Why the argument that ID is religious falls on its face.

[semitope]

Evolutionists wish to claim themselves free of religious motives when talking about evolution/ID, yet there is as much or more reason to think otherwise than in the case of ID. Listen to the following podcast and see for yourselves that major proponents of Darwinism are quite aware of the nature of the theory.

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.c...15_43_35-08_00

[Editor's note: This article was posted as part of a series of articles both for and against ID at OpposingViews.com.]

“We don’t need the anti-creationists going and mixing their views on religion into their science. In fact, this is probably the surest path to disaster politically and in the courts. Anyone who wants to do this has the right to do it, but it ain’t helpful or particularly smart.”1
--Nick Matzke, Former Spokesperson for National Center for Science Education

Many critics of intelligent design (ID) have argued that ID is not science due to the alleged religious motives, beliefs, and affiliations of its proponents. Critics may trot out quotes from ID proponents discussing their own personal religious beliefs, motives, and affiliations, or discussing the larger philosophical implications they draw from ID, to allege that ID is not science, but religion. These common attacks against ID2 are both logically fallacious and highly hypocritical.

First, in science, the motives or personal religious beliefs of scientists don't matter; only the evidence matters. For example, the great scientists Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton were inspired to their scientific work by their religious convictions that God would create an orderly, rational universe with comprehensible physical laws that governed the motion of the planets. They turned out to be right--not because of their religious beliefs--but because the scientific evidence validated their hypotheses. (At least, Newton was thought to be right until Einstein came along.) Their personal religious beliefs, motives, or affiliations did nothing to change the fact that their scientific theories had inestimable scientific merit that helped form the foundation for modern science.

Second, ID does not have religious premises. If it did, then the famous (now former) atheist Anthony Flew would not have been able to state, as he announced in 2004, that he was convinced that "the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”3 Thus, as I discussed in my first opening statement ("Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit because it uses the scientific method to make its claims and infers design by testing its positive predictions"), ID is a scientific argument and not a faith-based argument: “nothing critics can say--whether appealing to politically motivated condemnations of ID issued by pro-Darwin scientific authorities, or harping upon the religious beliefs of ID proponents--will change the fact that intelligent design is not a ‘faith-based’ argument.”

Third, if critics want to harp upon the religious beliefs, motives, affiliations, and implications associated with ID, then they should realize that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Leading proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution frequently discuss their views of the cultural and metaphysical implications of neo-Darwinian evolution. Moreover, many of them have expressed anti-religious beliefs and motives for advocating evolution, and have close ties to atheist and secular humanist organizations.

When critics object to ID based upon the alleged religious motives, beliefs, or affiliations of its proponents, they make a highly hypocritical argument, for many leading Darwinists have blatantly anti-religious motives, beliefs, and affiliations. This observation does NOT thereby disqualify evolution from being scientific. Rather, since neo-Darwinism is a bona fide scientific theory, it shows that the religious or anti-religious motives and beliefs, motives, or affiliations of scientists do not disqualify their scientific views from holding scientific merit.

After reviewing just a few examples of the anti-religious affiliations, beliefs, and motives of many leading proponents of neo-Darwinism, it be will difficult to seriously maintain that the religious (or anti-religious) motives, beliefs, or affiliations of scientists, or the larger philosophical implications of a scientific theory, can disqualify a theory from being scientific:

Richard Dawkins is Oxford University’s Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and is probably the most famous evolutionist in the world. Yet Dawkins argues that belief in God is a “delusion”7 and that "Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”8 Dawkins has stated his goal is “to kill religion”9 and has asserted that “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”10

America’s great champion of evolution, the late Stephen Jay Gould, similarly announced that “[b]efore Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us,”4 but because of Darwin’s ideas, “biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God.”5 Gould repeatedly discussed the "radical philosophical content of Darwin's message" and its denial of purpose in the universe:

"First, Darwin argues that evolution has no purpose. . . . Second, Darwin maintained that evolution has no direction. . . . Third, Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature. Matter is the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity."6
Darwinists sometimes like to pretend that Gould and Dawkins are outliers in their views. If only that were so.

