In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51423 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#36469 Aug 20, 2012
True Truth wrote:
Wow, this ID argument is just going on and on, and in circles too. Let me put in my two cents.
The way I see it, creationism and ID are different things. ID is associated with the cause of life. Creationism is associated with the method of life.
A person can believe in ID as a cause and evolution as a method, or they can believe in ID as a cause and creationism as a method. Or they can believe in evolution as a cause and method. It depends on what seems to make more sense.
No cause is actually supported by scientific evidence. Even evolution as a cause, is not supported by actual evidence, but rather by mathematical correlations, analogy and theoretical ideas.
But when it comes to the method, evolution is supported by evidence, especially micro evolution, and in many cases it can be argued that micro evolution becomes macro evolution in the long run. Creationism as a method however, is not supported by any scientific evidence.
The Discovery Institute tries to use ID and creationism interchangeably. They try to assert creationism as a cause and method. Their particular brand of creationism is that the Christian god done it. To base ones definitions on the Discovery institute would be nothing but a sad waste of time battling a strawman anyway.
The Discovery Institute started the intelligent design movement bankrolls it and is it's paycheck. So...
All this is meaningless the DI is the cause of ID so DI=ID
add the wedge document ,
DI+ID+Wedge Document= Intelligent Creationism

Since: Mar 11

United States

#36470 Aug 20, 2012
Just as diet pills don't work on Buck when he doesn't take them. Buck is a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian reality and facts have no place in his bizarre delusional world.
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>You don't really think facts will have any effect on buck, do you?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#36471 Aug 20, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not openly, at least not until their Wedge Strategy was leaked. ID is a political strategy to circumvent the law that prevents creationism from being taught as science in American public schools. The DI was damaged by that leak.
But its fellows often continue to distance themselves from supernaturalism in a bizarre parody in which they deny their obvious religious motivations. But they feel they have to. Supernaturalism in an origins hypothesis is poison to the movement. It's the sine qua non of both religion and pseudoscienc
Just stopping by.

I must say, you are doing a fine job of writing in support of science. A job well done.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#36472 Aug 20, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Just as diet pills don't work on Buck when he doesn't take them. Buck is a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian reality and facts have no place in his bizarre delusional world.
<quoted text>
On Buckyworld, up is down, black is white and sweet is sour.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36473 Aug 20, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Just stopping by. I must say, you are doing a fine job of writing in support of science. A job well done.
Well thank you very much!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36474 Aug 20, 2012
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Remarkable ... my thanks to everyone who responded in such depth. Seems to me motility/mobility is such a desirable trait Momma Nature re-invented the wheel (so to speak) in a myriad different ways. Not the hallmark of a good designer at all. More grasping at molecule sized straws. How could anyone associate themselves with the ID crowd and still hold their head up?
The clip linked to by Ken Miller has been thoroughly debunked on the flagellum.

The flagellum is irreducibly complex. What Miller proposed as the precursor to the flagellum - the Type III secretory system, has been shown to come as a descendant of the flagellum. The flagellum is a precursor to the TIII system, not vice-versa.

Even if Miller were correct, there remains the irreducible complexity problem for him, as the 40 genes (30 more than the T-3 system) necessary for the flagellum do not produce a selective advantage individually, and could not have occured by natural selection.

This has been shown in great detail by Scott Minnich, along with a host of other scientists.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36475 Aug 20, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not openly, at least not until their Wedge Strategy was leaked. ID is a political strategy to circumvent the law that prevents creationism from being taught as science in American public schools. The DI was damaged by that leak.
But its fellows often continue to distance themselves from supernaturalism in a bizarre parody in which they deny their obvious religious motivations. But they feel they have to. Supernaturalism in an origins hypothesis is poison to the movement. It's the sine qua non of both religion and pseudoscienc
Just stopping by.
__________

Darwin's Stepchild wrote:

I must say, you are doing a fine job of writing in support of science. A job well done.
__________

Both posts are entirely false on the facts.

