7-2-06 -- Doonesbury on Creationism and Intelligent Design.

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance. As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid)

Why is evolution not scientifically provable or even valid? It really feels to me that you're putting both ideas on the same level as if they're both equally valid. Which appears strange to me as I am pretty sure you're not a big fan of creationism.

What are you trying to say?

 

[Aisengard]

Really? So random chance is scientifically provable? I would say that you're the idiot. The current valid scientific position is not that God doesn't exist, but that God is unnecessary.

Actually, current scientific position doesn't consider God, because such an idea is not provable by any sense of the word.

Every 'attack' on creationism doesn't require some ravenous 'defense' of both sides, or as I see it another 'attack' on both sides. Evolution is much more real than God. It is in a different league altogether. Putting evolution and intelligent design in the same sentence as each other, excepting the phrase "Evolution is verifiable and intelligent design is not" is an insult to humanity.

God is a nice idea, but don't try and fool yourself into thinking it's actually on the same level of reality as science.

 

[shilala]

I don't know about you, but personally, I immediately disregard any input whatsoever that comes from anyone too immature to avoid using the word "idiot" in an argument.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic
Tit for tat then. His entire argument was moot, just like Trudeau's. It all stems for the false belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life, as opposed to the development and (gasp) evolution of life.

BS. Consider that Trudeau begins by wondering whether the patient is a "creationist," not an believer in ID. Many, if not most, creationists do not believe in evolution and therefore the strip makes sense within that context. He doesn't even mention "ID" until the very end, when he quips about the drugs being "intelligently designed."

Alright, point taken. I won't defend young-earth creationists, just their right to believe in whatever foolishness they want to believe in (as I would defend anyone else's right). Which would include the idea that they should be allowed medical care even if it is based on science they don't believe in. After all, isn't that what being noble is all about? For the strong to protect the weak and the wise to protect the foolish? And, in that fashion, it is where Trudeau's strip fails. For what do the strong have to fear from the weak, or the wise from the foolish? So what exactly is it that Harvey and Gigantopithecus, et al. fear because not all believe as they do?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Actually, current scientific position doesn't consider God, because such an idea is not provable by any sense of the word.

Isn't that what I already said, in almost those exact same words?

Every 'attack' on creationism doesn't require some ravenous 'defense' of both sides, or as I see it another 'attack' on both sides. Evolution is much more real than God. It is in a different league altogether. Putting evolution and intelligent design in the same sentence as each other, excepting the phrase "Evolution is verifiable and intelligent design is not" is an insult to humanity.

The concepts are not in contradiction, for exactly the same reason you yourself gave above. God is not considered, neither pro nor con. You need to work on your logic.

God is a nice idea, but don't try and fool yourself into thinking it's actually on the same level of reality as science.

Who is fooling who? This is not even remotely what I said. Just like your average run-of-the-mill-but-low-in-the-brainpower ATPN'er, you assume that anyone who doesn't expreslly worship at your personal altar must be your enemy. And with that you try to claim a moral victory? Very sad...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic
In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance. As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid)

Why is evolution not scientifically provable or even valid? It really feels to me that you're putting both ideas on the same level as if they're both equally valid. Which appears strange to me as I am pretty sure you're not a big fan of creationism.

What are you trying to say?

Not that. I didn't attack evolution (far from it), just some people's inaccurate view of it. Evolution neither includes nor excludes God. He is simply not part of the theory. Some people wrongly assume that that means that evolution disproves God, and try to use that false belief as the foundation for their own (anti)religious faith, and that is what I am saying is not scientifically valid.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Theb

Originally posted by: Vic
God may be, God might be... science does not speculate on the matter, nor even find the whole argument relevant.

We need to inform Richard Dawkins, or maybe you've decided he's not a scientist, you seem to have decided a lot of things about science.

Being a scientist does not preclude someone from having religious beliefs. Many scientists are Christians, and many are atheists. From a truly objective scientific viewpoint, there is no difference, as neither are scientific.

edit: and that is fact, not a personal decision. You might want to educate yourself.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic
The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution.