A 2007 editorial by the editors of the world's top scientific journal, Nature, stated that "the idea that human minds are the product of evolution" is an "unassailable fact," and thus concluded, "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”11 A very popular college evolutionary biology textbook (which I used for one of my upper division evolutionary biology courses during my undergraduate studies) declares that "[b]y coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."12

Similarly, in the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process--natural selection--without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."13 Just to make sure that his readers don’t try to invoke some kind of “God-guided” evolution, Ayala writes that "[i]n evolution, there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations.”14

Cornell University evolutionary biologist William Provine has similarly stated that "belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people" and that "[o]ne can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."15 Provine states that there are severe philosophical implications of Darwinian biology:

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."16
Also noteworthy is the fact that key public defenders of Darwin have strong ties to secular humanist groups. For example, Eugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist who now serves as Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education and was called by the scientific journal Nature “perhaps the nation’s most high-profile Darwinist.”17 But Scott is also a public signer of the Third Humanist Manifesto, an aggressive statement of the humanist agenda to create a world with “without supernaturalism” based upon the view that “[h]umans are … the result of unguided evolutionary change” and the universe is “self-existing.”18 Another leading pro-evolution activist, Barbara Forrest, believes that “philosophical naturalism” is “the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion.”19 Dr. Forrest also sits on the Board of Directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association,20 an associate member of the American Humanist Association, which publishes the Humanist Manifesto III.21

Even the widely-touted theistic evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller has claimed in five editions of his highly popular high school biology textbooks that the implication of evolution is that it works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”22 Two other versions of Miller’s high school biology textbooks contain a striking discussion of some of the potential philosophical implications of evolution:

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless . . . . Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”23
Harvard paleontologist and author Richard Lewontin explains how materialism is a key assumption propping Darwinian thought:

“[W]e have a prior commitment … to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to … produce material explanations … [T]hat materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”24
Finally, leading Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse admits that “for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned … akin to being a secular religion” whose main doctrine is “a commitment to a kind of naturalism.”25

It is not possible to seriously dispute the fact that neo-Darwinian evolution is surrounded by a cloud of leading proponents with anti-religious motives, beliefs, and affiliations, who have plainly declared that the theory can have anti-religious implications.

[semitope]

I do not list these examples to argue that one cannot believe in evolution and religion. In fact, I firmly believe that people can accept evolution and religion. Nor do I list the anti-religious affiliations of leading Darwinists in order to contend that the anti-religious beliefs, motives, affiliations, and implications associated with neo-Darwinism make it unscientific. I accept and grant that neo-Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, and thus I list the anti-religious affiliations associated with the theory to demonstrate that scientific theories must be tested independently of the beliefs, motives, and affiliations of their proponents, or the larger philosophical implications that some draw from the theory. In science, motives don't matter, only the evidence does.

Pro-ID scientists should be able to stake out scientific positions on ID without being judged on the basis of their private religious beliefs, motives, or affiliations. Furthermore, pro-ID scientists should not have their views about ID disqualified from being scientific if people interpret ID’s scientific claims to have larger philosophical and metaphysical implications. In fact, three U.S. Supreme Court justices essentially recognized this very point in the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, stating that “A decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught 'happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.'"26

To argue that a concept cannot hold scientific merit simply because of the private religious beliefs, motives, or affiliations of its proponents, or because of its larger philosophical implications, destroys the very concept of First Amendment religious freedom that our country was founded upon.

contd

[Rune]

Catholic Church supports evolution, thus it's not anti-religious.

I love retard logic, it makes arguing so much simpler.

[riptor]

First, in science, the motives or personal religious beliefs of scientists don't matter; only the evidence matters.

Exactly. So when ID/creationism produces any evidence, then it will matter.

[r0gue6]

Exactly. So when ID/creationism produces any evidence, then it will matter.

Clocks and bananas brah.

[semitope]

Exactly. So when ID/creationism produces any evidence, then it will matter.

where did you get information that ID has produced no evidence?

[Harbinger]

Clocks and bananas brah.

[Harbinger]

THIS JUST IN: Criminals have come to the conclusion the theft isn't a crime.

[Birdy69]

Pope believes in evolution. Not sure why some of the other Christians can't accept it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...evolution.html

[GrokTheCube]

It's religious because it is not evidence based, makes no testable predictions, is not falsifiable, and does not explain the phenomenon of evolution better than the theory of evolution does.

