NASA Chief Questions Global Warming as a "problem"

[apothanein kerdos]

Here is an excellent summarization of what I'm trying to say.

The entire scientific community isn't totalitarian - but often the ones who control the jobs and publishing companies are totalitarian. If you deny naturalism, then you might as well forget having a job.

Just to add to it, Dr. Gonzalez' tenure appeal has been denied.

Go figure.

[forrestkc]

Here's what I've seen: character assignation. Yet, no one has tried to deal with his arguments and if they are implausible or not.

If he wants his arguments considered, then he needs to conduct the research and publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal. See thats the problem, the handful of AGW deniers left out there never seem to do that. They make a comment in an interview hear and there, they write OP-Eds (Which many times they get paid to do by industry groups), and some of them like Chemical Industry Lobbyist, Steve Milloy, put themselves a website up. However, none of these guys every actually contribute anything to the realms of science on this issue. If the science behind AGW theory was so weak, then why do these guys never challenge it in any peer reviewed journals?

If you are sick, and 99 doctors tell you one thing, yet one says they are all full of it, yet you find out that the one guy who claims the others are wrong never contributes anything to medical journals on the issue, and to top it off, he might even have a financial or ideological motive for claiming the other 99 are wrong. Which one you going to trust?

[forrestkc]

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just suggesting that you can stop repeating yourself. (Have I been too subtle?) Your evidence, which has been strictly anecdotal, does not sufficiently support your claims, by the way.

Right, I have three solid cases and that's not enough evidence. I can come forth with further evidence of how ID proponents are being denied peer review simply because of ID (not because the article is unworthy of publishing), jobs, being fired, being ousted...I can bring up quotes from scientists at universities that say students who deny all forms of evolution should not be admitted to universities, how people who believe in ID should be declared "insane," or how Science magazine published an article saying anyone who believes this world was created with a purpose is ignoring science and thinks like a child...but you'll just come back and say, "It's all anecdotal."

I know what you're saying and I disagree. My colleagues at the NOAA knew I was a theistic evolutionist and it was not a problem.

Probably because you're a methodological naturalist. The moment you change that, again, you'll be out of a job.

They are denied peer review because a variable in their theory is a supernatural one, therefore their theory does not rise to the level of modern science, thus their idea is nothing but a philosophy. ID depends on an Intelligent Designer. An Intelligent Designer cannot by a falsified, thus ID cannot be considered a scientific theory. For example, if I came up with an alternative theory to plate tectonics that depended upon the enlightened Buddha as a variable, then my theory would never be published in a peer reviewed journal because one of my variables, the Enlightened Buddha, would be a supernatural variable, and thus not falsifiable, and thus would not rise to the level of modern science.

It seems to me that what you are basically getting at is that modern science should simply disregard the last 300 years.

[apothanein kerdos]

They are denied peer review because a variable in their theory is a supernatural one, therefore their theory does not rise to the level of modern science, thus their idea is nothing but a philosophy. ID depends on an Intelligent Designer. An Intelligent Designer cannot by a falsified, thus ID cannot be considered a scientific theory.

This, of course, proves your ignorance on the issue.

ID relies on the idea that certain things in the physical world can be shown to be so complex at a basic level they cannot be proven by natural selection. That is, there is no naturalistic explanation for the items, therefore a supernatural explanation must be implored as the best explanation for these biological items. This, of course, is falsifiable. If we come across an organism that is seemingly irreducible complex, we should be able to see if it could have evolved, or if, to function, it has begin in its complex state. This, of course, would go against naturalistic beliefs within evolution that all life had to begin as a simple organism. Plus, it would violate the idea of natural select (to begin complex), as natural selection teaches things begin simple and increase in complexity. A complex item cannot exist unless it has had time to evolve into that complexity.

The reason people deny ID any change to do study at universities or be published in journals (though there are exceptions) is that it would destroy any chance for atheism to continue on as a viable belief. It would also destroy methodological naturalism and would force us to re-evaluate our philosophy of this world.

Don't worry, I expect you to come back with a nonsensical reply because you don't really understand ID.

[forrestkc]

They are denied peer review because a variable in their theory is a supernatural one, therefore their theory does not rise to the level of modern science, thus their idea is nothing but a philosophy. ID depends on an Intelligent Designer. An Intelligent Designer cannot by a falsified, thus ID cannot be considered a scientific theory.

This, of course, proves your ignorance on the issue.

