Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

[paddoboy]

And so we have our answer to this question:

In no way.

And just to bring it around: this is part of what Dawkins is pointing to when he makes those claims about religion that so offend the religious and "misrepresent science". He's saying things that are simply and obviously true.

Bingo! Nice to get back on track!
Again, as most of us know, it's also what Sagan is saying exactly, though in a far more "pleasant" manner:
Both express the actual scientific facts of the situation with regard to ID being nothing more then a fabricated, mythical, unscientific cop out.
In essence, the claim that he is misrepresenting science, at best just sensationalistic nonsense, and at worst, totally false.

 

[James R]

To be fair, Q-reeus has stated several times in this thread alone that he is not a Christian, let alone a fundamentalist Christian.

That says nothing about the kinds of arguments he supports in favour of ID, of course.

 

[paddoboy]

To be fair, Q-reeus has stated several times in this thread alone that he is not a Christian, let alone a fundamentalist Christian.

That says nothing about the kinds of arguments he supports in favour of ID, of course.

I have asked a question that has yet to be answered James......
Other then the non zero possibility of say an advanced civilisation "creating" us, ( which still requires abiogenisis as to how they came to be) what other method or path is there for someone who accepts ID, other than a god/deity of some sort, that does not require a beginning?

In other words how can you accept ID and not accept some divine deity was the cause, Christian or otherwise.

 

[iceaura]

To be fair, Q-reeus has stated several times in this thread alone that he is not a Christian, let alone a fundamentalist Christian.

Which is why posters like me have avoided labeling him a "Christian" - certainly belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the central tenet of Christianity, appears nowhere in this thread. Neither does Dawkins restrict his derogation of the influence of religion to Christianity specifically.

So in what sense is anyone being "unfair" to the lad?

 

[James R]

I have asked a question that has yet to be answered James......
Other then the non zero possibility of say an advanced civilisation "creating" us, ( which still requires abiogenisis as to how they came to be) what other method or path is there for someone who accepts ID, other than a god/deity of some sort, that does not require a beginning?

Good question.

One thing that tends to be common among people who support ID is that they are very coy about who or what the "designer" might be.

In the case of the Christian fundamentalists whose aim is to get "creation science" taught in American schools - which is unconstitutional - the reason for the coyness is obvious. And, in practice, there aren't many non-Christian fundamentalists who support ID.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

what other method or path is there for someone who accepts ID, other than a god/deity of some sort, that does not require a beginning?

I have spent a little time reading on some ID sites.

My impression is there seems to be a determination not to address who the designer may be...because that would not be scientific. And of course they do so much want to be scientific.

Let's not talk about who the designer is as first we must establish evidence of design not to do it that way is not scientific.

Well how convenient and above all scientific.

So first let's do the science and show the elements of design, the evidence, and let's teach this in schools as science and let's not bring religion into it and suggest who the designer may be....

Well at the risk of being unscientific may I ask who is this designer, presumably not God cause this is science not religion, just a hint please.

What miserable dishonest tactics so typical of folk who substitute beliefs for evidence.

ID can be reasonably labeled as a desperate and dishonest attempt by folk who believe in a God to sneak his acceptance into science.

Given that our ID science seems to be sound enough to be taught in schools as science does that not suggest it must be time that we can present a reasonable, although still tentative, hypothesis as to who this designer may be?

However, and this won't make anyone happy, in fairness.
I think the big bang does similar in dealing only with the evolution of the Universe and leaving the moment of creation open where God could be called upon....
But it is here we can see the difference the big bang can proceed without a God where as the use of the very word "designer" means we have no option other than an entity...supernatural?


Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

I have asked a question that has yet to be answered James......
Other then the non zero possibility of say an advanced civilisation "creating" us, ( which still requires abiogenisis as to how they came to be) what other method or path is there for someone who accepts ID, other than a god/deity of some sort, that does not require a beginning?

In other words how can you accept ID and not accept some divine deity was the cause, Christian or otherwise.

Comprehension issues?: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3420762/
Or just a very poor memory? Or you insist I must use some particular label? That would be your problem not mine. How could I know if there is just one or a multitude of Deities 'out there'? What sort of organization exists etc. etc.? Your dearly beloved missus has it down to a neat plan. I cannot. Such a petty fool to harp on such things.

I even brought it back on track here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/mo...epresents-science.158203/page-26#post-3421713
And because it wasn't too flattering to your idol, neither you or anyone else remarked one word on that very interesting aspect of Sagan's 'heritage'.

 

[Q-reeus]

Which is why posters like me have avoided labeling him a "Christian" - certainly belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the central tenet of Christianity, appears nowhere in this thread. Neither does Dawkins restrict his derogation of the influence of religion to Christianity specifically.

So in what sense is anyone being "unfair" to the lad?

You have been handled with kid gloves, vexatious Troll.

 

[paddoboy]

Good question.

One thing that tends to be common among people who support ID is that they are very coy about who or what the "designer" might be.

In the case of the Christian fundamentalists whose aim is to get "creation science" taught in American schools - which is unconstitutional - the reason for the coyness is obvious. And, in practice, there aren't many non-Christian fundamentalists who support ID.

I have spent a little time reading on some ID sites.

My impression is there seems to be a determination not to address who the designer may be...because that would not be scientific. And of course they do so much want to be scientific.

