Poll
Should we refer to ID vs Science or Evolution
ID vs science 10
ID vs Evolution 0
HUH? 0
Total Votes: 10
You must be a logged-in member to vote
It’s ID verses SCIENCE, not Evolution
Posted: 08 October 2007 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2007-09-28

I posted this on skepticality.com but i thought it was equaly valid here.

All,

One of my ‘pet peevs’ is the phrase “ID verses Evolution”. If we, those of us with a more scientific outlook, were to refer to it only as “ID verses science”, we are making the statement that ID is NOT science every time we use the phrase. In so doing, every time it is discussed in the media, the public will be reminded that ID is not science.

We are in an ideological war where our cultural competitors are constantly bending the truth and even lying. I suggest we put the lie to their calling ID science and only refer to “ID vs science” whenever we discuss the issue.

If we always do this, when the ID invernt another load of bollox, we can simply talk about the “(new bollox) vs science” debate. In the long term, it also will have the benefit of highlighting that it really is science under attack.

Again it’s,

ID vs SCIENCE

not ID vs Evolution.

Ahhh, that was carthartic,

Ski.

 Signature 

hmmmmm  π

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

It seems like a silly bit of semantic play, but I agree that the distinction needs to be made. 

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 02:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

its kind of both because evolution is the particular theory/fact of science that ID is trying to counter.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 02:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7593
Joined  2007-03-02

I have found those for ID are generally anti-intellectual all the way around, esp when it comes to science.  As long as it doesn’t contradict the Bible they are fine, but if it contradicts the Bible, then they, like my aunt, start laughing and saying, “I don’t know how the scientist come up with what they do.”  It’s as though they think the scientist are silly and stupid.  If it’s not in the Bible, they aren’t going to believe it, which doesn’t make any sense to me.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2007-09-28
Occam - 08 October 2007 02:33 PM

It seems like a silly bit of semantic play, but I agree that the distinction needs to be made. 

Occam

although I agree that from ‘our’ perspective, it is semantics, from the point of view of the ‘less informed’ I suspect the change in meaning could be profound.

Ski.

 Signature 

hmmmmm  π

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 09:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2007-10-08

Its a good idea. It helps reduce the argument to the lowest common denominator.  When it gets played out in the media, people who only read headline would have a quicker grasp of whats going on.

 Signature 

“We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.” Bill hicks

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 10:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4097
Joined  2006-11-28

I certainly agree that anyone who supports ID once having ehard the two positions is fundamentally opposed to scientific thinking generally. A fine, but I think important, semantic distinction.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 11:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
SkiCarver - 08 October 2007 02:21 PM

ID vs SCIENCE

not ID vs Evolution.

 


Interesting point—worth keeping in mind when listening to the arguments.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2007 12:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  105
Joined  2007-10-09

Hm… Interesting point.  I guess ID encapsulates so much that it might be seen as a whole bogus paradigm… But I don’t know!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2007 10:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
SkiCarver - 08 October 2007 02:21 PM

I posted this on skepticality.com but i thought it was equaly valid here.

All,

One of my ‘pet peevs’ is the phrase “ID verses Evolution”. If we, those of us with a more scientific outlook, were to refer to it only as “ID verses science”, we are making the statement that ID is NOT science every time we use the phrase. In so doing, every time it is discussed in the media, the public will be reminded that ID is not science.

We are in an ideological war where our cultural competitors are constantly bending the truth and even lying. I suggest we put the lie to their calling ID science and only refer to “ID vs science” whenever we discuss the issue.

If we always do this, when the ID invernt another load of bollox, we can simply talk about the “(new bollox) vs science” debate. In the long term, it also will have the benefit of highlighting that it really is science under attack.

Again it’s,

ID vs SCIENCE

not ID vs Evolution.

Ahhh, that was carthartic,

Ski.

I love when people use the proper language to discuss topics around.

Very good observation of yours. Please also make a review of the use of the verb evolve when you refer to a change in a species. The current word evolution in the theory of Biology is a technical word and cannot be applied as the other meanings of the word evolution.

As a technical word, the word evolution of the theory is limited and cannot be used as a regular verb, this is to say, you observe that the ant has lots its wings, such event is called an evolution, but you cannot say that the ant has evolved because such is JARGON.

Interesting, don’t you think?...

Profile