Right, because one is science & one isn't.

In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance.

Not at all, please go educate yourself.

As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid),

Wrong again, before you start with the basics of evolution, go educate yourself on the basics of science.

let me be clear that I am attacking both sides of the argument.

So because of the whims of those who believe the earth is flat, you feel the need to lump people who argue the earth is roughly spherical in with them and dismiss both as unprovable theories? Idiot.

Who believes the earth is flat?

 

[miketheidiot]

if i understand right (im a bit sleepy) Vic is simply saying that in science, theistic issues do not occur. There is not a god and the is not no god. The issue doesn't exist.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Actually, current scientific position doesn't consider God, because such an idea is not provable by any sense of the word.

Isn't that what I already said, in almost those exact same words?

Every 'attack' on creationism doesn't require some ravenous 'defense' of both sides, or as I see it another 'attack' on both sides. Evolution is much more real than God. It is in a different league altogether. Putting evolution and intelligent design in the same sentence as each other, excepting the phrase "Evolution is verifiable and intelligent design is not" is an insult to humanity.

The concepts are not in contradiction, for exactly the same reason you yourself gave above. God is not considered, neither pro nor con. You need to work on your logic.

God is a nice idea, but don't try and fool yourself into thinking it's actually on the same level of reality as science.

Who is fooling who? This is not even remotely what I said. Just like your average run-of-the-mill-but-low-in-the-brainpower ATPN'er, you assume that anyone who doesn't expreslly worship at your personal altar must be your enemy. And with that you try to claim a moral victory? Very sad...

Try and tone down the ad hominem, it's rarely accurate. And, moral victory? Stop putting words in my mouth.

You started out in this thread by needlessly attacking Trudeau and his light-comedy strip as if he was speaking at some science convention. Yes, you were just playing the Devil's advocate, but, as you said, to what point? You make false claims and arrogant comments about both ID and evolution 'believers', and expect people to reply to your flame-bait rationally?

Your thoughts are backwards on the 'evolution disproves God' theory. It sounds nice, but only because it's the other way around that's the issue. Your false-claim theory - on the page, even! - used the Intelligent Design advocates claims as an example...i.e. one tiny inconsistency in evolution proves Intelligent Design. Since we can't figure it out, God must have done it!

Most "evolutionists" see the basic concept of evolution as a scientific fact, as much as any scientific fact these days, simply because of the preponderance of evidence backing it.

You are not some noble bearer of truth and justice, trying to defend people's beliefs and dispel horrible propaganda by the hypocrticic scientists, you are playing the Devil's advocate for no reason other than to try and rise above everyone else. Both ID and evolution are not provable and therefore wrong, you state, but you offer little else in its place. That's what I'm arguing against.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic
Tit for tat then. His entire argument was moot, just like Trudeau's. It all stems for the false belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life, as opposed to the development and (gasp) evolution of life.

BS. Consider that Trudeau begins by wondering whether the patient is a "creationist," not an believer in ID. Many, if not most, creationists do not believe in evolution and therefore the strip makes sense within that context. He doesn't even mention "ID" until the very end, when he quips about the drugs being "intelligently designed."

Alright, point taken. I won't defend young-earth creationists, just their right to believe in whatever foolishness they want to believe in (as I would defend anyone else's right). Which would include the idea that they should be allowed medical care even if it is based on science they don't believe in. After all, isn't that what being noble is all about? For the strong to protect the weak and the wise to protect the foolish? And, in that fashion, it is where Trudeau's strip fails. For what do the strong have to fear from the weak, or the wise from the foolish? So what exactly is it that Harvey and Gigantopithecus, et al. fear because not all believe as they do?

Allow me to suggest that if you're looking for those sorts of things in a comic strip, then you're probably looking in all the wrong places. Trudeau is merely trying to be funny -- admittedly at the expense of social conservatives and fundies -- yet there is no obligation on his part to speak great truths concerning the human condition.

