Seriously, if the only way you can explain why so many scientists disagree with your "theory" is by saying there is a great big conspiracy, then you need to look at your "theory" again. Yes, I'm looking at you Creationists, Climate Change Deniers, UFO enthusiasts, Flat-Earthers, etc...
does the invisible hand, have a hold on patents that could decentralize power? ie.... GE/Edison has the flourescent light patent for the full term Why? What happened to Ovionics? Be certain, business in itself is a 'conspiracy' that we all apply to. But as far as a theory of everything....? No conspiracy there. Only one prick with the name. an no eating, from that tree
Creationism doesn't demand a conspiracy just don't call it a science as long as its a matter of just faith, a religious position its fine.
True. I guess I should have use Intelligent Design, Creationisms attempt to be scientific, but I wasn't sure what to call people who believe in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Designers?
How are Creationists attempting to be scientific? Creationists are those who think that their religion is the literal truth. IDists pretend that science just happens to align itself with a literal interpretation of their religion.
To be fair, ID advocates aren't required to think it was a biblical god that did the designing. ID by it's basic tenants could mean an advanced alien civilization created us just as much as it could a God. It's almost always used to suggest a biblical creation, but it's not bound to by it's definition.
This kind of dodges the point. ID, if it says anything other than "we find evolution offensive", says that somehow, something, at some time, did something undefined. How can this be tested?
It can't. I don't think ID is a valid theory, I think it's a cop-out. My point was just that ID and creationism aren't necessarily one and the same. ID does not require the "designer" to be God, even if that's the way it's normally presented.
Have you read the "wedge document"? This was written by Philip Johnson, lawyer and originator of the "intelligent design" dodge. And he makes it clear: the Designer is the creationist god for purposes of raising funds at churches, but the Designer is an abstract philosophical concept for legal purposes, to present to judges. Are you familiar with "Of Pandas and People", the creationist text that underwent a global-search-and-replace of "creationist" with "design proponent", and left everything else the same? At the Dover Trial, Barbara Forrest produced an early edition where they didn't quite get it right, and there was a "cdesign proponentsists" still in the book! And you tell me it's not creationism? Serously, if the aliens should land tomorrow and provide incontrovertible evidence that they were the designers of terrestrial life, the ID proponents would have apoplexy, and their doctrine would change overnight! (And at the Dover trial, Behe admitted under oath that the claims ID makes are simply not evident to those who don't share his religious convictions, and cannot be made evident barring a religious conversion.)
This is exactly the point. None of them try to claim to be "scientific", to them it is about belief, not empirical data and science. And most of the rest of this thread starter is just coprolite. UFOs are just that, "Unidentified". Now granted, I think the nutcases that go on about Roswell and Area 51 are nutcases, but the fact that UFOs themselves exist can't be denied. But most reasonable people do not believe that they are aliens flying around and kidnapping trailer trash to conduct rectal probes on. Flat Earthers? I honestly think that they are primarily pranksters who themselves do not believe what they say. The rest have mental issues. As for "Climate Deniers", this is about definition and the attempt to discredit others who do not accept a certain view and nothing else. I myself, I look at over 30,000 years of evidence that the climate of the planet is indeed warming, and there is no denying that. I simply do not accept the kool-aid that some say about the cause.
That's what IDists want you to think. However, may I introduce you to the term "cdesign proponentsists"?
I understand what the people who promote ID want me to think, but the theory itself, when you subtract the intentions of those trying to promote it, doesn't mean it has to be a biblical God that did the designing. ID also doesn't conflict with evolution while creationism absolutely does.
They pretend it doesn't necessarily have to be their god, but follow any single one of them when not feeding the general public their schtick and you'll find them doing paid speaking engagements to the flocks reaffirming that, yup..it's their god. They're just lying about it.
Of course they are, that's why I oppose it being taught in the classroom because it's just a not-so-subtle backdoor for creationism. I just find it funny that their pet theory can also mean something not the slightest bit biblical.
ID is not a theory. That is one of the lies the IDists want you to think. In science there can only be one theory that explains a given phenomena. There can't be two. ID is a hypothesis. That places it under a theory. And it's not even a very good hypothesis. And of course ID conflicts with the Theory of Evolution because it states that evolution can't be used to explain things like the Bacterial Flagellum, which evolution actually does explain, or that evolution can't explain a whole wide range of things that there is plenty of explanation in the Theory of Evolution for. That's one of the things that tripped up Behe during the Dover Trial. He kept saying that evolution couldn't explain a whole wide range of things and then the other side brought in a huge range of scientific journals, books, etc that actually did explain. Behe had to admit that he hadn't actually bothered to research those topics. The biggest weapon in the IDist arsenal is the supposed idea of Irreducible Complexity and yet it's been refuted time and time again by evidence from actual science and yet they keep using it. That's how you know it's not science.
Oh no! That's not true at all. Science makes progress because any given dataset allows multiple consistent explanations. Prograss happens by constructing tests that will eliminated at least one of these. I agree, it's not formed well enough to qualify as a hypothesis. The Templeton Foundation offered a big slug of research funding to anyone able to even suggest a course of research testing some positive aspect of ID (rather than simply trying once again to discredit evolution). There were no takers, because you can't test for the creationist god or any other. To put it generally, no creationist has ever critiqued the theory of evolution as understood by evolutionary biologists. It's always some caricature. People like Behe, Dembski, Wells, etc. do no research at all, they only pontificate, producing lines of reasoning which have been thoroughly discredited. Then you have people like Douglas Axe, who is a very competent biologist and does careful research. BUT his lab work proves that biology doesn't work the way no biologist ever said it did! I'm always amazed when he demonstrates that proteins can't magically poof themselves out of a mix of inorganic atoms and molecules. Axe says that disproves evolution, and evolutionists laugh. It's the equivalent of flapping his arms for a day, and using that as "proof" men can never fly to the moon. Muller, back in the 1920s, showed that irreducible complexity is a natural result of evolutionary processes. Today AVIDA simulations show the same thing. Behe, last anyone noticed, was demanding genuine historical observational proof of every chemical reaction that ever occured leading up to a flagellum, starting billions of years ago. Solid proof, right?
There is still only ever one scientific theory at a time on something. In simple terms a scientific theory is the winning hypothesis (it goes a bit deeper than that of course). If another hypothesis wins it replaces the old theory and the old theory is thrown out, or the new hypothesis is combined into the old theory and a better combination is created. The best explanation I've seen against Behe, etc and IC is that using their definition of IC would disprove being able to build a skyscraper. How would you build the top floor! You can't! It must have been magically created in its present and total form.