[Rdez]

Pope believes in evolution. Not sure why other Christians can't accept it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...evolution.html

Who says other Christians do not? They're not the Borg.

[Birdy69]

Who says other Christians do not? They're not the Borg.

Every time my posts don't have 100% clarity, you call me out on it.

Edited my post.

[StylesOfBeyond]

Who says other Christians do not? They're not the Borg.

According to Semitope, they are.

[GoJu]

where did you get information that ID has produced no evidence?

ID hasn't provided any evidence, arguments like the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum argument is stupid and fail hard.

[TheAdlerian]

ID hasn't provided any evidence, arguments like the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum argument is stupid and fail hard.

That's correct and the OP was one of the stupidest things I've read lately.

All ID analysis suffers from a simple and very overlooked logical problem called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc/ Post Hoc Analysis, or more simply put, analyzing an event after the fact. Mainstream sciences falls into this trap a lot too.

It goes like this:

ID: Humans breath oxygen because the Earth was designed to support life for them.

Rational Causation: Earth happened to have oxygen due to the random events that shaped it, so oxygen breathing creatures form on the surface.

In the ID example, the final result (after the fact/Post Hoc) was used to conclude that the beginning event meant to produce the final result. That fools the poor thinker into believing everything today was meant to occur because they seen current events through an anthropomorphic view.

You can never gather evidence for something like ID because you'll always be performing a Post Hoc Analysis.

[Weightaholic]

Whose intelligence?

[frasersteen]

The article is written by Casey Luskin who is Program Officer in Public Policy & Legal Affairs at the CSC a branch of the discovery institute. So lets not get too excited on his ability to differentiate between science and religion.

The article itself was published by the Idea Center, the Idea Center is run by a board of directors and an advisory board, the advisory board consits of the architects of the discovery institute and the key authors of the Wedge Strategy manifesto which outlines how the ID movement attempts to take on "materialistic" (ie objective non-faith led) science.

I would address his arguments however he does not appear to have any except to say that several of the more vocal proponents of evolution are atheists and believe that evolution supports their anti-theistic beliefs.

The fact is that although there are many scientists of differing renown, expertise and respect of all denominations without exception. ID as a concept is almost uniformly (some cursory searching yielded no non-Christian supporters but I guess there is always one) a Christian view point, it is not accepted by any other denomination, it is rejected by Muslims as a way of avoiding saying Allah created. At present no American Jewish organisation advocates ID.

There is a clear passage on the Idea center's website which identifies the undercurrent of religion in the supposed scientific methodology behind ID.

The intelligent design movement is very forthright about what it is trying to do: it is trying to bring to recognition the scientific evidence supporting intelligent design theory, which challenges a naturalistic and materialistic paradigm which has reigned over science for decades.

If there is anyway something can be scientific without being naturalistic and materialistic then would they please explain it to me.

The author of the paper far from being the objective scientist he claims is set on pursuing a dogmatic agenda to maintain his view that his narrow interpretation of the bible is a scientific truth.

The Idea Center also used to have the following in their literature on starting an "IDEA club":

We also require that club leaders be Christians as the IDEA Center Leadership believes, for religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible. It is definitely not necessary to "be an expert" to start and run a successful a club. It is helpful to be familiar with the basics of intelligent design theory, but if you're not, that's where the IDEA Center hopes to step in and help educate you so you can in turn educate others. Where ever you feel like you might need help--whether its science, leadership skills, or practical tips for running the club--that's where the IDEA Center wants to step in an help you. We try to help give any club founder all the tools they might need to start and run a succesful club and help promote a better understanding of the creation - evolution issue at their schools.

[TheAdlerian]

Does anyone have info on the atheist argument for ID?

I'm in the mood to get a headache and read it.

[WMcEnaney]

That's correct and the OP was one of the stupidest things I've read lately.

All ID analysis suffers from a simple and very overlooked logical problem called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc/ Post Hoc Analysis, or more simply put, analyzing an event after the fact. Mainstream sciences falls into this trap a lot too.

It goes like this:

ID: Humans breath oxygen because the Earth was designed to support life for them.