The bottom line here is aren't you lending too much weight to something that wasn't meant to be totally completely serious in the first place? It would be akin to getting outraged by some commentary or another on The Daily Show.

 

[kylebisme]

The cartoon isn't suggesting that anyone should be given anything less than proper medical treatment, it is just pointing out the irony in people benefiting from medical treatment which is based on principles they are in denial of.

 

[DealMonkey]

Furthermore, there's a certain grain of truth to some folks choosing substandard health care based on their religions beliefs. Case in point: Jehovah's Witnesses (reject blood transfusions). Also consider the near uproar from the Family Research Council over the recent vaccine for HPV. You've got to believe the FRC and other like-minded Conservative Christians won't be allowing their daughters to be vaccinated against HPV because they believe she'll think "all sex is safe" or become promiscuous (or both). So it would not be out of the realm of possibility to consider that some people's religious beliefs are going to, at some point or another, interfere with the most advanced and most effective medical care available.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The cartoon isn't suggesting that anyone should be given anything less than proper medical treatment, it is just pointing out the irony in people benefiting from medical treatment which is based on principles they are in denial of.

So...? People benefit every day from things based on principals they are in denial of. Socialists benefit from the prosperity of capitalism, moralists and bigots benefit from the freedoms of liberalism, and pacificists (myself included) benefit from the policies of a strong military. Nothing new here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic
Tit for tat then. His entire argument was moot, just like Trudeau's. It all stems for the false belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life, as opposed to the development and (gasp) evolution of life.

BS. Consider that Trudeau begins by wondering whether the patient is a "creationist," not an believer in ID. Many, if not most, creationists do not believe in evolution and therefore the strip makes sense within that context. He doesn't even mention "ID" until the very end, when he quips about the drugs being "intelligently designed."

Alright, point taken. I won't defend young-earth creationists, just their right to believe in whatever foolishness they want to believe in (as I would defend anyone else's right). Which would include the idea that they should be allowed medical care even if it is based on science they don't believe in. After all, isn't that what being noble is all about? For the strong to protect the weak and the wise to protect the foolish? And, in that fashion, it is where Trudeau's strip fails. For what do the strong have to fear from the weak, or the wise from the foolish? So what exactly is it that Harvey and Gigantopithecus, et al. fear because not all believe as they do?

Allow me to suggest that if you're looking for those sorts of things in a comic strip, then you're probably looking in all the wrong places. Trudeau is merely trying to be funny -- admittedly at the expense of social conservatives and fundies -- yet there is no obligation on his part to speak great truths concerning the human condition.

The bottom line here is aren't you lending too much weight to something that wasn't meant to be totally completely serious in the first place? It would be akin to getting outraged by some commentary or another on The Daily Show.

I consider Trudeau to be a bit more than that. I've been following his strip since childhood. At least Berke Breathed hasn't fallen completely to sh!t (although he still can't recapture his Bloom County glory days).

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The cartoon isn't suggesting that anyone should be given anything less than proper medical treatment, it is just pointing out the irony in people benefiting from medical treatment which is based on principles they are in denial of.

So...?

So your attempt to make the cartoon out to say more than it does is absurd.

Originally posted by: Vic
People benefit every day from things based on principals they are in denial of. Socialists benefit from the prosperity of capitalism, moralists and bigots benefit from the freedoms of liberalism, and pacificists (myself included) benefit from the policies of a strong military. Nothing new here.

No, irony is far from new, which makes it that much more absurd that you should get your panties in a bunch over it here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The cartoon isn't suggesting that anyone should be given anything less than proper medical treatment, it is just pointing out the irony in people benefiting from medical treatment which is based on principles they are in denial of.

So...?

So your attempt to make the cartoon out to say more than it does is absurd.

