The idea of Intelligent Design has been raised many times in this forum (and others) as a potential explanation of the universe.* In order to address this issue directly I have started this thread on ID specifically, rather than deal with it in various diverse threads. I have started the thread in this forum rather than the science forum because I believe that this is the appropriate place for such a discussion.
I would like to concentrate on two particular areas:
1) Is Intelligent Design (ID) scientific? Is it a valid scientific hypothesis and is it supported by any evidence? What is the definition of ID and how can it be tested?
2) Is ID distinct from Creationism? Is ID functionally different from creationism? Are the supporters of ID different and distinct from the supporters of creationism?
A useful starting point is probably to offer a definition of ID.
wiki has the following: | Quote: |
| Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." |
Merriam-Webster offers: | Quote: |
| the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence |
Obviously there may be other definitions and supporters of ID are welcome to offer them, but I think that these two offer a fair definition of the idea. I'll be happy to consider alternatives.
I will pause at this point to offer the opportunity for comment on the areas of discussion and the definitions I have suggested, before I move on (in light of any responses) to consider the two questions I posed about ID.
* I will declare my own interest explicitly. I believe that ID is a religous belief based on creationism and is not in any way scientific. I remain to be convinced however. i think the first thing needed to kick off any discussion here is to make sure that the definition of ID is clear and universally understood - and hopefully agreed to.
The "scientific theory" of Intelligent Design (ID) is that there are certain features and aspects of the natural world that cannot be prescribed to successive refinement. It particularly focuses on biological systems, but it can, and has, been applied to other parts of nature. If you want to get really technical and pedantic, the "Theory of Intelligent Design" is a biological theory... but it represents a "Philosophy of Intelligent Design" that could be applied to several places in science. (This is not really unique to ID... the theory of evolution was originally a biological theory, but the underlying philosophy has been applied to a number of fields, from social dynamics to culture (e.g., memetics), and there is current state-of-the-art work being done that applies evolution's philosophy to cosmology.)
Focusing on the actual "theory" of ID - the biological one - ID posits the claim that there are certain parts of biological systems that are irreducibly complex. In plain English, the argument is that certain features in biological systems make sense only when they are complete. The classic example, dating all the way back to Paley's 1802 work Natural Theology, is the eye. According to the argument, there is no way you can move through a series of evolutionary selected stages that eventually leads to the eye... or as the popular refrain goes, "half an eye does no good". Modern ID proponents typically don't mention the eye, because its evolutionary stages are plenty well understood by this point, and prefer more esoteric examples like the bacterial flagellum (Google it, if you care). The upshot is that in order for these structures to exist, since they (allegedly) cannot have evolved in stages, they must have emerged pretty much whole and working. The only way to explain that (allegedly), is that something that was aware of what the final, working structure would be like (how it would work, and what problems it would solve) must have planned the structure, and implemented it wholesale.
ID proponents quite carefully avoid naming the designer... except amongst themselves, when they openly say it's God. ID proponents also carefully dance around questions about the age of the Earth, allowing them to claim ID as an acceptable theory for both young-Earth and old-Earth creationists.
The most important thing to understand, though, is that ID is not guided evolution. Guided evolution is the idea that evolution did happen as science knows it... but that it was guided by something (they usually mean God, of course, and when they explicitly name God, it's called theistic evolution). ID does allow for some evolution (although, it doesn't require it). But ultimately, ID says some things did not evolve, they were designed and created by "something" (God).
(Evidence: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." Of Pandas and People, Davis & Kenyon (1993). Of Pandas and People was the first ID textbook intended to introduce ID to high school students. It is currently being revised and renamed to The Design of Life.)
Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a religious interpretation of a scientific theory (evolution). It is endorsed by most major Christian churches.
And, as can be seen from the definition above, ID is creationism. Just watered down a bit from hard creationism (it allows for some evolution - usually ID proponents will allow what they call "microevolution" but not "macroevolution"), and not specifically naming God as the designer/creator. Ironically, creation science is more scientific than ID, because at least creation science clearly describes the mechanism of the alleged designing and creation of irreducibly complex structures. By dancing around the topic to avoid being caught out as a religious belief, ID lacks even that credibility.
Except for some areas, I agree with the above...
| Indi wrote: |
ID proponents quite carefully avoid naming the designer... except amongst themselves, when they openly say it's God. ID proponents also carefully dance around questions about the age of the Earth, allowing them to claim ID as an acceptable theory for both young-Earth and old-Earth creationists. |
Not everyone that believes in some form of ID necessarily believes that it was God, assuming that you are referring to the biblical God. Keep in mind that it also incorporates pagan and Deist thought, as well as some animism and Buddhsim. A large number of scientists refer to a generic "superior intelligence". It's easy to say that God was involved, but not everyone believes that it was or that He's necessarily still part of the equation (or, that if He is, He's gotten more subtler).
Keep in mind that I'm differentiating it from the Gaia Hypothesis, where the planet itself is seen as the force guiding evolution.
| Quote: |
| The most important thing to understand, though, is that ID is not guided evolution. Guided evolution is the idea that evolution did happen as science knows it... but that it was guided by something (they usually mean God, of course, and when they explicitly name God, it's called theistic evolution). ID does allow for some evolution (although, it doesn't require it). But ultimately, ID says some things did not evolve, they were designed and created by "something" (God). |
The problem is that most people who believe in ID don't go with this variant; that is, they believe that some force nudged evolution at certain points. That is, rather than forcing creatures to evolve in leaps, it was prodded every into that form, somewhat like dog-breeding.
| Quote: |
| (Evidence: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." |
This is sort of where there is an issue; not everyone that goes in for ID necessarily believes it to this degree. That is, we can see wings developing from hands, and feathers from scales; but, we see it as an evolution caused by an outside force, and not necessarily happening by itself.
The main problem is that a lot of those that believe in some form of ID get there not necessarily because of a religious background, but because of their own scientific investigations. It's like looking at a garden; even though it could have arisen completely randomly, it feels sorta weird saying that something that well cultured could have arisen randomly.
And how would an eye have evolved from a simple organ that could detect light?
HM I'll come back to the meat of the debate later but let's just clear up that last point about the eye. It has been dealt with ad-nauseum by evolutionary scientists because (funnily enough) this is the one example that creationists/ID supporters have used more than any other, based largely on a mistrepresentation of what Darwin said about the eye.
Here is a fairly standard and straightforward explanation of how it might have evolved:
| Quote: |
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. |
source; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html But, isn't it so strange how our eyes are so well suited for us without ID? When in dark, they focus and soon enough we can see all-right, we split and view colors so correctly, etc...
Sorry for the overly blunt message, need to run...
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| But, isn't it so strange how our eyes are so well suited for us without ID? When in dark, they focus and soon enough we can see all-right, we split and view colors so correctly, etc |
Why, then, design an eye that cannot see in the dark? Why not design infra-red capability into the eye? Why design the eye in such a way that cataracts are likely to form? Why design the eye with blood vessels so close to the surface which leads to infection and possible leakage? In short, if you are going to design an eye why not design a really good one? | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The problem is that most people who believe in ID don't go with this variant; that is, they believe that some force nudged evolution at certain points. That is, rather than forcing creatures to evolve in leaps, it was prodded every into that form, somewhat like dog-breeding. |
This is simply another form of guided evolution. This is also, in my opinion, a misrepresentation of ID. Most proponents of ID, in the public sphere at least, are associated with the Discovery Institute. That is not to say that there may not be proponents of ID who have a different view - you clearly seem to be one such example - but the modern formulation of ID originates with the Discovery Institute and they are the most widely known advocates of ID, which they developed as part of their 'Wedge Strategy'.
The Discovery Institude version of ID does not accept Guided Evolution and does believe in a God - the Christian God of the bible.
If you are saying that the majority of ID supporters have a different version of ID then I'd like to see the evidence, since all you are providing at the moment is your own personal interpretation of ID. Who exactly are you speaking for when you say 'most people who believe in ID'? | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
But, isn't it so strange how our eyes are so well suited for us without ID? When in dark, they focus and soon enough we can see all-right, we split and view colors so correctly, etc...
Sorry for the overly blunt message, need to run... |
If we were "designed," what's the point in giving us physical flaws? Why would we have an appendix if we have absolutely no use for it? It's actually believed that the appendix was part of the digestion system when humans were more gatherers and less hunters, because our digestion system needed ways to digest plants at a faster/more efficient pace. Now that we're not the plant eaters we used to be, the appendix is no longer in use. On the topic of the eye, why "design" something and not make it as near to perfect as possible? There are obvious flaws in this "design" you all speak of, and it makes no sense what so ever that a designer would purposely place flaws in its design. | Bikerman wrote: |
I'll come back to the meat of the debate later but let's just clear up that last point about the eye. It has been dealt with ad-nauseum by evolutionary scientists because (funnily enough) this is the one example that creationists/ID supporters have used more than any other, based largely on a mistrepresentation of what Darwin said about the eye.
Here is a fairly standard and straightforward explanation of how it might have evolved:
| Quote: | Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. |
source; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html |
Just to finally put this tired old eye thing to rest for good (for the last time, hopefully), i'm going to go a step beyond what Bikerman has provided. He has given a modernized version of the solution Darwin gave back in 1859.
(For those who don't know, what basically happened is in the original book describing his theory, in chapter 6 "Difficulties on Theory", in a section called "Organs of extreme perfection and complication", Darwin wrote: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Creationists have jumped on that sentence and have repeated it ad nauseum. What they don't repeat is the very next sentence: "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." Darwin then goes on to hypothesize pretty much the gist of what Bikerman has described.)
You may reasonably object to both Darwin and Bikerman, saying, "But you don't know that it's possible, you're only speculating on what might be possible." True, i suppose, but hardly damning. But even if that's true, it's not really a problem... because modern science does know.
We have identified the genes responsible for the eye (PAX6, for starters). We know where they came from and why. We can even cause eyes to grow on your legs (it's been done with flies). In fact, one of the things we have found is an indication of why we no longer ascribe to Darwin's theory (something that creationists can't seem to get through their heads... no one's a Darwinist anymore, that theory has been superseded - modern evolutionary theory is often called neo-Darwinist). Some of the genes responsible for the eye's structures are also genes for proteins that combat mutagens. Clearly those genes were useful to early organisms, so they got stored and passed down... then much later re-expressed as rudimentary eyes (which were obviously beneficial). This is quite common; genes get reused all the time, as well as entire structures (feathers, while obviously beneficial for flight, very likely evolved long before flight for the sake of warmth - something that shouldn't seem surprising given that we still have flightless, feathered creatures today - feathers were co-opted and reused by nature to allow for flying).
