Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Argumentum ad populum
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  04:11:42  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's about all they have left and it proves nothing.
Discovery Commissions Zogby Poll — Design Trumps Darwin
William Dembski
[[Discovery Press Release:]]

In Darwin Anniversary Year, New Zogby Poll Reveals Majority Support for Intelligent Design — Doubts about Darwin Continue to Mount

Seattle – Just a few months before the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, a newly released Zogby poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly rejects Darwinian theory in favor of intelligent design. When asked if life developed “through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection,” a standard definition of Darwinism, only 33 percent of respondents said they agreed with the statement. But 52 percent agreed that “the development of life was guided by intelligent design.”

“In the Year of Darwin, these figures must represent a terrible disappointment to Darwinian advocates,” commented Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D., director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, which commissioned the poll. “Darwin's greatest accomplishment was supposed to be the refutation of intelligent design, yet more than a century later the public has grown increasingly disenchanted with Darwin's claims.”ť

Dr. Meyer is the author of a new book from HarperOne, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. He suggested the polling data may reflect a growing awareness of recent scientific developments, documented in his book. As word seeps out from the scientific community, confidence in Darwinism has begun to perceptibly erode:
Like a pinball, Dembski ricochets from one logical fallacy to the next, and like that same pinball, he ends up falling into a hole.

Has anyone put him in the Idiots thread yet?




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  06:28:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

When asked if life developed “through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection,” a standard definition of Darwinism, only 33 percent of respondents said they agreed with the statement.
First, popularity never was science.

Second, the pollsters and DI are liars. How evolution was presented in the poll is not scientific definition of evolution. To get their results, they've conveniently left out the primacy of natural selection's self-guiding drive toward survival. For Creationists, stressing "random" and "unguided" is standard strawman operating procedure for winning popularity debates, and to twist questions for rigging polls.

Zogby, by the way, is the Right's go-to two-bit whore of pollsters, and thus a fine choice for the Disco crew to choose to obtain their desired results.

Zogby put McCain 5 points ahead of Obama in Oct. 2008, when other polls had Obaba leading. Zogby also now reports the Obama has "about 50-50" popularity, in face of historically high approval levels.

Like Zogby, some pollsters will take money and virtually guarantee the desired results. Consider the unreliable source.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

The Rat
SFN Regular

Canada
1342 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  06:51:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit The Rat's Homepage Send The Rat a Private Message  Reply with Quote
One of the strengths of science is also one of the things that perhaps frightens those who are confronted with it without understanding why it has to be this way: Science is not a democracy, rather, it is a ruthless dictatorship of evidence. It can operate no other way.

Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.

You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II

Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26006 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  10:22:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Read the comments on the UD thread!

Some cheers go up from the Dembski-ites.

Then rational minds point out that historically, evolution has polled much lower than 33%, so this new poll shows evolution to be gaining ground, which is a great thing!

This is followed by moans about how unreliable polls are, from the Dembski sychophants.

It's funny as hell, and a mystery why they haven't deleted the whole thread yet.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  10:34:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Read the comments on the UD thread!

Some cheers go up from the Dembski-ites.

Then rational minds point out that historically, evolution has polled much lower than 33%, so this new poll shows evolution to be gaining ground, which is a great thing!

This is followed by moans about how unreliable polls are, from the Dembski sychophants.

It's funny as hell, and a mystery why they haven't deleted the whole thread yet.
Yes, I read some of those.

Sorta makes me wish I hadn't been banned so soon -- a comment in that one would be a much better way to get dumped.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  11:18:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm still posting at UD (as Hoki). A few days ago Cornelius Hunter posted something about philosopher Elliott Sober using religious assumptions in his writings (something Sober argues, for good reason, one shouldn't do). When I prompted Cornelius to present some form of evidence that Sober actually did this, his response so far is something along the lines of that I should stop making bare assertions... The "discussion" still continues.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Maverick
Skeptic Friend

Sweden
385 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2009 :  12:07:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Maverick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I found Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" at our library yesterday, in the religion section. I didn't read all of it, just skimmed parts of the beginning, but it seems like it really is some sort of religion, and he's not trying to hide it. He thinks ID is sort of a bridge between science and theology, and I saw the word "divine" in there too. I just thought that was interesting, since they are also trying hard to get their vague "theory" to be recognised as science.

"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan
Edited by - Maverick on 07/01/2009 12:09:45
Go to Top of Page

Landrew
New Member

44 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2009 :  08:05:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Landrew a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I love it, "testimonial science" (argumentum ad populum).
In 1491, "99 out of 100 learned scholars agree, the earth is indeed flat."

God bless women, for without them there would be no cookies.
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2009 :  08:48:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

I love it, "testimonial science" (argumentum ad populum).
In 1491, "99 out of 100 learned scholars agree, the earth is indeed flat."


But, it's only a fallacy if you poll the general public (the populum).
It's fair game to ask the scientific community to try to detect a consensus (not that science existed in 1491), especially when the consensus is very strong as in you example.