1. "ID" has no wedge strategy. Never has.

2. The wedge strategy was never "leaked". It was published, put right out in the open.

3. "ID" is not "DI". The reversal of letters is important. The Discovery Institute is a think tank with an ideology. Their goal is to compete with the ideology of "naturalism". They say so in a straightforward manner.

4. "ID" is not a political strategy. It is science.

5. "ID" has never attempted to circumvent any law.

6. "ID" OPPOSES both creationism and intelligent design being taught in school. The idea that it is a movement to get creationism in schools is provably a lie.

You people are willing to lie your asses off to try to undermine intelligent design research.

Pointing out your lies is like farting in the wind. I show the necessary documentation to prove you are lying, and then you just repeat the lies.

And so it goes.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36476 Aug 20, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The Discovery Institute started the intelligent design movement bankrolls it and is it's paycheck. So...
All this is meaningless the DI is the cause of ID so DI=ID
add the wedge document ,
DI+ID+Wedge Document= Intelligent Creationism

Wrong.

The Discovery Institute did not start the intelligent design movement.

But then, ID opponents never allow facts to get in the way of a good story.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36477 Aug 20, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That's a wonder , especially the holdouts that know about it and still defend it knowing what the wedge document is. As well as how some of them twisted meanings and fabricated conclusions to fit their agenda.
What is the "wedge document"?

Who produced it and published it?

What does it mean?

Enlighten us with your knowledge on this subject.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36478 Aug 20, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not openly, at least not until their Wedge Strategy was leaked. ID is a political strategy to circumvent the law that prevents creationism from being taught as science in American public schools. The DI was damaged by that leak.
But its fellows often continue to distance themselves from supernaturalism in a bizarre parody in which they deny their obvious religious motivations. But they feel they have to. Supernaturalism in an origins hypothesis is poison to the movement. It's the sine qua non of both religion and pseudoscienc
ID has no wedge strategy, the wedge strategy was never leaked, ID opposes both creationism and intelligent design being taught in school, and no ID theory or hypothesis contains anything supernatural.

Not a single statement in your post is truthful.

From the Discovery Institute website:

"As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively."

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#36479 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The clip linked to by Ken Miller has been thoroughly debunked on the flagellum.
The flagellum is irreducibly complex. What Miller proposed as the precursor to the flagellum - the Type III secretory system, has been shown to come as a descendant of the flagellum. The flagellum is a precursor to the TIII system, not vice-versa.
Even if Miller were correct, there remains the irreducible complexity problem for him, as the 40 genes (30 more than the T-3 system) necessary for the flagellum do not produce a selective advantage individually, and could not have occured by natural selection.
This has been shown in great detail by Scott Minnich, along with a host of other scientists.
I have a very straightforward question for you, Buck.

I'm asking seriously, so please don't come back with nonresponsive, humorous banter.

Do you honestly believe this stuff?

I'm not asking whether technically it's a scientific theory.

I'm asking whether you truly believe there's validity to it.

If you do, a simple "yes" will do.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#36480 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the "wedge document"?
Who produced it and published it?
What does it mean?
Enlighten us with your knowledge on this subject.
" http://lmgtfy.com/... ;

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36481 Aug 20, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has never been called a cause. It is a process, the one that accounts for the diversity and relatedness of life on earth as we find it. The cause of evolution is the combination of three factors working on living populations: heritability, variation, and natural selection. Remove one of those, and evolution stops.
The cause of heritability is the passage of nucleic from parent to offspring. The cause of biological variation is mutation and meiotic reshuffling. And the cause of natural selection is the pressure to survive and reproduce - "compete" - in a changing world full of lethal dangers and scarce resources. And all of it is thought to be caused by blind forces operating on matter.
Evolution has frequently been used for various causes, such as atheism, naturalism, materialism.