Seriously, give it up. The eye is a closed issue. Even the more educated creationists (Dembski, Behe) have abandoned it in favour of bacterial flagellum, the clotting response, and the like. (And those will shortly be hammered down by science, too, from the looks of it.)
| Bikerman wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | The problem is that most people who believe in ID don't go with this variant; that is, they believe that some force nudged evolution at certain points. That is, rather than forcing creatures to evolve in leaps, it was prodded every into that form, somewhat like dog-breeding. |
This is simply another form of guided evolution. This is also, in my opinion, a misrepresentation of ID. Most proponents of ID, in the public sphere at least, are associated with the Discovery Institute. That is not to say that there may not be proponents of ID who have a different view - you clearly seem to be one such example - but the modern formulation of ID originates with the Discovery Institute and they are the most widely known advocates of ID, which they developed as part of their 'Wedge Strategy'.
The Discovery Institude version of ID does not accept Guided Evolution and does believe in a God - the Christian God of the bible.
If you are saying that the majority of ID supporters have a different version of ID then I'd like to see the evidence, since all you are providing at the moment is your own personal interpretation of ID. Who exactly are you speaking for when you say 'most people who believe in ID'? |
Agree... but i'm going to go a step further.
i would like to point out that, thus far, there have been four definitions of ID offered. Bikerman offered two, i offered one, and HereticMonkey offered one. Let's review. Of Bikerman's two definitions:- One is from the dictionary, which is notoriously unreliable for technical terms.
- The other is from Wikipedia, which i - personally - would consider acceptable (with qualification), but which HereticMonkey has, on several occasions, denounced as entirely unreliable.
That leaves my definition and HereticMonkey's.
i'd also like to point out that i have provided a source for my definition, and it is the first (and currently only) textbook on ID. i'd further like to point out that i can provide supporting quotes from other ID books. By contrast, HereticMonkey has provided no sources, and only vague promises that this is what "most" ID proponents believe.
There are three possibilities with respect to creationism and evolution:
- Modern biological life is the result of a progressive evolution from simple forms, according to simple rules (for example, natural selection). This is evolutionary theory. Theists who subscribe to evolutionary theory often say that their god planned for evolution and laid out the rules, but then stepped back and let it happen "naturally". This is guided or theistic evolution, which is the position held by most theist scientists, and the official positions of most of the larger denominations and sects.
- Modern biological life was created pretty much as it is, in its current form. Some minor, mostly cosmetic, change is allowed, but by and large a dog today is indistinguishable from the "prototype" dog. This is hard creationism, which is usually expressed by biblical literalists and young Earth creationists, but held by some forms of gap creationists.
- Modern biological life is the product of some (usually unspecified) mix of evolution and intervention. An "agent" - generally God - intervenes at one or more stages of an otherwise evolutionary process. For example, a creature does not have any organ for sight... then the agent intervenes... and the creature has an eye within one generation (or, rarely, a couple of generations, with a basic form being provided by the agent, then refined by either the agent or natural evolution) that it could not have evolved without the agent's intervention. This is "soft" creationism, which is held by numerous forms of gap creationism, day-age creationism (which HereticMonkey has advocated), progressive creationism and... shock! ... ID.
Of course, naturalists and atheists hold to the first form... sans the god. You could call it "unguided" or "non-theistic" evolution, i suppose.
And as for whether or not ID's "intelligent agent" is God... i'll deal with that later. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
But, isn't it so strange how our eyes are so well suited for us without ID? When in dark, they focus and soon enough we can see all-right, we split and view colors so correctly, etc...
Sorry for the overly blunt message, need to run... |
That's just a refinement...Once you have an eye, color vision and focusing at night are basically fait accompli. A better question would be how did the big brain develop (considering how energy inefficient it is, it's interesting that it survived to speciation), why vertebrates only have 0/2/4 limbs, and how the vertebrates that were are ancestors survived the Burgess Shale event and why the other species didn't. There are a number of issues that are still considered mysteries; I still want to know why placebos have an effect when there is no reason they should, or why prayer appears to be successful more than it has any right to be.
I find it interesting that you require a source for what amounts to a personal belief. I would, however, point out that people have expressed the belief before; both Einstein and Oppenheimer would appear to share the belief that there is some form of guiding force, or that there was.
That said, I'm finding it interesting that the atheists on this board are more dogmatic than the supposed religious nuts, even while decrying it. Religion will always be a personal question, and up to personal explanation. It's just interesting that you have a new form of religion, based on the spirituality of science bereft of a personified deity, and that you want it documented; it's interesting because a lot of adherents are trying to define it themselves. Give us a few years, yeesh; it's a new thing and not everyone knows what to think about it...It was interesting googling "science spirituality", of course...
BTW, Bikerman: I found your post on the other board re: macro-evolution. A better question to ask, and more relevant, is whether or not they believe in some form of superior or guiding intelligence, and not necessarily the Judaio-Christian version. It would be a bit more relevant to the question at hand...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| A better question would be how did the big brain develop (considering how energy inefficient it is, it's interesting that it survived to speciation), why vertebrates only have 0/2/4 limbs, and how the vertebrates that were are ancestors survived the Burgess Shale event and why the other species didn't. There are a number of issues that are still considered mysteries; I still want to know why placebos have an effect when there is no reason they should, or why prayer appears to be successful more than it has any right to be. |
Firstly - just because something is not completely known at the moment, does not mean that offers support for ID - it doesn't. Biology, like all science, is constantly looking at new problems and there are still unknowns which will require more work. That does not mean that solutions will not be forthcoming and it certainly does not provide 'evidence by default' for ID. There are many 'mysteries' left for science to solve and perhaps there always will be. That does not indicate that such things are beyond science, merely that science has not yet solved them.
In this thread the specific question is whether ID is science or religion - ie is there any scientific method and scientific evidence to support the thesis of Intelligent Design. The question is not 'has science explained everything' - it hasn't.
Having said that, we can look at your questions. Briefly, in order;
1) Evolution of the big brain.
Genetic evidence
Palaeontological hypothesis
2) Why vertebrates have even numbers of limbs.
Land vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor that had 4 limbs (Sarcopterygii). Any 'sudden' change to the number of limbs would have been lethal from a selection point of view. Evolution works in gradual steps and each new change must offer a selection advantage. There would be no advantage in a mutation that produced a new proto-limb (ie something that might evolve into a new limb) so land vertebrates retain 4 limbs (snakes and some reptiles gradually lost their limbs over time but many still retain the vestigial bones in the skeleton).
Aquatic mammals have vestigial limbs which evolved into flippers and flukes.
Birds have 4 limbs but 2 evolved into wings.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/HigEvoVer.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vertebrates.html
3) The Burgess Shale.
I'm not sure what the question is. The shale preserves fossils from the mid Cambrian era (500ish million yrs ago) and contains a selection of different fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html
4) Placebo effect. (What has this got to do with ID?)
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/explanation.php?dir=articles/explanations&article=placebo_effect.php
5) Effectiveness of prayer (What has this got to do with ID?)
The only large scale scientific study I know of shows that prayer is NOT effective. This was conducted by the Templeton Foundation (a source sympathetic to religion) under proper scientific conditions (double-blind) and showed that prayer has no measurable effect on the recovery of patients.
The full pdf of the study can be read HERE
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| I find it interesting that you require a source for what amounts to a personal belief. I would, however, point out that people have expressed the belief before; both Einstein and Oppenheimer would appear to share the belief that there is some form of guiding force, or that there was. |
The question is not whether ID is a belief but whether it is scientific. Whether Einstein was a Deist or an atheist is another topic for another thread, he certainly wasn't a supporter of ID.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| That said, I'm finding it interesting that the atheists on this board are more dogmatic than the supposed religious nuts, even while decrying it. Religion will always be a personal question, and up to personal explanation. It's just interesting that you have a new form of religion, based on the spirituality of science bereft of a personified deity, and that you want it documented; it's interesting because a lot of adherents are trying to define it themselves. Give us a few years, yeesh; it's a new thing and not everyone knows what to think about it...It was interesting googling "science spirituality", of course... |
Dogmatic in what sense? ID is not 'bereft' of a personified deity as has previously been explained. Your personal version of ID might be, but the generally accepted form of ID, and the one I believe that most ID supporters believe in, is based very firmly around the Christian God of the bible. As I have previously said, if you have evidence to support your contention - that most supporters of ID believe your version - then please provide it. I have provided the version which is documented on the Discovery Institute website and Indi has provided the definition from an ID text on the matter.
Since we are asking whether ID is scientific it is perfectly reasonable to ask for, and provide, evidence rather than personal anecdote. Nobody is denying that ID is a personal belief for some people - that is not the point of the thread. The question I posed was 'is ID science or religion?'. If you are saying it is religion then fine. The controversy arises, as I am sure you are aware, because supporters of ID like to claim that it has a scientific basis and forms a scientific alternative to evolution theory. This distinguishes it from other religious faiths, which do not make such a claim, and thus it is correct to test the claim to see if it is valid. That is the purpose of this thread.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| BTW, Bikerman: I found your post on the other board re: macro-evolution. A better question to ask, and more relevant, is whether or not they believe in some form of superior or guiding intelligence, and not necessarily the Judaio-Christian version. It would be a bit more relevant to the question at hand... |
That particular question was formed by another poster who was spouting ID propoganda, so I asked it in exactly the form he put it, in order to be completely fair and above board.
You can check the thread for yourself below. Feel free to ask your question on the thread, but the answer, I suspect, will be no.
http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1200880046
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:36 am; edited 1 time in totalAs promised: | Indi wrote: |
| And as for whether or not ID's "intelligent agent" is God... i'll deal with that later. |
There are two ways to approach this question.
Option 1. Listen to ID experts.
i'll just simply to quote the words of the creators and main proponents of ID themselves. Let's start with Dr. William Dembski, the intellectual superpower of the ID movement. Dembski is the brains behind "the design inference", the epistemological heart of ID. He's also responsible for the "explanatory filter" to recognize the presence of design in any system, "complex specified information" to determine the relationship between complexity and specificity (design), and other such concepts. What does Dembski have to say about the "intelligent designer"?
| William Dembski, on rejecting 'naturalism' in science wrote: |
| To lift that pall will require a new generation of scholars and professionals who explicitly reject naturalism and consciously seek to understand the design that God has placed in the world... |
But wait... maybe he doesn't mean the Christian god?
| William Dembski, after ID was ruled creationism in Dover wrote: |
| This galvanizes the Christian community. People I'm talking to say we're going to be raising a whole lot more funds now. |
But... but... creationism is about miracles! You can't include miracles in science, right?
| William Dembski, on including miracles in science wrote: |
| To define a miracle as a violation or suspension or overriding of natural laws is already to presuppose what nature is like (namely, that nature is a closed causal nexus governed by inviolable rules). It is also to impose prior limits on divine action. |
Oh, but he was just speaking as a Christian and not a scientist! He has his Christian beliefs, and he has his scientific training, and he has clearly separated the two. That's why ID is science.
| William Dembski, on what ID is wrote: |
| Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel¹ restated in the idiom of information theory. |
Whoops.
