracy,” he adds. “That is especially true of review articles.”Here is the link to the article debunking Myers "Scientifically Reviewed" article. Read it or don't, I really don't care,
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html but rest assured that for every article you guys manage to get published they will be thoroughly reviewed indeed.
Now here's one of two problems you have. Intelligent Design implies that there is a supernatural being out there directing how all the widgets and gidgets and gadgets are supposed to align. Now science is only equipped to deal with the natural world--there is no amount of inference that can prove that a god does or doesn't exist. For that you need faith and if you have none then you really are s**t out of luck.
Now your second problem is that you are trying to disprove evolution through the creation of "Intelligent Design." Do you think Einstein sit there and said I don't believe in Newtonian physics so I'm going to invent a new theory for gravity to disprove the sorry old goat? NO! The nature of science is to prove something not disprove something. Forget about evolution. If ID is the golden ticket then it will prove itself through solid scientific theories proofs. But instead, you sit there and say evolution threatens creationism so we have to come up with something to debunk evolution that we can protect or view of the flat earth. The only purpose behind ID is to protect your view of the world even though there are any number of theists who are perfectly happy with evolution and the holy bible. That you guys can't come to term with science is your weakness and you really should stop trying to project it on everyone else simply because you can't stand having your CC's unchanging world threatened...
When did science start dealing with the supernatur... (
show quote)
I'll put it this way. You see, I acknowledge that Charles Darwin made a sincere effort to prove his theory of evolution, of natural se******n, the survival of the fittest, and so on. I recognize that he neglected his medical education and spent the better part of his life struggling with complex hypotheses and scientific theories to produce an alternative explanation for the origin of life on earth. I also realize that throughout his attempt to establish what he felt was a viable explanation, Darwin encountered seeming improbabilities, gaps in the data, and issues left unexplained. Lingering doubts troubled Darwin, so much so, that he edited his Origin of Species from one edition to the next. Darwin came face to face with inexplicable mysteries and even admitted that his theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional content to his doubts when he said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural se******n, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick. "
It is also interesting that after his long voyage around the world, Darwin continued his work while married to a Unitarian Christian woman who expressed many doubts about what he was doing. Still he pressed on. I recognize that he made a genuine effort in his life's work, and that he must be commended for such an incredible effort. This does not in any way imply that I accept his Origin of Species by Means of Natural Se******n, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life as the singular explanation for life on earth. Not by a long shot.
Now, you stated you wanted to see "parts of Creationism that have been proven" and that you wanted "scientific proof behind Creationism that disproves (Darwin's) theory." So, I provided a few examples of scientific creation research and you come back with complete disrespect, mockery, obfuscation, and a disingenuous attempt to reject, even vilify, scientific explorations into the concept of a Creator. The fact is there are scientists who do extraordinary research on the hypothesis that a Creator, a "supernatural", or more accurately a transcendent being, was the cause and designer of our universe and life on earth. The universal constants alone are impossible to ignore simply because together they establish a compelling argument that the universe was created specifically for life to exist. The odds that this could have occurred by random chance are astronomical.
Scientific research in all fields has advanced exponentially since Darwin's time, science has made great strides toward uncovering the deeper mysteries of our world and the universe. Yet today, among many scientific research efforts, there is a problem. Many scientists and their research projects have been politicized. In many fields now ideologically driven scientists have corrupted the methodology, they draw a conclusion first, they establish a goal, then form a hypothesis they feel is suitable to attaining that goal, then they work the data. If the data fails to get them where they want to go, they do not rethink the hypothesis, restate it, or even abandon it, they simply rework the data, alter it, manipulate it until it satisfies or "proves" the conclusion. The AGW project is a perfect example of this. Other "junk science" projects are treading on extremely dangerous ground, and I won't get into those.
Yet, there are still many scientists in all fields that are sincere men and women, people of integrity and virtue, who have not abandoned or rejected empirical and objective methods in their studies and research. And because of the many failures of evolution theory to prove the hypotheses, because of the dead ends and seemingly insurmountable obstacles to establishing evolution as the sole viable explanation for life, a significant number of these reputable scientists have turned to the one field of research that reaches deepest into the mysteries of the universe--Creation. This is pursuit is compelling for many reasons and though it is a relatively new field of research, it is gaining in importance.
If you want to stick with Darwin or any other evolutionary concept, that is your business, but don't insult those of us who believe in God the Creator and have a sincere desire for scientific exploration in His direction by spitting in our faces and telling us we are all full of s**t.
God had a very specific reason for creating the universe and life, a reason that is clearly stated throughout the Bible, the Word of God. If you don't believe it, so be it.
PeterS wrote:
I don't think science can disprove the Easter Bunny or the Toothfairy either. Science can only deal with the natural world and doesn't have the tools to deal with the supernatural. For that you need faith and if you have none there is not much I can do to help you...
I definitely never asked for your help, nor do I need it. Thanks anyway.