Rational Causation: Earth happened to have oxygen due to the random events that shaped it, so oxygen breathing creatures form on the surface.

In the ID example, the final result (after the fact/Post Hoc) was used to conclude that the beginning event meant to produce the final result. That fools the poor thinker into believing everything today was meant to occur because they seen current events through an anthropomorphic view.

You can never gather evidence for something like ID because you'll always be performing a Post Hoc Analysis.

TheAdlerian doesn't mention the difference between a deductive argument and in inductive one. Scientists use induction to support their hypotheses. Inductive arguments use particular instances to support general conclusions. So let's think about simple example. You're a scientist who believes that eggs break because they hit hard surfaces. To support your hypothesis, you keep dropping eggs from various heights to cement floors, wooden floors, paved streets . . . Each time an egg hits any of these surfaces, the egg breaks, and you conclude that the collision breaks each egg because each egg shatters after it hits a hard surface. You conclude that since each egg breaks when or after it hits a hard surface, it breaks because it hits that surface. But since you're reasoning inductively, not deductively, who'll accuse you of committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy when scientists repeat experiments to confirm their hypotheses? Maybe, It's one thing to show that two events correlate with each other. It's something else to say that correlation implies causation. I don't know of any scientist, let alone any logician, who would accuse a researcher of post hoc ergo propter hoc merely because the scientist kept repeating an experiment to confirm his hypothesis that since falling eggs break after they hit hard surfaces, they do that because they hit them. If ID theorists are arguing inductively for ID, maybe they're not committing post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[frasersteen]

TheAdlerian doesn't mention the difference between a deductive argument and in inductive one. Scientists use induction to support their hypotheses. Inductive arguments use particular instances to support general conclusions. So let's think about a potentially simple example. You're a scientist who believes that eggs break because they hit hard surfaces. To support your hypothesis, you keep drooping eggs from various heights to cement floors, wooden floors, paved streets . . . Each time an egg hits any of these surfaces, the egg breaks, and you conclude that the collision breaks each egg because each egg shatters after it hits a hard surface. You conclude that since each egg breaks when or after it hits a hard surface, it breaks because it hits that surface. But since you're reasoning inductively, not deductively, who'll accuse you of committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy when scientists repeat experiments to confirm their hypotheses? Maybe, It's one thing to show that two events correlate with each other. It's something else to say that correlation implies causation. I don't know of any scientist, let alone any logician, who would accuse a researcher of post hoc ergo propter hoc merely because the scientist kept repeating an experiment to confirm his hypothesis that since falling eggs break after they hit hard surfaces, they do that because they hit them. If ID theorists are arguing inductively for ID, maybe they're not committing post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Since no ID research has been published in any peer reviewed journal we can not really get any objective measure of this though.

[semitope]

Since no ID research has been published in any peer reviewed journal we can not really get any objective measure of this though.

you say that as if its an easy thing. People will get fired for publishing articles like that. People are warned repeatedly to get tenure before they come out as ID supporters because of the atmostsphere towards them. The claim that they have not published is erroneous despite that.

Are ID researchers making progress?
April 3, 2011 Posted by O'Leary under Darwinism
16 Comments
Casey Luskin addresses this question in “Ignore That Research!” (Spring 2011, p. 54). He notes that “Critics falsely claim there is no ID research.”

He cites the work of Douglas Axe who published articles in 2000 and 2004 in the Journal of Molecular Biology, Michael Behe and David Snoke who published in 2004 in Protein Science, and Axe again in 2010 in BIO-Complexity, a peer reviewed journal for testing ID claims. From my reading, all these papers cast doubt on natural selection acting on random mutations as a source of new information.

Luskin’s is obviously not intended to be a complete list. Here’s a much fuller one. But, given the difficulties of even raising these issues in Darwinworld, it is a wonder that any papers were published anywhere. Does anyone remember what happened to editor Rick Sternberg of the Journal of the Biological Society of Washington (Smithsonian) over Steve Meyer’s peer reviewed paper suggesting that design might be a reasonable explanation?

That said, a legitimate question raised by thoughtful people is, why don’t ID-friendly researchers do positive research? Why do they just go on proving that Darwinism doesn’t work?