Then there's Dr. Micheal Behe. If Dembski represents the intellectual, logical and epistemological justification for ID, Behe represents the science. It is Behe who came up with the idea of "irreducible complexity" in biological systems (which is a special case of Dembski's specified complexity, and thus, according to Dembski's design inference, allows us to infer the existence of a designer). It is also Behe who provides the ID movement with their cutting edge scientific examples, like the bacterial flagellum and the clotting response. So how does Behe justify appealing to an intelligent designer?
| Micheal Behe, on who gets to call on angels of design wrote: |
| But a Darwinist cannot invoke angels adding staples to traps, because the angels are on OUR side |
Angels? Surely Behe is just being figurative, and he does not really believe that mystical explanations should be invoked in science.
| Micheal Behe, on mysticism being beside the point wrote: |
| Behe explains the theory points out weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution and tries to present the 'best explanation of how the world got here.' The fact that the theory's explanation is mystical, says Behe, is beside the point. |
Er... so Behe does acknowledge that ID appeals to the mystical. But that doesn't imply God.
| Micheal Behe, on the fact that it does imply God wrote: |
| In The Edge of Evolution I argue that life had to be designed to a very great degree of detail in order to exist. So, if one believes (as I do) that the designer is God, then God planned life on earth down to the molecular level. |
Need i go on? ^_^; It only gets worse from there, believe it or not. i picked the two most scientific, least religious, representatives of the ID movement. i could have picked Philip Johnson. ^_^; Or Dean H. Kenyon or Charles Thaxton. All of whom are leaders of the ID movement, but are also outspoken creationists. But that would be like shooting ichthys in a barrel.
Option 2. Let's consider ID as presented by ID proponents.
Let's consider the watered-down descriptions of ID, the ones that don't specifically name God, or any religious entity, as the "intelligent designer". Assume that those are scientifically valid (they're not, by the way - they're not even philosophically or conceptually valid).
According to ID, you can infer a designer by looking at a designed object. Let's go a step further using that same logic. Let's assume that once you've inferred a designer, you can now infer characteristics of that designer. Let's try that with the "intelligent designer" of ID.
According to some ID proponents, the designer doesn't have to be a supernatural or mystical being. They claim that it could be some super-intelligent aliens or something. Can it?
Of course not. ^_^; Don't be absurd. If you have to appeal to aliens to explain our world's complexity, and our world's complexity is beyond our comprehension, then these aliens must be even more complex than we are. And who designed them? It must be something even more complex! And who designed that designer? Still more complexity, and so on and so forth. You can't solve this cycle by continuing to appeal to aliens. Eventually, you need something divine. You need a god.
But does it have to be the Judaistic god?
Technically no. However, whatever god it is, it has to have certain specific characteristics. Those characteristics map perfectly onto the Judaistic god, one to one. They don't map so well onto the gods of alternative religions. This is why we see such enormous support among Christians (given that all proponents are Christian), mediocre support among Muslims and Jews, and piddling support from just about everywhere else (although, oddly, it turns out that Hare Krishna followers have embraced ID... but if you think the Christian version is unscientific... wait till you hear theirs).
It's difficult to pin it down any more than this, because ID proponents have been so desperately avoiding pinning down the details of the theory. They know the moment they do, it will be impossible not to recognize the specific god they have in mind. In order to give ID the broadest appeal, they have to keep it vague... and they have openly admitted to this tactic!!!
So, that's the best i can do for now: all ID proponents claim ID's designer is the Christan god, and while ID itself is too vague to pin that down for sure, it does limit the range so much that most other religions are quite lukewarm on the idea. But that's not to say that pinning it down to God is totally impossible. i'm sure that if ID proponents would ever get around to actually publishing details of the theory, rather than just vague insinuations that it "undermines Darwinism", we'd have all the evidence that we need to give the designer a name.
In the meantime:
| William Dembski, in his own words wrote: |
| When asked in a December interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, Dembski stated "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God." |
¹ The Logos theology of John's Gospel is from the beginning of the Gospel of John, John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In plain English, everything starts with God, and anything that doesn't start with God is inherently flawed. By that logic, science, since it starts with the assumption that nature can be understood in terms of nature by studying nature, is inherently flawed. | Bikerman wrote: |
1) Is Intelligent Design (ID) scientific? Is it a valid scientific hypothesis and is it supported by any evidence? What is the definition of ID and how can it be tested? |
Well, I feel that it is scientific only to the extent that there are (few as they may be) "scientists" out there who support the idea. Bear in mind that the vast majority of scientists would dismiss ID.
I strongly feel that nobody can answer whether or not it is a hypothesis because in order for a statement to be a hypothesis, there must be some way to test for it's wrongness. And, to this day, we have not seen an accurate enough experiment to test for wrongess in this situation. It then goes without saying that I feel it cannot be tested, at least with our current knowledge and capabilities.
Much like evolutionary theory (despite the flames I may get for this), ID is [at least] partially faith-based.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| 2) Is ID distinct from Creationism? Is ID functionally different from creationism? Are the supporters of ID different and distinct from the supporters of creationism? |
I think that it's clear to see the declining trend in religion across the nation, if not, the world. We as a society are moving away from organized religion and more towards individualism, and discovering our own personal beliefs.
I feel that ID is simply a desperate attempt by creationists to inject their ideas into the science curriculum. Fundamentally, no, ID does not differ from Creationism.
The one thing I would like to say is that I tend to associate Creationism with the Bible and Christianity (regardless of the fact that it is not the only creation-theory religion), and I tend to view ID as more of a universal and acceptably adaptation of creationism. One that works in more than just Christianity.
Last edited by Soulfire on Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:36 am; edited 1 time in total | Soulfire wrote: |
| Much like evolution (despite the flames I may get for this), ID is [at least] partially faith-based. |
Well I hope there are no flames and I personally have no intention of flaming you.
I would point out that evolution is an observable fact. We can observe it in action in the lab. For example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution
Evolutionary theory (ie the theory that every species, including man, arose via natural selection) is indeed only a 'theory' in that we obviously cannot go back and look. I think the word 'faith' is perhaps the wrong one to use, however, although I do take the point. Faith is normally a word we use when there is lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary. There is much evidence to support evolutionary theory. Indeed the evidence is strong to the point of being overwhelming. Evolutionary theory is, therefore, a valid scientific theory in that it can be tested (if any fossil is found to be in the wrong geological layer then the theory could fall completely), and it makes predictions about which fossils should be found, predictions which have been proven correct time after time.
You say that we cannot know whether ID is a hypothesis or not because it cannot be tested. The very fact that it cannot be tested means it is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Science must be testable.
*I am distinguishing an hypothesis (something which can be tested but hasn't yet been) from a theory (something which can be tested and has been)
PS I edited this posting before I saw the reply below and this accounts for the difference between the quote below and this version of the posting. I do not believe there are any substantive differences and I agree with and welcome soulfire's acceptance of the distinctions made.
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:39 am; edited 1 time in total | Bikerman wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | | Much like evolution (despite the flames I may get for this), ID is [at least] partially faith-based. |
Well I hope there are no flames and I personally have no intention of flaming you.
I would point out that evolution is an observable fact. We can observe it in action in the lab. For example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution
Evolutionary theory (ie the theory that every species, including man, arose via natural selection) is indeed only a 'theory' in that we obviously cannot go back and look. I think the word 'faith' is perhaps the wrong one to use, however, although I do take the point. Faith is normally a word we use when there is lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary. There is much evidence to support evolutionary theory. Indeed the evidence is strong to the point of being overwhelming. Evolutionary theory is, therefore, a valid scientific theory in that it can be tested (if any fossil is found to be in the wrong geological layer then the theory could fall completely), and it makes predictions about which fossils should be found, predictions which have been proven correct time after time.
ID is, as you say, not even a proper hypothesis, let alone a theory,* since there is no definitive test we can apply to it.
*I am distinguishing an hypothesis from a theory according to the categorisation given by the sticky in the science forum. |
Very true, I should've made the distinction, because I do know for fact that evolution happens.
What I was really referring to, as you kindly corrected (thanks!) was the evolutionary theory. | Bikerman wrote: |
| You say that we cannot know whether ID is a hypothesis or not because it cannot be tested. The very fact that it cannot be tested means it is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Science must be testable. |
i disagree. i say ID can be tested.
Perhaps the next thing i should do is outline what the actual theory of ID is. i was hoping to leave that task to an ID proponent.ID Science OR Religion?
Hm, we got the science (sooner or later ) AND we got the religion...
| spinout wrote: |
ID Science OR Religion?
Hm, we got the science (sooner or later ) AND we got the religion... |
What does that mean? Are you saying that ID is both science and religion? Or that it is religion and will become science? I don't understand the point. | Indi wrote: |
all ID proponents claim ID's designer is the Christan god, and while ID itself is too vague to pin that down for sure, it does limit the range so much that most other religions are quite lukewarm on the idea. |
If this is the case, then why did you point out Hare Krishna's version? Other than that, your post is highly logical, but the basis of that logic is off because ID itself is currently undergoing some changes, creating actually three kinds of ID. You have those that are trying to make Creationism more palatable, and these people should be shot repeatedly; that The World was created in six days, that evolution is bogus, and even that everything is the Will of God are concepts that any rational person should deny.
The second are those that sound like they don't know where Science begins and where Religion begins. In this case they are looking for ways to demonstrate that their religious views are rational, and thus abusing their position as scientists. In essence, they aren't looking at their results objectively, and fixing any results that disagree with their results. More people that should be shot.
The third group is sort of in a weird situation. Backing up for a moment: There is the perspective that there is a difference between "religious" and "spiritual". The first are those that believe in the rules of the religion before the message of the religion; generally, when you are dealing with the pro-life group and Creationists, it's the religious that you're dealing with. On the other hand, the "spiritual" types go for the message; think Mother Theresa types here. The basic difference is that whereas the religious types are more likely to take The Bible literally, the spiritual types are more likely to take it figuratively.
This is sort of the problem: This last group doesn't have much representation in the discussion, especially as they tend to recognize that they are scientists and not philosophers, and so they don't tend to write much of their philosophy down, and tend to look it as something that would cause them a loss in popularity (vas? You thought scientists are immune to peer pressure? Most research requires a certain degree of politicking and looking for grants; if the scientist in question holds questionable beliefs it can thus be a bad thing for the career.). Thus, you sort of have "closeted scientists"; they have these beliefs, they aren't sure about them, and there is the fear that if they are revealed there will be repercussions.