Thanks Alex, James, it appears you both have hit the nail on the head and is patently obvious, as it has again stirred up a hornets nest() with a couple of replies that have come in since by our friend.
Having treated our friend with kid gloves throughout this thread, I won't comment any further, other then continuing refuting anymore nonsensical claims.
No need of course to answer his usual over the top, spitting of the dummy replies, as he has done so often throughout this thread.

 

[paddoboy]

Well at the risk of being unscientific may I ask who is this designer, presumably not God cause this is science not religion, just a hint please.
What miserable dishonest tactics so typical of folk who substitute beliefs for evidence.
ID can be reasonably labeled as a desperate and dishonest attempt by folk who believe in a God to sneak his acceptance into science.

Yep, that is patently obvious in this thread Alex.

 

[Q-reeus]

When a thread degenerates to the level this one has, one might expect a responsible mod, no matter how partisan, to put a padlock on it. Might.

 

[paddoboy]

I even brought it back on track here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/mo...epresents-science.158203/page-26#post-3421713
And because it wasn't too flattering to your idol, neither you or anyone else remarked one word on that very interesting aspect of Sagan's 'heritage'.

You brought it back on track at post 515??

I'm not sure what you expect people to comment on from an ex Mrs, Even with the help of her Son. and of course opening with the following.....
"This article first appeared in CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 36, number 02 (2013). The full text of this article in PDF format can be obtained by clicking here. For further information or to subscribe to the CHRISTIAN RESEARCHJOURNAL go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/"
and you expect people on this forum to take it or you seriously, particularly considering your constant peurile dummy spitting bullying type replies against anyone and everyone who has opposed you on this?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Yep, that is patently obvious in this thread Alex.

My comments were to the sites I visited.
It is only now that I realise how I may have upset folk in this thread which was not my intention.
I take this opportunity to apologise to any member who could have taken my rant as an attack upon them.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

When a thread degenerates to the level this one has, one might expect a responsible mod, no matter how partisan, to put a padlock on it. Might.

I am sorry I was not trying to have a go at you.
I found the subject of interest and went surfing after which I formed my view.
I should have been more considerate of your feelings and say I am sorry.
I don't think you are dishonest I was responding to the various presentations that I had read elsewhere which I did indeed find dishonest.
Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

You brought it back on track at post 515??

I'm not sure what you expect people to comment on from an ex Mrs, Even with the help of her Son. and of course opening with the following.....
"This article first appeared in CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 36, number 02 (2013). The full text of this article in PDF format can be obtained by clicking here. For further information or to subscribe to the CHRISTIAN RESEARCHJOURNAL go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/"
and you expect people on this forum to take it or you seriously, particularly considering your constant peurile dummy spitting bullying type replies against anyone and everyone who has opposed you on this?

It's that sort of ironic nonsense that reinforces the relevancy of #611. Or you are just too damn lazy to do your own simple web search for more details?

 

[Q-reeus]

I am sorry I was not trying to have a go at you.
I found the subject of interest and went surfing after which I formed my view.
I should have been more considerate of your feelings and say I am sorry.
I don't think you are dishonest I was responding to the various presentations that I had read elsewhere which I did indeed find dishonest.
Alex

I just skimmed your posts Alex and till now missed that last line in #606. You were not at all in mind when I posted #611 , but would have been had I noticed that line then. Apology accepted btw.

 

[James R]

I even brought it back on track here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/mo...epresents-science.158203/page-26#post-3421713
And because it wasn't too flattering to your idol, neither you or anyone else remarked one word on that very interesting aspect of Sagan's 'heritage'.

Regarding Lynn Margulis's views on evolution and ID, see also here:

https://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com...is-on-the-insufficiency-of-natural-selection/

It quotes her as saying ID is not science. Margulis: "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism [of natural selection]. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific."

She certainly had some non-mainstream views on evolution, but was no supporter of ID. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

And there are claims that she "went off the deep end", such as this one:

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2011/04/11/margulis-does-it-again/

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I just skimmed your posts Alex and till now missed that last line in #606.

In reflection the last line was not fair upon the people I had in mind as they had no opportunity to reply and moreover I must try and stick to my self talk, which includes..if you can't say something nice say nothing at all about someone, and so I have removed the bad sentence.
Thank you for being a gentleman and accepting my apology.
Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

Regarding Lynn Margulis's views on evolution and ID, see also here:

https://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com...is-on-the-insufficiency-of-natural-selection/

It quotes her as saying ID is not science. Margulis: "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism [of natural selection]. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific."

She certainly had some non-mainstream views on evolution, but was no supporter of ID. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

And there are claims that she "went off the deep end", such as this one:

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2011/04/11/margulis-does-it-again/

Well there you go, with enough prompting, there is belated feedback on my #514. Which to be fair should have stated that Sagan could not be held responsible for his ex nearest and dearest or even his son's beliefs later in life. That CRI site I linked to made it perfectly clear Margulls was an atheist, so there is no confusion or deceit on that score. But some interesting aspects of her 'descent into craziness' come out in that last link.

 

[paddoboy]

It's that sort of ironic nonsense that reinforces the relevancy of #611. Or you are just too damn lazy to do your own simple web search for more details?

You mean you would like me to link to all the posts where you have apparently spat the dummy, at myself and at least two others?
Irony along with hypocrisy of course is evident in many of your posts.
With your plea to close the thread [is this the third time? ] understandable actually since you apparently have painted yourself into a corner. and a nice way to avoid having to concede.
So no skin off my nose either way, I'm sure most here [as you already have cynically inferred a couple of times] realise the facts re ID and the non scientific aspect, along with abiogenisis being the only scientific solution, although the exact pathway remains unknown.