I have thought about that one for a while, and now usually reply:

Because, just as bad money drives out good, bad ideas drive out good. Let us say your country’s carefully regulated money supply is assaulted by counterfeiters. Does it make more sense to start by exposing them or to just virtuously ignore them and continue to print good money – while they continue to print bad money?

Remember, they have no obligation to balance the money supply with available goods, but you do.

To me, Darwinism is like bad money. It becomes an intellectual vice. People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutation, the way they are always trying to pass on the likely-bogus G-bill (when they are not out looking for the lucky strike).

I too look forward to the day that ID researchers are free to do positive work, but right now we are swamped in a Darwinism whose fraudulence is often unrecognized because it is so often ridiculous. So, as with counterfeit money, the first goal is to demonstrate that much intellectual currency is bogus. Don’t accept it and don’t pass it on. And don’t imagine that everyone will want to know this. Quite the opposite.

So can good money ever drive out bad? Yes, but it is tough slogging.

(Note: I don’t think Luskin’s article is one of the ones available online.)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwi...king-progress/

When your cohorts have a stranglehold on the system yet they feel it is ok to accuse the suppressed opposition of not publishing in their journals.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwi...king-progress/

you can find a list of literature published, here http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

[GoJu]

you say that as if its an easy thing. People will get fired for publishing articles like that. People are warned repeatedly to get tenure before they come out as ID supporters because of the atmostsphere towards them. The claim that they have not published is erroneous despite that.

If they had anything worth publishing they would be published, ID isn't science so they shouldn't be getting publishing deals and they should be getting warnings those kinds of articles; it's embarrassing to real scientists. Stop posting from ID/creationists websites and maybe you'd get some credibility; that you can't find a single article from a non-ID/creationists source says alot.

[semitope]

If they had anything worth publishing they would be published, ID isn't science so they shouldn't be getting publishing deals and they should be getting warnings those kinds of articles; it's embarrassing to real scientists. Stop posting from ID/creationists websites and maybe you'd get some credibility; that you can't find a single article from a non-ID/creationists source says alot.

no they wouldnt be. guess u still dont understand the situation.

[PSToolman]

TheAdlerian doesn't mention the difference between a deductive argument and in inductive one. Scientists use induction to support their hypotheses. Inductive arguments use particular instances to support general conclusions. So let's think about a potentially simple example. You're a scientist who believes that eggs break because they hit hard surfaces. To support your hypothesis, you keep drooping eggs from various heights to cement floors, wooden floors, paved streets . . . Each time an egg hits any of these surfaces, the egg breaks, and you conclude that the collision breaks each egg because each egg shatters after it hits a hard surface. You conclude that since each egg breaks when or after it hits a hard surface, it breaks because it hits that surface. But since you're reasoning inductively, not deductively, who'll accuse you of committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy when scientists repeat experiments to confirm their hypotheses? Maybe, It's one thing to show that two events correlate with each other. It's something else to say that correlation implies causation. I don't know of any scientist, let alone any logician, who would accuse a researcher of post hoc ergo propter hoc merely because the scientist kept repeating an experiment to confirm his hypothesis that since falling eggs break after they hit hard surfaces, they do that because they hit them. If ID theorists are arguing inductively for ID, maybe they're not committing post hoc ergo propter hoc.

This is a bad analogy. In testing the egg theory, a person drops an egg. For this to be a valid analogy, the person dropping the egg is synonymous with the Intelligent Designer. How do you take the role of the Intelligent Designer when testing the ID theory?

[HopingInJehovah]

Since no ID research has been published in any peer reviewed journal we can not really get any objective measure of this though.

What about common sense? What's your opinion on this scenario. We as JW's use this analogy frequently. Let's take the example of the Twin Towers. Did someone have to intelligibly think of how to build those towers? Is it reasonable to say that those towers could have come bout by chance? If not, then how can we say that all the other complex things that exist, which are beyond human capability, could have come about by chance? It's stands to reason someone with intelligence created those things. That's basically how I see the argument for I.D.

Sure, we can't prove who the designer is, however, it seems like it would be reasonable to at least give it the common sense of someone is behind it.