Addressing another point you brought up, the problem is that a lot of scientists are debating how much of the universe formed on its own. I appreciate that there is a certain amount of the anthropomorphic principle in play here, but there are a number of interesting issues to be considered here as well. We know that there can be no dragons because the classic dragon has six limbs (two legs, two arms, and two wings); there are no six-limbed vertebrates. The double-blind experiment is another interesting anomaly, as it can't be recorded. The effects of prayer are also interesting; the results are all over the map regardless of the religion or philosophy of the scientist doing the experiment or research. And then there is the whole issue of parapsychology and affirmations.
There is just too much weirdness that doesn't follow the rules, or where the rules are too fast and loose to be completely natural. It's too much like looking at a garden, and too coincidental, too clean. If I saw a section of forest where there were no weeds, the trees were spaced at regular intervals, and where the rocks were all the exact same height, I would seriously question to what degree that section was natural.
It's interesting that Sagan and Hawking have written of the spirituality of the universe, and even Einstein believes in God, even if it's just that of Spinoza. It should be noted that I'm not questioning that atheism is needed to counter the fundies; I think that they are, in that regard, a force that is fundamentally needed. However, I do question to what degree it is needed in the scientific community, and whether or not the need to prove the (non-)existence of God is a valid quest or distraction.
As long as science moves forward, does it matter what the scientist believes in? I think not, and that we should all be allowed to define our own beliefs, not just those that are popular in the social arena...
HM | Indi wrote: |
i disagree. i say ID can be tested.
Perhaps the next thing i should do is outline what the actual theory of ID is. i was hoping to leave that task to an ID proponent. |
Yeah, except that we don't define the entity involved, outside of it existing...
HM | Bikerman wrote: |
What does that mean? Are you saying that ID is both science and religion? Or that it is religion and will become science? I don't understand the point. |
Why not as a philosophy that inspires scientists to explore the universe?
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
all ID proponents claim ID's designer is the Christan god, and while ID itself is too vague to pin that down for sure, it does limit the range so much that most other religions are quite lukewarm on the idea. |
If this is the case, then why did you point out Hare Krishna's version? Other than that, your post is highly logical... |
None of ID's proponents are Hare Krishna. All are Christian.
The Hare Krishna folk have stated their support for ID, but have done nothing else. Stating support does not make one a proponent, it makes one a supporter.
Furthermore... i'd be careful about accepting them as fellow supporters of ID. ^_^; They may like the idea of ID (because it suits the expressly stated religious aims of ISKCON to undermine "materialist science"), but that doesn't mean they have any real respect for the basis of ID. To put it bluntly, they're using information gleaned from UFO abductions (among other things) as their reason for supporting ID.
But, hey, if you think ID needs support that bad that they'll take it wherever they can get it... ^_^; i was doing ID a favour by not counting the quotes made by ISKCON among the ID support quotes. You want me to start quoting Cremo? ^_^; i have no problems with that.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
...ID itself is currently undergoing some changes, creating actually three kinds of ID. You have those that are trying to make Creationism more palatable, and these people should be shot repeatedly; that The World was created in six days, that evolution is bogus, and even that everything is the Will of God are concepts that any rational person should deny.
The second are those that sound like they don't know where Science begins and where Religion begins. In this case they are looking for ways to demonstrate that their religious views are rational, and thus abusing their position as scientists. In essence, they aren't looking at their results objectively, and fixing any results that disagree with their results. More people that should be shot.
The third group is sort of in a weird situation. Backing up for a moment: There is the perspective that there is a difference between "religious" and "spiritual". The first are those that believe in the rules of the religion before the message of the religion; generally, when you are dealing with the pro-life group and Creationists, it's the religious that you're dealing with. On the other hand, the "spiritual" types go for the message; think Mother Theresa types here. The basic difference is that whereas the religious types are more likely to take The Bible literally, the spiritual types are more likely to take it figuratively. |
All of this is nonsense.
There is one and only one theory of intelligent design. There are no factions, as you claim. Yes, there are many different groups that embrace ID, ranging from young Earth creationists, to old-world progressive evolutionists (including the Hare Krishna crew). But there is only one theory. Those groups simply differ on how to interpret the theory to fit their own pet religious theories (some try to cram ID into a young Earth timeline, others don't... still others set intermediate dates that they say they were told about by UFOs, no names mentioned).
The ID movement has adopted what they call a "big tent strategy", which is a sly way to say they present ID in such a way as to make it palatable to the largest group possible. In practise, that means they are vague about any points of the theory that might raise contention, and that might break up ID's (non-scientific) support base. Practical examples are the refusal to speculate on the nature of the "designer" (to imply that it could be any god for any religion, or even a non-divine being or intelligence for secularists), the hemming and hawing over drawing up any sort of time lines (to avoid angering young Earthers or old Earthers), and the persistent declines about outlining the mechanisms of this design.
If ID isn't a religious movement - if it really is a science, as its proponents claim - then who gives a crap about the religious bickering between its adherents? Those problems are their religious concerns, and have no relevance on the validity of ID as a science.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Addressing another point you brought up, the problem is that a lot of scientists are debating how much of the universe formed on its own. |
"A lot"? How many? Show us the studies, or the literature reviews to support this claim.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| I appreciate that there is a certain amount of the anthropomorphic principle in play here, but there are a number of interesting issues to be considered here as well. We know that there can be no dragons because the classic dragon has six limbs (two legs, two arms, and two wings); there are no six-limbed vertebrates. |
What?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The double-blind experiment is another interesting anomaly, as it can't be recorded. |
Excuse me?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The effects of prayer are also interesting; the results are all over the map regardless of the religion or philosophy of the scientist doing the experiment or research. |
Huh?
(For the record, every single properly-designed scientific study of the efficacy of prayer has yielded null results... or worse (in the most recent case). Every study that has given positive results has been shown to have had procedural problems (usually poor control, or no control).)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| And then there is the whole issue of parapsychology and affirmations. |
The hell does that - or any of this - have to do with ID?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| There is just too much weirdness that doesn't follow the rules, or where the rules are too fast and loose to be completely natural. It's too much like looking at a garden, and too coincidental, too clean. If I saw a section of forest where there were no weeds, the trees were spaced at regular intervals, and where the rocks were all the exact same height, I would seriously question to what degree that section was natural. |
Science is not about personal opinions. Your lack of imagination does not represent a scientific challenge.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| It's interesting that Sagan and Hawking have written of the spirituality of the universe, and even Einstein believes in God, even if it's just that of Spinoza. |
Science is not about personal beliefs. Sagan could have believed the Earth was flat, and it wouldn't have devalued or otherwise called into question his work on the atmosphere of Venus.
(Incidentally... Sagan and Hawking?!?! First of all, Sagan's "god" was the same as Einstein's "god". He wrote about spiritual experiences in exactly the same way Einstein did - experiencing the natural universe in all its glory is what spiritualism is, to both of them. Hawking is harder to pin down - some label him deist, some label him atheist - but one thing's for sure, he did not write about the "spirituality" of the universe. He wrote that the universe didn't need a god.)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| It should be noted that I'm not questioning that atheism is needed to counter the fundies; I think that they are, in that regard, a force that is fundamentally needed. However, I do question to what degree it is needed in the scientific community, and whether or not the need to prove the (non-)existence of God is a valid quest or distraction. |
Science is not about personal beliefs. Who cares if you're atheist or not? It has no relevance to whether ID is a scientific theory, and whether or not it is correct.
Science is also not about proving or disproving the existence of any god. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying - trying to usurp science for their religious agenda.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| As long as science moves forward, does it matter what the scientist believes in? I think not, and that we should all be allowed to define our own beliefs, not just those that are popular in the social arena... |
Science is not about personal beliefs. Most ID proponents are young Earth creationists (didn't know that, i bet). So what? That's not reason enough to ditch the theory (as i already said).
However, ID's proponents have thus far (for political reasons, not scientific - their "big tent strategy") refused to answer any questions about the nature of this designer... except to state that it is the Christian god. At that point, we're not discussing their personal beliefs any more. We are discussing a (supposedly, according to them) scientific theory that they have devised and/or are supporting, that they claim (not just believe! claim!!!) points to the existence of their god. By doing that, they've brought their god, and their religion, into the cold, hard light of science. Not a bright move, i'd say - and they know it, which is why they dance around it so much before finally getting cornered.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Yeah, except that we don't define the entity involved, outside of it existing... |
If ID is science, ID must answer to scientific questions. You can't just say "and then something happened" in a scientific theory and expect to go unchallenged... you must present a valid hypothesis for what happened. If you claim a mechanism has caused some event, you must identify the mechanism. If you claim a designer, you must identify the designer.
Every time an ID proponent has done so, they've fingered God (the Christian god). i'd say ID has identified the entity involved, as much as they'd like to deny that. If they want to turn around and say that that was just personal speculation that's separate from the theory proper, fine - but they still have to identify the designer.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Why not as a philosophy that inspires scientists to explore the universe? |
Because scientists have a philosophy. It's called the scientific method. It's also known as methodological naturalism. It's worked for around 400 years now, in more or less its current form. It's taken us from the Renaissance to the Space Age and promises to go beyond.
Why break it? Seriously. It's worked fantastically so far, and there's no sign in sight that it is slowing. Why screw with it?
If you want to make a new field based on this new philosophy, go nuts. i'd applaud the effort. Why screw around with science when it's working so well? Why not leave science be and make a new field? If the new philosophy works, the new field may out-pace science.
i wouldn't bet on it, though.I Personal think that Intelligent Design is just creatinalism but just presented but in a slightly different way. I personal dont think there's a God who crreated us, the earth and universe where created in just under a week.
I have read the book "Who Built The Moon?" which (sort of) concludes that whe are most likely the result of an alien race (or something intelligent) "building" our solar system and programming DNA strings to eventually evolve into us. Its actually too complicated to tell everything here but it is sort of guided evolution. Which is something I think of the most likely and I WANT to believe in.
Some people in favor of ID state that our existence couldn't be by chanche since it is really small. So small that we can't excist by chance
But since the universe is endless... as wel in space AND time (litle bit of math here)
"something" X endless X endless = endless
(as long as "something" is not zero or below zero(minus)). So the chance that we exist is again very high(endless).
Anyway I think that someone thought that Christanity should be saved and invented ID.
Science, religion and philosophy are attempting to solve the questions of "why are we here", "where do we come from" and "where are we going". Those questions are really hard to answer in a philosophical way and scientific way.
But religions (espacially Christanity) have been trying and are trying to interfere whith both science and philosophy. During the middleages in Europe this was the Worst. Since the middleages the church has a weaker and weaker grip on both in the west. (Religion is good as long as it isn't organised.)
But ID is just slowing the process down (Of finding those important answers).