Originally posted by: Vic
People benefit every day from things based on principals they are in denial of. Socialists benefit from the prosperity of capitalism, moralists and bigots benefit from the freedoms of liberalism, and pacificists (myself included) benefit from the policies of a strong military. Nothing new here.

No, irony is far from new, which makes it that much more absurd that you should get your panties in a bunch over it here.

So... you entirely miss my point. Apparently from your own denial.

 

[kylebisme]

Yes, I deny your attempt to read more into the comic than what it is.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic
The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution.

Right, because one is science & one isn't.

In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance.

Not at all, please go educate yourself.

As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid),

Wrong again, before you start with the basics of evolution, go educate yourself on the basics of science.

let me be clear that I am attacking both sides of the argument.

So because of the whims of those who believe the earth is flat, you feel the need to lump people who argue the earth is roughly spherical in with them and dismiss both as unprovable theories? Idiot.

Really? So random chance is scientifically provable? I would say that you're the idiot. The current valid scientific position is not that God doesn't exist, but that God is unnecessary. Big, big difference there. Keep playing though. Your little hateful emotions and prejudices are quite amusing to watch. Goddammit, it ought to be a law that everyone believes what you believe, right? Crucify the heretics?

:roll:


Oh btw, I love the flat earth strawman. Way to show that you know absolutely nothing of history beyond what your 1st grade teacher taught you about Columbus discovering America.


edit: and I really love the fact that you editted out how I was just playing the devils advocate against both of these positions (which are a false dilemma) and instead you pretend, for the sake of flaming, that I support the ID argument. Dumbass... :roll: again

Uh look up some quantum theory and say that "Random Chance" isn't provable. In the absence of complete information statistical analysis can yield data which can be used to extrapolate why something happens.

Don't feel bad Einstein didn't like it either.

"I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." - Einstein to Bohr.

Bohr Replied, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Theb

Originally posted by: Vic
God may be, God might be... science does not speculate on the matter, nor even find the whole argument relevant.

We need to inform Richard Dawkins, or maybe you've decided he's not a scientist, you seem to have decided a lot of things about science.

Being a scientist does not preclude someone from having religious beliefs. Many scientists are Christians, and many are atheists. From a truly objective scientific viewpoint, there is no difference, as neither are scientific.

edit: and that is fact, not a personal decision. You might want to educate yourself.

To be a scientific theory many things are required, but one I will bring up is the ability to predict (within a margin of error) something happening. Because, evolution takes a long time it is hard to fully predict, but we can take two flies mate them and guess what offspring will be like based on their parents. I would say then that the basis for evolution can predict (when we have the ability to simulate all of the factors that could cause something to live or die) what course evolution will take.

However, ID predicts NOTHING. It is FAITH. Whether or not it is true is irrelevent. It would be like having a theory that explains why the sky is blue and someone else saying that he has a theory that the sky IS blue. Which is the better theory? I would say the first because it can PREDICT what would happen on other planets not just our own.

 

[Vic]

Lack of reading comprehension FTL!

People who think that science supports the religion of atheism amuse me.

if i understand right (im a bit sleepy) Vic is simply saying that in science, theistic issues do not occur. There is not a god and there is not no god. The issue doesn't exist.

BINGO!

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic
Tit for tat then. His entire argument was moot, just like Trudeau's. It all stems for the false belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life, as opposed to the development and (gasp) evolution of life.

BS. Consider that Trudeau begins by wondering whether the patient is a "creationist," not an believer in ID. Many, if not most, creationists do not believe in evolution and therefore the strip makes sense within that context. He doesn't even mention "ID" until the very end, when he quips about the drugs being "intelligently designed."

Alright, point taken. I won't defend young-earth creationists, just their right to believe in whatever foolishness they want to believe in (as I would defend anyone else's right). Which would include the idea that they should be allowed medical care even if it is based on science they don't believe in. After all, isn't that what being noble is all about? For the strong to protect the weak and the wise to protect the foolish? And, in that fashion, it is where Trudeau's strip fails. For what do the strong have to fear from the weak, or the wise from the foolish? So what exactly is it that Harvey and Gigantopithecus, et al. fear because not all believe as they do?