ID relies on the idea that certain things in the physical world can be shown to be so complex at a basic level they cannot be proven by natural selection. That is, there is no naturalistic explanation for the items, therefore a supernatural explanation must be implored as the best explanation for these biological items. This, of course, is falsifiable.

If we come across an organism that is seemingly irreducible complex, we should be able to see if it could have evolved, or if, to function, it has begin in its complex state. This, of course, would go against naturalistic beliefs within evolution that all life had to begin as a simple organism. Plus, it would violate the idea of natural select (to begin complex), as natural selection teaches things begin simple and increase in complexity. A complex item cannot exist unless it has had time to evolve into that complexity.

The reason people deny ID any change to do study at universities or be published in journals (though there are exceptions) is that it would destroy any chance for atheism to continue on as a viable belief. It would also destroy methodological naturalism and would force us to re-evaluate our philosophy of this world.

Don't worry, I expect you to come back with a nonsensical reply because you don't really understand ID.

I am sorry, but you are mistaken as to the nature of modern science. Basically you are saying that science works like this:

A problem is found with Theory A, thus that makes Theory B a viable theory.

Thats not how it works though. It works like this:

A problem is found with Theory A. Theory B then must show how it better addresses the problem in Theory A than Theory B does. For example, ID proponets like to use the argument of how statistically unlikely one or more organisms might have simply developed a trait through natural selection. They then make the jump to claim that such a trait has to be the result of an intelligent designer. The problem with that argument is that the statistically likelihood of an intelligent designer capable of creating life then would have to be shown. That of course is exponentially higher than the likelihood that said organism simply developed such a trait through natural selection. Of course, even if that were addressed, ID proponents would then have to empirically show how life originates from supernatural means. How could you possibly do that? You can't, thats the problem.

There is neither positive nor negative evidence as to the existance of an intelligent designer. The belief in an intelligent designer is not an acceptance of empiracle evidence, but rather it is a choice, a leap of faith. Scientist do not chose to believe things, they accept conclusions drawn from empiracle evidence and observation.

As to irreducible complexity. It was completely refuted in the Dover Trial. There has been countless peer reviewed papers that have completely refuted the notion. Zero in favor of it.

[apothanein kerdos]

And the fact you ignored what I said, coupled with you saying there are zero peer reviewed articles in favor of ID, simply prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

Like I told Firehill in another topic - I'm getting tired of debating people that show a significant lack of intelligence in their posts. It's frustrating, wastes my time, and generally leaves me in a bad mood. I'm not saying you're an idiot, but if you aren't going to make an intelligent argument, I'm not going to waste my time debating you. What you did was create a straw man, misrepresent what I said, and skirted actually dealing with what I posted.

I showed how ID provides for an explanation to the inadequacy of the naturalistic explanation. I showed how it is testable and that, if something cannot be explained naturally, the theistic explanation works better (the explanatory filter). However, you simply skipped on by it because it doesn't compute - you offered up rhetoric and idiocy and opted not to give an intelligence reply. I'm not going to deal with those anymore.

[forrestkc]

And the fact you ignored what I said, coupled with you saying there are zero peer reviewed articles in favor of ID, simply prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

Like I told Firehill in another topic - I'm getting tired of debating people that show a significant lack of intelligence in their posts. It's frustrating, wastes my time, and generally leaves me in a bad mood. I'm not saying you're an idiot, but if you aren't going to make an intelligent argument, I'm not going to waste my time debating you. What you did was create a straw man, misrepresent what I said, and skirted actually dealing with what I posted.

I showed how ID provides for an explanation to the inadequacy of the naturalistic explanation. I showed how it is testable and that, if something cannot be explained naturally, the theistic explanation works better (the explanatory filter). However, you simply skipped on by it because it doesn't compute - you offered up rhetoric and idiocy and opted not to give an intelligence reply. I'm not going to deal with those anymore.

You are mixing philosophical and empiracle arguments in trying to do so. It does not matter how you try to word it, if something is supernatural, then its not falsifiable, and thus cannot be considered a variable in a valid scientific theory. What are trying to do is redefine modern science. In modern science, the naturalistic explanations are the only explanations that can be considered. That does not mean that a theistic explanation could not be considered. However, there would have to be empiracle evidence to show the existance of the variables in the theistic explanation. If you empiracally prove the existance of an Intelligent Designer, then that Intelligent Designer can be a variable in a scientific theory.