I am familiar with the most important arguments (Irreducible complexity) (Specified complexity) of ID and i think they are rather weak at most. As I said it is just slowing down the process of our understanding of the universe.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| I have read the book "Who Built The Moon?" which (sort of) concludes that whe are most likely the result of an alien race (or something intelligent) "building" our solar system and programming DNA strings to eventually evolve into us. Its actually too complicated to tell everything here but it is sort of guided evolution. Which is something I think of the most likely and I WANT to believe in. |
Er... pardon me for pointing out the obvious... but aside for substituting an alien designer for a divine designer... isn't that just ID all over again? | Klaw 2 wrote: |
But since the universe is endless... as wel in space AND time (litle bit of math here)
"something" X endless X endless = endless
(as long as "something" is not zero or below zero(minus)). So the chance that we exist is again very high(endless). |
Unfortunately the math does not work. Firstly, the universe is not endless in time. Current estimates are that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. Secondly, you cannot separate space and time in this way since they are part of the same thing - spacetime. In math they would be dependant variables. Therefore you cannot do the 'sum' infinite time multiplied by infinite space because it doesn't make sense. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| This is sort of the problem: This last group doesn't have much representation in the discussion, especially as they tend to recognize that they are scientists and not philosophers, and so they don't tend to write much of their philosophy down, and tend to look it as something that would cause them a loss in popularity (vas? You thought scientists are immune to peer pressure? Most research requires a certain degree of politicking and looking for grants; if the scientist in question holds questionable beliefs it can thus be a bad thing for the career.). Thus, you sort of have "closeted scientists"; they have these beliefs, they aren't sure about them, and there is the fear that if they are revealed there will be repercussions. |
Firstly I'm not sure what this group is. You seem to indicate that it is a group that distinguishes spirituality from religion. I have no problem with that. There are many (including myself) who would like to distinguish the two. Spirituality is, to me, a sense of wonder at creation. Many scientists have expressed this 'wonder'. Einstein did so on many occasions and this has been frequently assumed to mean he was a Deist (or even a Theist). Dawkins expresses the same wonder as do many other famous scientists.
This is distinct and separate, however, from some sort of belief that, because creation is wonderful, there must be a designer. The idea that scientists are somehow restricted from talking about their ideas of spirituality is bogus. Many scientists have talked about such notions (Dawkins himself has been quite effusive on the matter in several essays). That is completely different from talking AS a scientist on matters of natural philosophy. When scientists publish material in their own discipline then they must ensure that what they publish is science - that is their job. They are completely free to publish outside their scientific role on any personal beliefs they may hold - and many scientists have done just that. I think the idea that science in some way restricts scientists from doing this is wrong. The simple fact is that most scientists have no such beliefs.
The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths. The idea that there are hosts of scientists out there who secretly believe in ID, but are afraid to express their beliefs, is a myth. We know this to be true since there are a few scientists who do indeed express belief in ID, and their tenure remains secure - indeed they have personally gained from expressing such beliefs. Personally I believe such scientists (Behe et al) are guilty of knowingly doing bad science in support of personal beliefs, and are, for that reason alone, undeserving of serious consideration as scientists. (Which is not to say that their 'thoughts' should be ignored, but IS to say that they should be given no scientific credence until they are published in the peer-reviewed journals). | Indi wrote: |
| There is one and only one theory of intelligent design. |
Like there is only one form of atheism, one form of Christianity, one form of Buddhism, one form Judaism, one form of...you get the idea. Any belief , or system thereof, will have its own factions, sects, whatever, that have different perspectives or viewpoints on the same thing that may not match the generic viewpoint.
| Quote: |
| If ID isn't a religious movement - if it really is a science, as its proponents claim - then who gives a crap about the religious bickering between its adherents? Those problems are their religious concerns, and have no relevance on the validity of ID as a science. |
ID isn't a science; it's a belief. Just as atheism and Christianity are beliefs.
| Quote: |
| "A lot"? How many? Show us the studies, or the literature reviews to support this claim. |
Part of me is "why bother"". The other is that there have a number of interesting polls, which seem to indicate that a lot of scientists (62% according a poll in Time) believe in more significant than man that seems to have had a hand in how things developed. Just thought it was interesting...
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | I appreciate that there is a certain amount of the anthropomorphic principle in play here, but there are a number of interesting issues to be considered here as well. We know that there can be no dragons because the classic dragon has six limbs (two legs, two arms, and two wings); there are no six-limbed vertebrates. |
What? |
In other words: Why no vertebrates that don't have any other limb arrangements other than 0/2/4? There are some representatives of these in the Burgess Shale, but none past that point.
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | The double-blind experiment is another interesting anomaly, as it can't be recorded. |
Excuse me? |
Sorry; double slit experiment. A reasonably famous paradox: You can observe the lines clearly, but it comes out muddy when filmed. On the other hand, if filmed with no intent to record or so that the recording is destroyed as it's made, the lines can be seen.
| Quote: |
| (For the record, every single properly-designed scientific study of the efficacy of prayer has yielded null results... or worse (in the most recent case). Every study that has given positive results has been shown to have had procedural problems (usually poor control, or no control).) |
For the record: Er...no. Prayer has been shown to work for certain ailments, especially those where the doctor has suggested some form of slowing down. However, as the recent studies re: heart disease show, it's not consistent. Unless, of course, "properly-designed scientific study" only applies to those that you agree with. And note that I'm not including a good portion of the experiments due to an obvious religious bent, atheist or otherwise.
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | And then there is the whole issue of parapsychology and affirmations. |
The hell does that - or any of this - have to do with ID? |
Ghosts and wishes; they seem to ignore a lot of science...In essence, stuff that can be verified that it works and/or exists, yet for which there is no logical scientific explanation.
| Quote: |
| Science is not about personal opinions. Your lack of imagination does not represent a scientific challenge. |
1) Science is nothing but personal opinions; they just have the advantage of working out a good percentage of the time. Consider phlogiston before you post...It was something that was "proven" to exist, and then we found that it wasn't there or needed. Interestingly, some scientists have been revisiting the concept in light of dark matter.
For that matter, consider extremophiles (life forms that exist in hostile environments); they exist in locations where biologists said that life is impossible. As any decent scientist will tell you, science is science until disproven; if it's able to be disproven, how is it not an opinion? (Something that was taught in my science classes, BTW...)
2) Who said anything about "scientific challenge" (whatever that means)? I'm not trying to challenge science, but rather limited thinking about it.
| Quote: |
| (Incidentally... Sagan and Hawking?!?! First of all, Sagan's "god" was the same as Einstein's "god". He wrote about spiritual experiences in exactly the same way Einstein did - experiencing the natural universe in all its glory is what spiritualism is, to both of them. Hawking is harder to pin down - some label him deist, some label him atheist - but one thing's for sure, he did not write about the "spirituality" of the universe. He wrote that the universe didn't need a god.) |
That there is some disagreement re: Hawking's belief is, in this case, noteworthy. I also disagree that being a Deist is necessarily atheist; doesn't it imply that, at least some point, that there was a god of some sort, and that this being had a hand in the universe? Keep in mind, BTW, that the version of ID I'm proposing is essentially Deist in nature, in that it's not reliant on a present deity..,
| Quote: |
| Science is not about personal beliefs. Who cares if you're atheist or not? It has no relevance to whether ID is a scientific theory, and whether or not it is correct. |
Apparently it does.
| Quote: |
| Science is also not about proving or disproving the existence of any god. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying - trying to usurp science for their religious agenda. |
And again, not trying to do that either. I'm just finding it interesting that I'm allowed to have any belief I want, as long as it doesn't disagree with yours.
| Quote: |
| Science is not about personal beliefs. Most ID proponents are young Earth creationists (didn't know that, i bet). So what? That's not reason enough to ditch the theory (as i already said). |
And, again, I reiterate that I'm not proposing by any stretch any form of Creationist theory ("Creationist theory" meaning that it has something to do with the creation of the Earth in six days or less). And science, just like religion, is about personal belief; it's a sad fact, but true nonetheless.
| Quote: |
| By doing that, they've brought their god, and their religion, into the cold, hard light of science. Not a bright move, i'd say - and they know it, which is why they dance around it so much before finally getting cornered. |
Ever think that the reason that some of us dance around it because, even though we see something interesting, we can't really define it, and people forcing a definition are there simply to disprove it? It's easy to disprove that an incomplete theory doesn't work; it doesn't really take all that brainpower or even basic common sense. It's just interesting that atheists are the flat-earthers this time, debunking something just because they don't believe in it before a proper hypothesis has even been put together.
As a side note, I would also slam those that think it's a legitimate religious path for the same reason; just because it explains some anomalies doesn't mean that it explains all of them or that it should be seen as an alternative to religion. Religion and science need to keep separate, at least in terms in which prove that, say, The Bible is 100% right. I think that I've shown that, even though I think that it's a great book and can be used to help with historical puzzles, or at least point out that some exist, The Bible quickly hits limits when it is used for more than a philosophical text.
In other words, religion may point to science, and science to religion, they shouldn't be mistaken for each other...
| Quote: |
| If ID is science, ID must answer to scientific questions. You can't just say "and then something happened" in a scientific theory and expect to go unchallenged... you must present a valid hypothesis for what happened. If you claim a mechanism has caused some event, you must identify the mechanism. If you claim a designer, you must identify the designer. |
As noted: Consider it a work in progress. No one is actively looking for a specific designer, but that's because everyone is too busy doing what got into it in the first place. Sorry....
| Quote: |
| Every time an ID proponent has done so, they've fingered God (the Christian god). i'd say ID has identified the entity involved, as much as they'd like to deny that. If they want to turn around and say that that was just personal speculation that's separate from the theory proper, fine - but they still have to identify the designer. |
Except that others have turned to Buddhism, others Hinduism, others pagan religions, and others just go for some sort of generic superior being. And of course there are those that believe that aliens are to blame. You're going with the Wikipedia entry; this is one of those times Wikipedia isn't all that accurate...
| Quote: |
| Because scientists have a philosophy. It's called the scientific method. It's also known as methodological naturalism. It's worked for around 400 years now, in more or less its current form. It's taken us from the Renaissance to the Space Age and promises to go beyond. |
That's a workplace methodology; not a philosophy...
| Quote: |
| If you want to make a new field based on this new philosophy, go nuts. i'd applaud the effort. Why screw around with science when it's working so well? Why not leave science be and make a new field? If the new philosophy works, the new field may out-pace science. |
Huh? Who said anything about replacing science...?
| Quote: |
| i wouldn't bet on it, though. |
Heh. Neither would I...
The thing to keep in mind is that I'm NOT (obviously) going with the version of ID as put forth by any form of Creationist; even though I personally believe in the Christian God, does not mean that I necessarily agree with everyone that also believes in Him, or that I think that forms of belief are necessarily limited to simply Christianity, and that there is room for even Atheism. Then again, I do tend towards optimism; I'm still waiting for atheists to realize that it's a religion...
HM | Bikerman wrote: |
| The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths. |
Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?
Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths. |
Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?
Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...
HM |
Those scientists said the Earth revolved around the sun because the Bible says/implies so. | liljp617 wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths. |
Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?
Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...