The same way, it is not an 'argument from authority' if the person asked actually has experience relevant to the issue.
It is a fallacy to quote the opinion of a Jenny McCarthy about vaccine, it is not if you quote Dr. Rachael Dunlop, as she is familiar with medicine and the subject.


At any rate, in 1491, you would easily find more than 1% of scholars that rejected the theory of a flat Earth, and even more familiar with the work of Eratosthenes.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2009 :  11:05:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Maverick

I found Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" at our library yesterday, in the religion section. I didn't read all of it, just skimmed parts of the beginning, but it seems like it really is some sort of religion, and he's not trying to hide it. He thinks ID is sort of a bridge between science and theology, and I saw the word "divine" in there too. I just thought that was interesting, since they are also trying hard to get their vague "theory" to be recognised as science.
I'm glad to note that it was in Religion. That is where it belongs, as Intelligent Design Theory is no more than creationism writ vague.


I think that the flat earth concept was shot down, at least among seamen, way back when they first learned to navigate by the sun and stars, and sailed far out of sight of land. If I remember correctly, they could figure latitude but until accurate chronometers were made and a point of reference decided on, not longitude. Steering by compass is much older than that, beginning with the Chinese. Churchmen, on the other hand, were huddled in their cloisters like bats in a cave and could see little father than the ends of their noses, and Joe Blow the peasant out in the fields, didn't care.

Columbus ad his peers knew perfectly well the world was round and the only reason he missed India and ended up on Hispaniola is because he couldn't calculate longitude. Tough titty, Chris!




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26006 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2009 :  16:28:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

In 1491, "99 out of 100 learned scholars agree, the earth is indeed flat."
A myth, thanks to Washington Irving.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2009 :  21:46:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Landrew

In 1491, "99 out of 100 learned scholars agree, the earth is indeed flat."
A myth, thanks to Washington Irving.



Hmmm... This article irritated me somewhat:

The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: "Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?"


Fair enough.
I guess we will have to settle for Galileo. And the interdiction of dissection. And the opposition to the Big Bang theory. And, of course, Darwin himself...

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page

Landrew
New Member

44 Posts

Posted - 07/04/2009 :  09:18:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Landrew a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Simon

Originally posted by Landrew

I love it, "testimonial science" (argumentum ad populum).
In 1491, "99 out of 100 learned scholars agree, the earth is indeed flat."


But, it's only a fallacy if you poll the general public (the populum).
It's fair game to ask the scientific community to try to detect a consensus (not that science existed in 1491), especially when the consensus is very strong as in you example.

We seem to be immersed in polls nowadays; inferring that "consensus is truth." Polls belong in marketing and politics, where "perceptions equal reality" therefore creating a perception creates an altered reality of sorts.

Polls do not belong in science. Even a scientific consensus can be wrong, as it has been countless times in the past. The real science has nothing to do with popularity contests; it has only to do with the degree of certainty we can derive by testing and verifying the rationale and the evidence provided us in scientific theories.

God bless women, for without them there would be no cookies.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26006 Posts

Posted - 07/04/2009 :  09:44:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

The real science has nothing to do with popularity contests; it has only to do with the degree of certainty we can derive by testing and verifying the rationale and the evidence provided us in scientific theories.
And multiple scientists reaching the same conclusion increases the degree of certainty. It's what replication of results is all about.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 07/04/2009 :  15:51:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Landrew

Originally posted by Simon

Originally posted by Landrew

I love it, "testimonial science" (argumentum ad populum).
In 1491, "99 out of 100 learned scholars agree, the earth is indeed flat."


But, it's only a fallacy if you poll the general public (the populum).
It's fair game to ask the scientific community to try to detect a consensus (not that science existed in 1491), especially when the consensus is very strong as in you example.

We seem to be immersed in polls nowadays; inferring that "consensus is truth." Polls belong in marketing and politics, where "perceptions equal reality" therefore creating a perception creates an altered reality of sorts.

Polls do not belong in science. Even a scientific consensus can be wrong, as it has been countless times in the past. The real science has nothing to do with popularity contests; it has only to do with the degree of certainty we can derive by testing and verifying the rationale and the evidence provided us in scientific theories.



Indeed and all scientific conclusions are always provisional.
Still, if a large consensus of scientists hold a view, it is because that is the way the evidences are pointing (and sometime, the consensus is: "we don't have enough evidence to decide yet").
Of course, new evidence might always pop up that contradict the current consensus and force its revision, but, until this evidence surfaces, it is not a bad idea to follow the scientific consensus.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page

Landrew
New Member

44 Posts

Posted - 07/04/2009 :  19:05:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Landrew a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Landrew

The real science has nothing to do with popularity contests; it has only to do with the degree of certainty we can derive by testing and verifying the rationale and the evidence provided us in scientific theories.
And multiple scientists reaching the same conclusion increases the degree of certainty. It's what replication of results is all about.

Good point, repeatability can be considered a form of consensus. I was however referring to opinions based on conjecture about theories where hard data is less than adequate to deliver a high degree of certainty.

God bless women, for without them there would be no cookies.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.92 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000