You've already been told by numerous other posters that evolution is not 'plain ol' random chance' 'unprovable by science'. One step further, not even mutation is entirely random (which is still a commonly held idea that's only recently been shown to be inaccurate). So where you get the idea that evolution is random I have no idea, hence my ad hominem. But as someone else mentioned, it's not ad hominem when it's true. I also find it flabbergasting that someone would willingly hide their plain ignorance behind patronizing vitriol, but hey, it takes all kinds, I suppose.

I am afraid of anti-science in all its forms because in this country, where everybody has an opinion that counts (at least at the ballot box), persons who doubt science & embrace faith-based reasoning about the natural world are doing the rest of us a grave disservice & are an impediment to scientific progress. One need only look at the sorry state of stem cell research in the US to see we're sacrificing innumerable therapies/techniques etc. because stem cell research makes baby jebus cry or some other such nonsense.

What did Galileo have to fear from the ignorant rubes who didn't buy his scientific theories?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Vic
Lack of reading comprehension FTL!

People who think that science supports the religion of atheism amuse me.

if i understand right (im a bit sleepy) Vic is simply saying that in science, theistic issues do not occur. There is not a god and there is not no god. The issue doesn't exist.

BINGO!

Yes, which I also agreed with in my first post before I corrected Vic's same old tired inaccuracies about evolution.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic
Tit for tat then. His entire argument was moot, just like Trudeau's. It all stems for the false belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life, as opposed to the development and (gasp) evolution of life.

BS. Consider that Trudeau begins by wondering whether the patient is a "creationist," not an believer in ID. Many, if not most, creationists do not believe in evolution and therefore the strip makes sense within that context. He doesn't even mention "ID" until the very end, when he quips about the drugs being "intelligently designed."

Alright, point taken. I won't defend young-earth creationists, just their right to believe in whatever foolishness they want to believe in (as I would defend anyone else's right). Which would include the idea that they should be allowed medical care even if it is based on science they don't believe in. After all, isn't that what being noble is all about? For the strong to protect the weak and the wise to protect the foolish? And, in that fashion, it is where Trudeau's strip fails. For what do the strong have to fear from the weak, or the wise from the foolish? So what exactly is it that Harvey and Gigantopithecus, et al. fear because not all believe as they do?

You've already been told by numerous other posters that evolution is not 'plain ol' random chance' 'unprovable by science'. One step further, not even mutation is entirely random (which is still a commonly held idea that's only recently been shown to be inaccurate). So where you get the idea that evolution is random I have no idea, hence my ad hominem. But as someone else mentioned, it's not ad hominem when it's true. I also find it flabbergasting that someone would willingly hide their plain ignorance behind patronizing vitriol, but hey, it takes all kinds, I suppose.

I am afraid of anti-science in all its forms because in this country, where everybody has an opinion that counts (at least at the ballot box), persons who doubt science & embrace faith-based reasoning about the natural world are doing the rest of us a grave disservice & are an impediment to scientific progress. One need only look at the sorry state of stem cell research in the US to see we're sacrificing innumerable therapies/techniques etc. because stem cell research makes baby jebus cry or some other such nonsense.

What did Galileo have to fear from the ignorant rubes who didn't buy his scientific theories?

You are -- like several others here -- confusing what I said, and intentionally hiding that behind your own vitriol. I guess it does take all kinds. If you read back, you will see that I clearly discounted BOTH the notions of ID and pseudoscientific wannabeatheistic "random chance" evolution (aka abiogenesis). In fact, I said (and I quote), "As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid)... "

So if you see "Vic's same old tired inaccuracies," that's because you're inserting them into my argument in your usual attack the messenger way in order to try to reconcile science to your personal political agenda.

 

[kylebisme]

He is just pointing out a well founded postion where you presnted only a strawman.