There are so many different definitions of evolution, it can be used for almost anything.

One noteworthy cause it was used for was Nazism, and the Jewish holocaust, eugenics, and the Nazi Master Race politics.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#36482 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
It aint necessarily so wrote:

"ID" is not a political strategy. It is science.

"ID" OPPOSES both creationism and intelligent design being taught in school.
So this "science" takes a position on what should and should not be taught in school?

Is this taking of a position a part of that science?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36483 Aug 20, 2012

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#36484 Aug 20, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
" http://lmgtfy.com/... ;
Wow Hedonist!!

How did you do that?

It's magic.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#36485 Aug 20, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
there remains the irreducible complexity problem for him, as the 40 genes (30 more than the T-3 system) necessary for the flagellum do not produce a selective advantage individually, and could not have occured by natural selection.
That was also the claim about the flagellum - that no part of it had any function at all. That claim was shown to be incorrect, falsifying the claim that the flagellum was irreducibly complex. The same claim was made about the clotting cascade, and also shown to be wrong there as well.

Behe made the same claim about the mousetrap. It's five parts - a platform, spring, hammer, catch and lock bar - were said to be irreducibly complex:

"A good example of such a system is a mechanical mousetrap.... The mousetrap depends critically on the presence of all five of its components; if there were no spring, the mouse would not be pinned to the base; if there were no platform, the other pieces would fall apart; and so on. The function of the mousetrap requires all the pieces: you cannot catch a few mice with just a platform, add a spring and catch a few more mice, add a holding bar and catch a few more, All of the components have to be in place before any mice are caught. Thus the mousetrap is irreducibly complex." - MJ Behe" http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/Miller...

But it turned out that he was more zealous than imaginative. A four part, three part, two part, and one part mousetrap have been reverse engineered, which can be seen at the link above, and in a series of animations at http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

The mousetrap didn't evolve through this pathway, of course. It's not a biological system.

But the point the illustration makes remains valid: you can't simply declare something irreducibly complex just because you don't see the pathway from simplicity to complexity with increasing functionality at each interval.
Buck Crick wrote:
This has been shown in great detail by Scott Minnich, along with a host of other scientists.
There is no known way to demonstrate irreducible complexity - no algorithm or definitive test. In mathematical language, the problem of whether a given structure is irreducibly complex is called "undecidable" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_%28... .

Claims of irreducible complexity seem to be like scientific theories: falsifiable if wrong by finding a use for components, but not provable if true.

So how could Minnich or anybody else demonstrate that any polymerous object is irreducible complex even if it were?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36486 Aug 20, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a very straightforward question for you, Buck.
I'm asking seriously, so please don't come back with nonresponsive, humorous banter.
Do you honestly believe this stuff?
I'm not asking whether technically it's a scientific theory.
I'm asking whether you truly believe there's validity to it.
If you do, a simple "yes" will do.
There is validity to it. That's an objective fact.

Whether you or I believe it has no bearing on that.

The validity is proven. There is not a question about it, except among idealogues.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#36487 Aug 20, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So this "science" takes a position on what should and should not be taught in school?
Is this taking of a position a part of that science?
Yes.

The position of not wanting it taught in school comes from the science. The theory needs to be better developed, and as of now, it would not be properly taught. This would damage the investigation.

You can see this from the abundance of anti-ID myths coming out of the Dover trial.

Demagogues have a heyday with it. Liars love to lie about motivations, even at the expense of science.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#36489 Aug 20, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow Hedonist!!
How did you do that?
It's magic.
It's called "let me google that for you" and the link is lmgtfy.com .

The parameter is /?q= then put whatever you want to search for, no spaces allowed (use a plus sign for space between words)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 56 min nanoanomaly 117
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr 15th Dalai Lama 74,760
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 4,048
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 11 hr Subduction Zone 6,084
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Thu Subduction Zone 32,062
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed John 4,951
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web