HM |
Those scientists said the Earth revolved around the sun because the Bible says/implies so. |
Heliocentric science isn't the only subject those scientists studied though. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths. |
Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?
Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...
HM |
Well no - not really. I used the present tense, I am not talking about historical scientists who had little choice other than to be religious. I specifically said 'most scientists realise' which is a statement about most scientists today.
Why is it that you resort to such fallacious arguments? Namely;- Many scientists in history have been religious ergo science and religion are compatible. This has nothing to do with my statement or the fact that the situation is different today. The debate is about ID, not religion per se. The difference has already been covered.
- Spirituality equates to creationism/ID. No, it doesn't
Now, my evidence for saying that most scientists reject creationism;
Well I went to the Creation Science website to find their list. This is a highly pro-creationist site and naturally they would wish to present the best possible scientific credentials they can. Nevertheless they list about 100 scientists* who believe in creationism. I am accepting that all the people they list are scientists (which is a big 'gimme' since many of them are clearly not practicing scientists).
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/
So I said 'most scientists'. How many scientists are there worldwide? I don't know the exact number. Certainly tens of thousands. Probably hundreds of thousands. How many express a belief in ID/Creationism? According to the ICR website about 100*. I think that qualifies as 'most'. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the ICR list is not exhaustive and that there are other scientists out there who believe in ID, and if you have some evidence that there are thousands of creationist scientists out there then let's see it. Otherwise my statement stands. (Remember - in science the onus is on disproving the statement, not proving it).
PS - I counted - there are 80 names listed.
http://skepdic.com/creation.html | Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | I have read the book "Who Built The Moon?" which (sort of) concludes that whe are most likely the result of an alien race (or something intelligent) "building" our solar system and programming DNA strings to eventually evolve into us. Its actually too complicated to tell everything here but it is sort of guided evolution. Which is something I think of the most likely and I WANT to believe in. |
Er... pardon me for pointing out the obvious... but aside for substituting an alien designer for a divine designer... isn't that just ID all over again? |
No it concludes that all the planets, the moon etc. etc. where "built"or placed to make a good place (earth) for us humans then they planted bacteria which where Proframmed to turn into us humans.
ID is that there where humans suddenly out of blue. The book states that we are the result of a really long evolution.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | But since the universe is endless... as wel in space AND time (litle bit of math here)
"something" X endless X endless = endless
(as long as "something" is not zero or below zero(minus)). So the chance that we exist is again very high(endless). |
Unfortunately the math does not work. Firstly, the universe is not endless in time. Current estimates are that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. Secondly, you cannot separate space and time in this way since they are part of the same thing - spacetime. In math they would be dependant variables. Therefore you cannot do the 'sum' infinite time multiplied by infinite space because it doesn't make sense. |
I tried it to make it simple but here I go: ((it is somewhat Philosophical))
As for the age of the universe: People say that the universe is 13.7 years old but who knows that for shure?? Maybe longer maybe shorter this is based on models where data has been added. However these models are theoretic, there are assumptions built into the models and the data in the model (the variables) may also be wrong or corrupted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Age_as_a_function_of_cosmological_parameters (for how they calculater the age of the universe).
"Our" time is endless time, it has no start nor an end so in it self is endless.
I do believe in the big bang. But before that there was something and after the end of our universe (if there is). There will be something too.
"Our" time is endless time, it has no start nor an end so in it self is endless. (I don't believer that energy or whatever energy is made of (or something even smaller, or somthing EVEN smaller. etc.etc.) will cease to excist. Because it's not logical that something that has an end has no beginning. (If something has an end it has an beginning). I believe there has been always something and therefore always will be something. And if there is something there is potential for life.
So there is ALWAYS potential for life. ENDLESS
As for "space" there's endless space I hope everyone agrees on that. also ENDLESS
So there is always potential for life and there is an endless amount of space for life to start in.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | There is one and only one theory of intelligent design. |
Like there is only one form of atheism, one form of Christianity, one form of Buddhism, one form Judaism, one form of...you get the idea. Any belief , or system thereof, will have its own factions, sects, whatever, that have different perspectives or viewpoints on the same thing that may not match the generic viewpoint. |
Just for the record:
WRONG!! there is not 1 form of christanity. There are Catholics and there is Protestantism very different. Beside that there Christianity started of as a part of Judainsm. Budhism started because of a fight between Hindi's.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths. |
Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?
Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...
HM |
As Bikerman said above they HAD to practice those religions otherwise they would end up in a fire(Execution by burning) not hell. And especially in the middle ages in Europe the only people who could afford studying something where monks, clerks, etc. However a lot of scientists from the Middle East or Asia did come up with a lot of smart stuff which is religious at all. But all of that has been forgotten and/or ignored by modern Western scientists. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
I tried it to make it simple but here I go: ((it is somewhat Philosophical))
|
I'll try to cope. | Quote: |
As for the age of the universe: People say that the universe is 13.7 years old but who knows that for shure?? Maybe longer maybe shorter this is based on models where data has been added. However these models are theoretic, there are assumptions built into the models and the data in the model (the variables) may also be wrong or corrupted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Age_as_a_function_of_cosmological_parameters (for how they calculater the age of the universe).
"Our" time is endless time, it has no start nor an end so in it self is endless.
|
So you are going from a possible error in the model to the assumption that time is therefore endless? Hmm....
| Quote: |
I do believe in the big bang. But before that there was something and after the end of our universe (if there is). There will be something too.
"Our" time is endless time, it has no start nor an end so in it self is endless. (I don't believer that energy or whatever energy is made of (or something even smaller, or somthing EVEN smaller. etc.etc.) will cease to excist. Because it's not logical that something that has an end has no beginning. (If something has an end it has an beginning). I believe there has been always something and therefore always will be something. And if there is something there is potential for life.
So there is ALWAYS potential for life. ENDLESS |
I'm still waiting for the philosophy. All we have here is your personal belief. There is no evidence to support this belief (unless you know something I don't and you have neglected to mention it). There are indeed theories of a cyclical nature based around m-theory but I have the feeling that this is not what you are referring to..
| Quote: |
| As for "space" there's endless space I hope everyone agrees on that. |
Well no actually we don't. According to the normal Einstein model of the universe there is a finite amount of spacetime. The value for the curvature of space would determine whether this spacetime is flat or curved back on itself. If it is curved back then it would be apparently infinite but at the same time bounded (image the surface of a beach-ball - you can wander around it forever but it has finite boundaries). | Bikerman wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | I tried it to make it simple but here I go: ((it is somewhat Philosophical))
|
I'll try to cope. | Quote: | As for the age of the universe: People say that the universe is 13.7 years old but who knows that for shure?? Maybe longer maybe shorter this is based on models where data has been added. However these models are theoretic, there are assumptions built into the models and the data in the model (the variables) may also be wrong or corrupted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Age_as_a_function_of_cosmological_parameters (for how they calculater the age of the universe).
"Our" time is endless time, it has no start nor an end so in it self is endless.
|
So you are going from a possible error in the model to the assumption that time is therefore endless? Hmm....
| Quote: | I do believe in the big bang. But before that there was something and after the end of our universe (if there is). There will be something too.
"Our" time is endless time, it has no start nor an end so in it self is endless. (I don't believer that energy or whatever energy is made of (or something even smaller, or somthing EVEN smaller. etc.etc.) will cease to excist. Because it's not logical that something that has an end has no beginning. (If something has an end it has an beginning). I believe there has been always something and therefore always will be something. And if there is something there is potential for life.
So there is ALWAYS potential for life. ENDLESS |
I'm still waiting for the philosophy. All we have here is your personal belief. There is no evidence to support this belief (unless you know something I don't and you have neglected to mention it). There are indeed theories of a cyclical nature based around m-theory but I have the feeling that this is not what you are referring to..
| Quote: | | As for "space" there's endless space I hope everyone agrees on that. |
Well no actually we don't. According to the normal Einstein model of the universe there is a finite amount of spacetime. The value for the curvature of space would determine whether this spacetime is flat or curved back on itself. If it is curved back then it would be apparently infinite but at the same time bounded (image the surface of a beach-ball - you can wander around it forever but it has finite boundaries). |
you dont need to anylyze curves in space time to realize that creationism is not science. While it is a theory, it is not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. | videoguy wrote: |
| you dont need to anylyze curves in space time to realize that creationism is not science. While it is a theory, it is not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. |
A timely reminder (for which I thank you) that we are straying from the point of the thread. | videoguy wrote: |
you dont need to anylyze curves in space time to realize that creationism is not science. While it is a theory, it is not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. |
Lol maybe we should start a seperate topic on that one. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | There is one and only one theory of intelligent design. |
Like there is only one form of atheism, one form of Christianity, one form of Buddhism, one form Judaism, one form of...you get the idea. Any belief , or system thereof, will have its own factions, sects, whatever, that have different perspectives or viewpoints on the same thing that may not match the generic viewpoint. |
^_^; No, like there is only one kinetic theory of temperature, only one theory of quantum chromodynamics, only one theory of general relativity... you get the idea.
i am not talking about "belief systems", i am talking about scientific theories, which are (supposed to be) well-defined. If they are well-defined, you can't have factions. You can certainly have people who interpret the meaning of any given theory a number of ways, but that's just a matter of interpretation. Even if there are multiple interpretations of a theory, there's still only one theory - just like even if there are multiple interpretations of a work of art, there's still only one work of art.
Theories can be extended, or modified, but any of those extensions or modifications are also well-defined, and quite distinct (for example you can talk about quantum chromodynamics, and you can talk about quantum chromodynamics with supersymmetry).
Science is not like religion. It doesn't thrive on vagueness, perspective or interpretation. It demands clarity and precision. Thus far, one and only one theory called the theory of intelligent design has been promoted. You can make whatever interpretations from this theory that you like - and unfortunately, the theory is so vaguely-defined that it's possible to interpret it a ton of different ways. That is, of course, intentional. It makes ID appealing to a broader group.
(Incidentally, your religion analogy kinda sucks. ^_^; i could just as well have used religions, too - i would just have to name more specific denominations rather than the vague overarching generalized labels you chose.)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | If ID isn't a religious movement - if it really is a science, as its proponents claim - then who gives a crap about the religious bickering between its adherents? Those problems are their religious concerns, and have no relevance on the validity of ID as a science. |
ID isn't a science; it's a belief. Just as atheism and Christianity are beliefs. |
The proponents of ID claim it's a science. They claim that it is rigorously defined, and falsifiable. One of the two topics of this thread is to evaluate that claim. The other is to question whether ID and creationism are one and the same.
Why don't you pretend to be a scientist (or a good philosopher), and practise clarity; why don't you clearly and concisely state your position on these two topics - the topics of the thread from the first post:
1) Is Intelligent Design (ID) scientific? Is it a valid scientific hypothesis and is it supported by any evidence? What is the definition of ID and how can it be tested?
