ShakaUVM
Member Profile
Member Since: 2007-04-11
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 2
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 2
Comments
1
Subscribe
Videos Submitted by ShakaUVMNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (0)
- sifted videos (1)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 754
Rating: 1 star points
Votes Received: 49
Votes Cast: 193
Comments Posted: 83 • browse
Sifted Videos: 1
Profile Views: 2522
Rating: 1 star points
Votes Received: 49
Votes Cast: 193
Comments Posted: 83 • browse
Sifted Videos: 1
Profile Views: 2522
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to your comment:
“In reply to your comment:
“I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps".
There's a collection of theories under the umbrella of ID. The two main threads are:
1) Determining the amount of spontaneous complexity that shows evidence of intelligence
2) That the current theory of evolution can not explain the observed pattern of evolution.
1) is a positive sort of work, akin to what the SETI people have to do to figure out if they're looking at a signal or a random pattenr. 2) is a criticism of the current theory of evolution. It will result in the challenge either being discarded, evolution being modified, or evolution being rejected. Rather standard stuff from a Kuhnian perspective, actually.
You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up.
Not at all. Especially Islam has this problem -- that nothing happens without God's permission -- and so there's no point to science since there is no cause and effect. But ID includes natural selection, so it can be studied (if it's found to hold a drop of sense) alongside everything else with our empirical models.
The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!"
Rather it is the search for things that would be contrary to the theory of evolution.
These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed"
creationistsThen you'd make a very, very bad mistake like most people who argue against ID. Not everyone who thinks that ID should at least be investigated are IDers, let alone a Creationist. I am neither. But it's typical a typical ad hominem bullshit reaction that someone who thinks that ID is at least interesting to conflate them with young earth creationists. Frankly, it's a more ignorant reaction than what you'd expect even from YECs.
Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?
This is honestly the stupidest statement I've read today, and I spend a lot of time on Slashdot.
Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks?
Because Creationists see it as a sneaky way of disguising their beliefs in the veneer of science. However, they don't realize that ID is as opposed to Creationism as the TOE is.
Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.
Actually, it's a classic challenge to an established belief, ala Kuhn. Not all challenges to established beliefs turn out to be right (like heliocentrism). It might very well turn out to be wrong. But it's not anti-scientific. It's antiestablismentarianism, and the conflict is actually rather typical.
Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.
I think it's possible to do research to see if it's possible.
In any event, the video is an example of ID, not evolution.”
You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up. Oh, well, we don't know what is causing bubonic plague, it must be God's divine retribution, we might as well not study it. Humans aren't meant to fly, it's God's will.
The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!" Then science progresses, and the ID camp is pushed back even further, and searches for more percieved gaps.
These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed"
creationistsID proponents. Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?Not to turn this into an appeal to authority nor an ad hominem attack, but it must make you pause and think. Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks? Do you find it at all curious that the term Intelligent Design was coined the very same year that the american supreme court banned the teaching of creation "science" on the grounds that it violated the constitutional seperation of church and state?
Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.
Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.
In reply to your comment:
“ShakaUVM- i think the principle you're reaching for, the one you've almost but not quite grasped hold of, is what is referred to as natural selection. Not ID. Once you have genes that replicate, the "goal" is to have genes that replicate better.
No, I'm quite well read on evolution and ID. What you do not understand is that ID incorporates the theory of evolution and natural selection in it. Natural selection is, in fact, a subset of ID theory. ID is not creationism. If you think so, you drastically need to read up on the topic. Creationism is the literal belief in the account of Genesis in the Bible. ID is the belief that an intelligent being influenced evolution (to produce humans). These two beliefs are quite at odds with each other.
I know, I know it's popular in the press to say that they are the same, but besides the fact that God could be the intelligent designer, they have nothing in common.
This video is a demonstration of ID. In fact, I could remove his text labels and make a compelling new video demonstrating how intelligent design could have worked. An intelligent designer could have done nothing more than to set a teleological goal (in this case, "Clock-ness") and then let evolution figure out the rest.”
“Bill O'Reilly comes off very well in this segment. What the hell are all you people bitching about? If you hate him, at least find a better segment, like when he gets mad and yells at this guests.”
He called a highschool kid a "pinhead" on national TV for simply disagreeing with him. How exactly is that "coming off very well" there bud?