Furthermore, I don't think that you understand that negative evidence against Idea A does not equate to positive evidence for Idea B. I am all for teaching ID in a philosophy class. However, it has no business being taught in a science class. That is my opinion. That is the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. That is the opinion of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That is the opinion of the United States Federal Judiciary.

[apothanein kerdos]

Sorry Forrest, that argument just doesn't meet the criteria for an intelligent argument. The reason is because it continues to ignore what I said. Naturalistic explanations are just as implied as theistic ones, thus, to say that to "imply a theistic explanation to a complex system" is not scientific, you would have to say that a naturalistic explanation would equally be non-scientific. Furthermore, you're saying that I'm mixing philosophy with science, but that is what everyone does. Everyone brings a philosophical element to the interpretation of science - by saying that I must explain natural things, or a Creator, within a natural element is based on the philosophy of naturalism. In fact, it is naturalistic philosophy that dictates your interpretation of how modern science should work. Thus, you are violating your own criteria.

I point all that out to show that you are relying on empty rhetoric and have yet to come up with an intelligent reply. I don't expect you to Forrest, I really don't...so you don't have to try.

[forrestkc]

Sorry Forrest, that argument just doesn't meet the criteria for an intelligent argument. The reason is because it continues to ignore what I said. Naturalistic explanations are just as implied as theistic ones, thus, to say that to "imply a theistic explanation to a complex system" is not scientific, you would have to say that a naturalistic explanation would equally be non-scientific. Furthermore, you're saying that I'm mixing philosophy with science, but that is what everyone does. Everyone brings a philosophical element to the interpretation of science - by saying that I must explain natural things, or a Creator, within a natural element is based on the philosophy of naturalism. In fact, it is naturalistic philosophy that dictates your interpretation of how modern science should work. Thus, you are violating your own criteria.

I point all that out to show that you are relying on empty rhetoric and have yet to come up with an intelligent reply. I don't expect you to Forrest, I really don't...so you don't have to try.

I think you need to study up on the Scientific Method. The supernatural cannot be used as a variable in science because supernatural variables are not falsifiable. Period, the end. Thats all there is to it. For example, if we have a recurring issue with database corruption in our datacenter, even if I am have seemingly exhausted all possible explanations, I still can't just jump to the conclusion that a supernatural entity is at work.

Here is a link for you on the Scientific Method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

As to the condescending nature and tone of your responses. Possibly you should also read up on the DSM-IV Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's not that I think you have it, but rather I don't think you realize how much the wording and tone of some of your responses make you look like you have it.

[apothanein kerdos]

Sorry Forrest, that argument just doesn't meet the criteria for an intelligent argument. The reason is because it continues to ignore what I said. Naturalistic explanations are just as implied as theistic ones, thus, to say that to "imply a theistic explanation to a complex system" is not scientific, you would have to say that a naturalistic explanation would equally be non-scientific. Furthermore, you're saying that I'm mixing philosophy with science, but that is what everyone does. Everyone brings a philosophical element to the interpretation of science - by saying that I must explain natural things, or a Creator, within a natural element is based on the philosophy of naturalism. In fact, it is naturalistic philosophy that dictates your interpretation of how modern science should work. Thus, you are violating your own criteria.

I point all that out to show that you are relying on empty rhetoric and have yet to come up with an intelligent reply. I don't expect you to Forrest, I really don't...so you don't have to try.

I think you need to study up on the Scientific Method. The supernatural cannot be used as a variable in science because supernatural variables are not falsifiable. Period, the end. Thats all there is to it. For example, if we have a recurring issue with database corruption in our datacenter, even if I am have seemingly exhausted all possible explanations, I still can't just jump to the conclusion that a supernatural entity is at work.

Here is a link for you on the Scientific Method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

As to the condescending nature and tone of your responses. Possibly you should also read up on the DSM-IV Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's not that I think you have it, but rather I don't think you realize how much the wording and tone of some of your responses make you look like you have it.

See Forrest, that just doesn't reach the level of intelligence I'm looking for. It doesn't deal with what I'm saying and, in fact, it bit back into the argument against naturalism (you're using naturalism to defend naturalism).

Sorry mate, no narcissism here...just wanting to discuss intelligent things with people who understand the issue, not people that simply regurgitate sound bites. Like I said, I get tired of dealing with people who think they know what they're talking about when they don't have the slightest clue. For this topic, that describes you.