2) Is ID distinct from Creationism? Is ID functionally different from creationism? Are the supporters of ID different and distinct from the supporters of creationism?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | "A lot"? How many? Show us the studies, or the literature reviews to support this claim. |
Part of me is "why bother"". The other is that there have a number of interesting polls, which seem to indicate that a lot of scientists (62% according a poll in Time) believe in more significant than man that seems to have had a hand in how things developed. Just thought it was interesting... |
Why bother? Because you made a claim. The responsible thing to do is back that claim up with facts. That's why bother.
Anyway, according to what poll in Time? Give a date, or a link.
The only poll i found that was even remotely relevant claimed "But, 62% of adults in the same study believed that God created humans as whole persons without any evolutionary development." That was the only mention of 62%, and it had nothing to do with scientists (in fact, it was from a study to show that most laypeople don't have a clue about science - they gave a bunch of people a description of evolution by natural selection without the word "evolution", and 78% percent said it worked for plants and animals, but 62% said it didn't when applied to humans). ⁅Public Acceptance of Evolution, Miller, Scott & Okamoto, Science, 11-Aug-2006 v313⁆
(See that bit at the end between the "⁅⁆"? That's how you show your sources. Give it a shot.)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | | I appreciate that there is a certain amount of the anthropomorphic principle in play here, but there are a number of interesting issues to be considered here as well. We know that there can be no dragons because the classic dragon has six limbs (two legs, two arms, and two wings); there are no six-limbed vertebrates. |
What? |
In other words: Why no vertebrates that don't have any other limb arrangements other than 0/2/4? There are some representatives of these in the Burgess Shale, but none past that point. |
Oh, i understood what you meant. i meant: "what the hell does that have to do with ID being a science or no - or being creationism or no?"
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | | The double-blind experiment is another interesting anomaly, as it can't be recorded. |
Excuse me? |
Sorry; double slit experiment. A reasonably famous paradox: You can observe the lines clearly, but it comes out muddy when filmed. On the other hand, if filmed with no intent to record or so that the recording is destroyed as it's made, the lines can be seen. |
Aiya. -_-
Ooook.
- Sources. Provide them.
- A certain amount of "muddiness" is to be expected. You're getting Gaussian distributions, after all.
- If what you say is true, how the freak did they take these: 1, 2
- i've done the double slit experiment with neon-helium lasers and electron beams. i can go and do it tomorrow with the NeHe laser - the apparatus is all set up and just a hundred meters from where i work. Should i try it tomorrow? Should i go, turn it on, observe it with my eyes (no recording), then use my cell phone to snap a shot? Do you really think i will see a difference?
- Do you even fathom the absurdity of making a claim that has such profound and far-reaching implications for the very nature of reality... yet requires apparatus available at many high schools... but that isn't household knowledge everywhere?
- What? (Again, shorthand for: "what the hell does that have to do with ID being a science or no - or being creationism or no?" i'll be using that a lot, so a shorthand is handy.)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | (For the record, every single properly-designed scientific study of the efficacy of prayer has yielded null results... or worse (in the most recent case). Every study that has given positive results has been shown to have had procedural problems (usually poor control, or no control).) |
For the record: Er...no. Prayer has been shown to work for certain ailments, especially those where the doctor has suggested some form of slowing down. However, as the recent studies re: heart disease show, it's not consistent. Unless, of course, "properly-designed scientific study" only applies to those that you agree with. And note that I'm not including a good portion of the experiments due to an obvious religious bent, atheist or otherwise. |
"Properly-designed scientific study" means properly-designed scientific study. Properly-defined scientific studies are not determined by their results or whether or not i agree with them, they are determined by whether or not they meet the well-known, clearly defined, principles of good experimental design.
You mentioned "heart disease", which made me think you might be referring to this study. If so, you might want to check the conclusion. ^_^;
But once again, i ask: what?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | | And then there is the whole issue of parapsychology and affirmations. |
The hell does that - or any of this - have to do with ID? |
Ghosts and wishes; they seem to ignore a lot of science...In essence, stuff that can be verified that it works and/or exists, yet for which there is no logical scientific explanation. |
What?!?! Ghosts ignore a lot of science? O_o What in the hell are you talking about?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | Science is not about personal opinions. Your lack of imagination does not represent a scientific challenge. |
1) Science is nothing but personal opinions; they just have the advantage of working out a good percentage of the time. |
You think science is just a bunch of opinions? Opinions that just happen to work? O_o Are you serious?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Consider phlogiston before you post...It was something that was "proven" to exist, and then we found that it wasn't there or needed. Interestingly, some scientists have been revisiting the concept in light of dark matter. |
^_^;
Ok, here's a very quick lesson in remedial philosophy of science. Science does not "prove" anything. Never. Not ever. Does not happen. It had been that way since the beginning of modern science (known as Baconian science) in the 17th century, even before it was called science. Oddly enough, you even seem to know this, because you go on to argue it in the very next paragraph!
Science did not "prove" the existence of phlogiston, or the lumiferous aether, or anything like that. Never. Science hasn't even "proven" the existence of atoms. Science hasn't even freaking "proven" the existence of water!
Phlogiston was assumed to exist because assuming it existed provided explanations for a host of observed phenomena. It made predictions that could be tested, and they were. By and large, they seemed to support the idea, but there were things that were not quite kosher. They knew of these problems, but could not find a way to explain them, and could not think of another way to explain the things that phlogiston did explain. So they kept working.
Once they came up with the idea of caloric, which explained everything phlogiston explained and then some, they moved on to the new theory. That's the way science works. Neither phlogiston nor caloric were opinions, they were theoretical explanatory models; models that were developed because they explain observations well and provide directions for further research. Both were disproven and replaced with superior models, but both guided science well enough while they were in use.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| For that matter, consider extremophiles (life forms that exist in hostile environments); they exist in locations where biologists said that life is impossible. As any decent scientist will tell you, science is science until disproven; if it's able to be disproven, how is it not an opinion? (Something that was taught in my science classes, BTW...) |
Ok, about the extremophile thing: what? ^_^;
About the question: "if it's able to be disproven, how is it not an opinion?"... it's not an opinion because it's not a personal view, and nor is it subjective. Don't you know what an opinion is? It is a subjective belief. Scientific theories, like phlogiston and caloric, are neither subjective nor beliefs. They are intersubjective models of natural systems. Therefore, they are not opinions.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 2) Who said anything about "scientific challenge" (whatever that means)? I'm not trying to challenge science, but rather limited thinking about it. |
No, you are not challenging limited thinking about science. You are challenging limited thinking in science. That would be challenging science. ^_^;
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | (Incidentally... Sagan and Hawking?!?! First of all, Sagan's "god" was the same as Einstein's "god". He wrote about spiritual experiences in exactly the same way Einstein did - experiencing the natural universe in all its glory is what spiritualism is, to both of them. Hawking is harder to pin down - some label him deist, some label him atheist - but one thing's for sure, he did not write about the "spirituality" of the universe. He wrote that the universe didn't need a god.) |
That there is some disagreement re: Hawking's belief is, in this case, noteworthy. I also disagree that being a Deist is necessarily atheist; doesn't it imply that, at least some point, that there was a god of some sort, and that this being had a hand in the universe? Keep in mind, BTW, that the version of ID I'm proposing is essentially Deist in nature, in that it's not reliant on a present deity.., |
You disagree with who? i didn't say that being a deist is necessarily atheist. i said the exact opposite. i also explicitly said that Hawking's beliefs are unclear. But i don't see how that makes it "noteworthy" to any discussion of ID.
i also don't care about what version of ID you're proposing, unless you're publishing an article on the matter to be peer-reviewed. ID is a theory - outlined by its proponents - that exists regardless of what you think about it. If you don't buy the theory of ID, you don't buy the theory of ID. That's all there is to it. There is no "i don't buy the theory published by the creators of ID, but i have my own take on it". That's like saying "i don't buy the theory of general relativity, but i have my own take on it". It's nonsense.
If you have your own personal interpretations and beliefs based on the theory of ID, fine - but irrelevant. If you have a modified version of ID (ie, a new theory) in mind, fine - but irrelevant. Unless you're talking about the same thing everyone else is talking about, which is the theory of intelligent design, you are just sowing confusion. There is only one theory of intelligent design, and if you don't know it, you should probably learn it before engaging in a debate on it.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | Science is not about personal beliefs. Who cares if you're atheist or not? It has no relevance to whether ID is a scientific theory, and whether or not it is correct. |
Apparently it does. |
Because you say it does?
ID will be science or not on the basis of whether it meets the requirements of a scientific theory. Nothing more, nothing less. Your religion is irrelevant.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | Science is also not about proving or disproving the existence of any god. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying - trying to usurp science for their religious agenda. |
And again, not trying to do that either. I'm just finding it interesting that I'm allowed to have any belief I want, as long as it doesn't disagree with yours. |
There is no condition: you're allowed to have any belief you want. Why would your beliefs be constrained by my opinions.
You are not, however, allowed to have your own facts.
Fact: there is a theory called the theory of intelligent design, with several published books that outline the theory and attempt to apply it.
Fact: there are not two theories of ID in the scientific literature, or the popular literature.
Fact: there are a number of religious groups that use ID as a basis, and make their own (religious) interpretations using it.
Fact: there is still only one underlying theory.
You can have your own opinions - any opinions you want. They don't matter here. Neither do mine.
Facts matter. Show me a book that describes an alternate "scientific" theory also called the theory of intelligent design, and you'll have a case. (i say "scientific" for two reasons: 1. we haven't determined whether ID is science yet, 2. there is a non-scientific theory of intelligent design in industrial design theory)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | Science is not about personal beliefs. Most ID proponents are young Earth creationists (didn't know that, i bet). So what? That's not reason enough to ditch the theory (as i already said). |
And, again, I reiterate that I'm not proposing by any stretch any form of Creationist theory ("Creationist theory" meaning that it has something to do with the creation of the Earth in six days or less). And science, just like religion, is about personal belief; it's a sad fact, but true nonetheless. |
You are also not talking about the theory of intelligent design, which means you are wasting our time.
And no, creationist theory doesn't mean what you say it means.
And no, science is not about personal belief - and if it were true, i suppose it might be a sad fact, but that's not a concern. The planets will move by whatever laws guide them regardless of the opinions of the scientists watching them. The models we develop to attempt to describe those motions will stand or fall on the basis of how effective they are at describing those motions, regardless of anyone's opinion.
Opinion is not a factor here.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | By doing that, they've brought their god, and their religion, into the cold, hard light of science. Not a bright move, i'd say - and they know it, which is why they dance around it so much before finally getting cornered. |
Ever think that the reason that some of us dance around it because, even though we see something interesting, we can't really define it, and people forcing a definition are there simply to disprove it? It's easy to disprove that an incomplete theory doesn't work; it doesn't really take all that brainpower or even basic common sense. |
No. ^_^ Ever think that by trying to find precise definitions we might be trying to help you complete the theory? Then it wouldn't be so easily dismissable, now would it?