To an extent, the debate on whether to invoke a designer or not revolves around these questions: Would accepting the existence of a superhuman designer hamper scientific and intellectual progress? Is an intelligent designer called for only when no other explanation is offered? And does it really make sense to infer from the design that there is a designer? What's your thoughts on this, friend?

[Harbinger]

What about common sense? What's your opinion on this scenario. We as JW's use this analogy frequently. Let's take the example of the Twin Towers. Did someone have to intelligibly think of how to build those towers? Is it reasonable to say that those towers could have come bout by chance? If not, then how can we say that all the other complex things that exist, which are beyond human capability, could have come about by chance? It's stands to reason someone with intelligence created those things. That's basically how I see the argument for I.D.

Sure, we can't prove who the designer is, however, it seems like it would be reasonable to at least give it the common sense of someone is behind it.

To an extent, the debate on whether to invoke a designer or not revolves around these questions: Would accepting the existence of a superhuman designer hamper scientific and intellectual progress? Is an intelligent designer called for only when no other explanation is offered? And does it really make sense to infer from the design that there is a designer? What's your thoughts on this, friend?

Buildings don't reproduce.

[PSToolman]

How can ID be any more than a need by some to believe in some higher being until we learn the true nature of the Universe? Why is this so important? CLEARLY the Universe is a vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big place and its true nature could be virtually whatever you can imagine. Why spend so much time making up stories when taking the time to learn as much as you can about it will get you to your answers faster. I know it's nice to be right, but you must know that until such time as the truth becomes known (and it won't be in our puny lifetimes, that's for sure, and not if we keep chasing rainbows), someday you'll more than likely be proven wrong.

[GrokTheCube]

If they had anything worth publishing they would be published, ID isn't science so they shouldn't be getting publishing deals and they should be getting warnings those kinds of articles; it's embarrassing to real scientists. Stop posting from ID/creationists websites and maybe you'd get some credibility; that you can't find a single article from a non-ID/creationists source says alot.

No brah, it's a massive conspiracy. Biology is the only field of science that doesn't want any new discoveries or advancements to be made. All the evil biologists get together to make sure no one ever deviates from the party line, because that's how we gained the incredible knowledge we have.

[TheAdlerian]

TheAdlerian doesn't mention the difference between a deductive argument and in inductive one. Scientists use induction to support their hypotheses. Inductive arguments use particular instances to support general conclusions. So let's think about a potentially simple example. You're a scientist who believes that eggs break because they hit hard surfaces. To support your hypothesis, you keep drooping eggs from various heights to cement floors, wooden floors, paved streets . . . Each time an egg hits any of these surfaces, the egg breaks, and you conclude that the collision breaks each egg because each egg shatters after it hits a hard surface. You conclude that since each egg breaks when or after it hits a hard surface, it breaks because it hits that surface. But since you're reasoning inductively, not deductively, who'll accuse you of committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy when scientists repeat experiments to confirm their hypotheses? Maybe, It's one thing to show that two events correlate with each other. It's something else to say that correlation implies causation. I don't know of any scientist, let alone any logician, who would accuse a researcher of post hoc ergo propter hoc merely because the scientist kept repeating an experiment to confirm his hypothesis that since falling eggs break after they hit hard surfaces, they do that because they hit them. If ID theorists are arguing inductively for ID, maybe they're not committing post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Huh?

[TheAdlerian]

Scientific method:

I found a smashed egg on the floor.

Hypothesis: It fell from the table and the force of impact caused it to break splattering the stuff inside all over the place.

Study:

1. I will roll one egg off the table and see if it looks like the egg I found.

2. I will place an egg on the floor to see if the floor causes the egg to explode.

Conclusion: When the egg was dropped on the floor it smashed. When the egg was placed on the floor it stayed intact. It's my conclusion that an egg needs significant force to explode.

ID Post Hoc Analysis:

I found an "expanded" egg on the floor.

Study:

1. I observed the expanded egg and saw that it's shell had 185 points on the edge of one shell and on the other half another 185. One shell pointed North and the other South East. The contents of the egg were spread out in a star pattern on the floor.

Conclusion: The star shaped egg is a new type of egg designed to be found in a kitchen and the larger purpose is to cause humans to inquire into the nature of the material world.