People see interesting things all the time. i read about this lady that saw Jesus Christ in her grilled cheese sandwich. That's pretty interesting.
It's also pretty useless, because when a precise analysis is applied, one finds the claim to be nonsense. Would you rather we didn't apply that precise analysis and left people worshipping a fried processed-cheese lunch?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| It's just interesting that atheists are the flat-earthers this time, debunking something just because they don't believe in it before a proper hypothesis has even been put together. |
You have the most whimsical analogies. ^_^;
You know, there are right ways and wrong ways to analogize. This is a wrong way:
- i don't like X.
- i don't like Y.
- X's do A.
- Y's do A.
- Therefore X's are like Y's.
And this is a right way:
- i don't like X's, who are defined by A.
- Y's also do A.
- Therefore X's are like Y's.
Let's try it in action. First, the wrong way:
- i don't like atheists.
- i don't like flat Earthers.
- Atheists debunk things they don't believe in.
- Flat Earthers debunk things they don't believe in.
- Therefore atheists are like flat Earthers.
Now, the right way:
- i don't like flat Earthers's, who are defined by ignoring the tenets of science in order to believe what they want.
- Atheists also... er... wait a minute... by your own statement above, atheists do use science to dismiss the incomplete pseudoscientific claims of theists. That's not my opinion, but it is exactly what you said.
- Therefore... atheists are not like flat Earthers.
Saying "atheists do X" doesn't make it true. In point of fact, ID is not being rejected because atheists disagree with it, it is being rejected for very specific, clearly articulated and critically important reasons. It is being rejected because it violates the philosophy of science.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
As a side note, I would also slam those that think it's a legitimate religious path for the same reason; just because it explains some anomalies doesn't mean that it explains all of them or that it should be seen as an alternative to religion. Religion and science need to keep separate, at least in terms in which prove that, say, The Bible is 100% right. I think that I've shown that, even though I think that it's a great book and can be used to help with historical puzzles, or at least point out that some exist, The Bible quickly hits limits when it is used for more than a philosophical text.
In other words, religion may point to science, and science to religion, they shouldn't be mistaken for each other... |
One minute science is a religion, next minute... ^_^;
Anyway, i don't care what religion does. They can agree with scientific findings, or they can go flat Earth, or they can do a Waco... none of that is relevant to the questions at hand (the ones in the first post).
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | If ID is science, ID must answer to scientific questions. You can't just say "and then something happened" in a scientific theory and expect to go unchallenged... you must present a valid hypothesis for what happened. If you claim a mechanism has caused some event, you must identify the mechanism. If you claim a designer, you must identify the designer. |
As noted: Consider it a work in progress. No one is actively looking for a specific designer, but that's because everyone is too busy doing what got into it in the first place. Sorry.... |
String theory is also a work in progress, as is QLG. There are a number of non-Darwinian evolutionary theories that are also works in progress.
What i'm saying is that being a work in progress is no great barrier to being scientifically relevant. Your claim that ID is not "ready" for mainstream science is hooey. (It's also contrary to what the very designers and proponents of the theory say, and certainly contrary to the argument that it should be taught in schools.)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | Every time an ID proponent has done so, they've fingered God (the Christian god). i'd say ID has identified the entity involved, as much as they'd like to deny that. If they want to turn around and say that that was just personal speculation that's separate from the theory proper, fine - but they still have to identify the designer. |
Except that others have turned to Buddhism, others Hinduism, others pagan religions, and others just go for some sort of generic superior being. And of course there are those that believe that aliens are to blame. You're going with the Wikipedia entry; this is one of those times Wikipedia isn't all that accurate... |
*sigh*
First, i haven't read any Wikipedia entries on any of this that i can recall. i probably did at some point in my research, but i am basing my claims on papers by Scott, Cole and Pennock. You may find the Wikipedia entry you're talking about (whichever one that is) uses one or more of them as sources.
Second, i don't care what religions anyone in the ID or general science community have. Your religion is irrelevant to science (or should be). What i said was that while describing the theory, every ID proponent named God as the designer. They didn't say they believed in God (some did at other points, some didn't, but i wasn't interested anyway), they said the theory pointed to God. In theory, they could have been Raellians stating that the theory pointed to the Christian god. Because - assuming the theory is science - what the theory points to should not be a function of anyone's beliefs. No ID proponent names anyone or anything as the creator, except the Christian god. That is an indisputable fact. (In fact, at least one has explicitly ruled out any possibilities except the Christian god... using argument from the theory, not their own personal beliefs.)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | Because scientists have a philosophy. It's called the scientific method. It's also known as methodological naturalism. It's worked for around 400 years now, in more or less its current form. It's taken us from the Renaissance to the Space Age and promises to go beyond. |
That's a workplace methodology; not a philosophy... |
No, it's a philosophy. The methodology is built on the philosophy, but i am not talking about that. i am talking about the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science is called "the scientific method", or "methodological naturalism" (the methodology is also called "the scientific method", but the methodology implies&requires the philosophy... meaning they're effectively inseparable). It has many different aspects, such as reductionism (it is possible to explain the universe by looking at its parts), naturalism (it is possible to explain natural effects by natural causes), empiricism, and so on. It applies limitations on what can be studied by virtue of assumptions about the subject of study.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | If you want to make a new field based on this new philosophy, go nuts. i'd applaud the effort. Why screw around with science when it's working so well? Why not leave science be and make a new field? If the new philosophy works, the new field may out-pace science. |
Huh? Who said anything about replacing science...? |
*shrugs* i dunno. Where did you read it?
You said that science's philosophy was flawed/lacking. i said changing it would be stupid given its wildly successful track record. So, logically, if you have an improved philosophy, start a new field with that philosophy. That way science remains untouched and continue doing what it does. And at the same time this new, better philosophy gets applied. Everyone wins. No?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The thing to keep in mind is that I'm NOT (obviously) going with the version of ID as put forth by any form of Creationist |
Then you don't accept ID. Every ID proponent is a creationist. ID itself degenerates (on deep analysis) to a creationist theory. Both of these are provable facts. The first is proven by the many literature reviews and the writings of the ID proponents themselves (apparently the fact is so widely known and so undisputed that even Wikipedia mentions it).
The second... i'll get to that.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Then again, I do tend towards optimism; I'm still waiting for atheists to realize that it's a religion... |
You go for it. ^_^; It's always uplifting to see someone sticking to their guns in the face of all logic. Good for you to stand by your definition of atheism even though it's contradicted by every writing on the subject! After all, that's what the flat Earthers do-
Uh oh. ^_^; | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Sorry; double slit experiment. A reasonably famous paradox: You can observe the lines clearly, but it comes out muddy when filmed. On the other hand, if filmed with no intent to record or so that the recording is destroyed as it's made, the lines can be seen. |
Indi dealt with this above but I want to emphasise that this is totally wrong. It's an important point because supporters of particular religious viewpoints often point to relatively little-known areas of science for support, and quantum physics is a favourite. I'll put a posting in the Science forum on this which explains what the experiment actually is and how you can set it up for yourself. For the moment, suffice it to say that the description above is pure nonsense. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| ID is that there where humans suddenly out of blue. |
That's Creationism...
| Quote: |
Just for the record:
WRONG!! there is not 1 form of christanity. There are Catholics and there is Protestantism very different. Beside that there Christianity started of as a part of Judainsm. Budhism started because of a fight between Hindi's. |
Apparently there is...
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
As Bikerman said above they HAD to practice those religions otherwise they would end up in a fire(Execution by burning) not hell. And especially in the middle ages in Europe the only people who could afford studying something where monks, clerks, etc. However a lot of scientists from the Middle East or Asia did come up with a lot of smart stuff which is religious at all. But all of that has been forgotten and/or ignored by modern Western scientists. |
Just not buying that; are you seriously telling me that the only reason anyone has to be religious is because of fear of being torched? Get real;
Re: Double-slit Experiment
Obviously the conclusion of that was described wrong to me. Sorry for bringing it up.
Obvious question: If what I'm describing is not ID, then what is it?
HMLet the wading begin...
| Indi wrote: |
i am not talking about "belief systems", i am talking about scientific theories, which are (supposed to be) well-defined. If they are well-defined, you can't have factions. You can certainly have people who interpret the meaning of any given theory a number of ways, but that's just a matter of interpretation. Even if there are multiple interpretations of a theory, there's still only one theory - just like even if there are multiple interpretations of a work of art, there's still only one work of art. |
Keep that in mind...
| Quote: |
| Thus far, one and only one theory called the theory of intelligent design has been promoted. You can make whatever interpretations from this theory that you like - and unfortunately, the theory is so vaguely-defined that it's possible to interpret it a ton of different ways. That is, of course, intentional. It makes ID appealing to a broader group. |
So, in your opinion, would it be possible, under the constraints re: ID theory that you have read, would it be possible to believe in science (13.7B age of the universe, evolution, et al) and still believe in some higher power?
| Quote: |
| (Incidentally, your religion analogy kinda sucks. ^_^; i could just as well have used religions, too - i would just have to name more specific denominations rather than the vague overarching generalized labels you chose.) |
The religion analogy was to point out that there is usually no one interpretation of any given belief. More to the point, that the one ID theory being promoted is not necessarily the only one. Although you may like it, doesn't mean that everyone else does.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The proponents of ID claim it's a science. They claim that it is rigorously defined, and falsifiable. One of the two topics of this thread is to evaluate that claim. The other is to question whether ID and creationism are one and the same. |
ID, as you have defined it, is not a science. As I've defined it, it still isn't a science; it's not interested in the the what and how of thing, but merely the why.
| Quote: |
Why don't you pretend to be a scientist (or a good philosopher), and practise clarity; why don't you clearly and concisely state your position on these two topics - the topics of the thread from the first post:
1) Is Intelligent Design (ID) scientific? Is it a valid scientific hypothesis and is it supported by any evidence? What is the definition of ID and how can it be tested?
2) Is ID distinct from Creationism? Is ID functionally different from creationism? Are the supporters of ID different and distinct from the supporters of creationism? |
In all honesty, I thought I had. Putting it bluntly: ID is not a science; it's a philosophy, just as atheism is a philosophy. Also, it's very distinct from Creationism, as science is different Creationism.
Looking at it from a slightly different perspective for a moment: The problem is that too many atheists look on science as a way to prove once and for all whether or not God (or some equivalent) exists. Meanwhile, you have too many wannabe religious types trying use Science to prove God. That's simply not going to happen, from either side. Science and Religion should be separated, but, as scientists have known since the beginning of Time, they can be used to fuel each other, one exploring God's creation to see what is there, and the other feeding that sense of curiosity and providing solace when something doesn't quite work out. Too bad that seems to have forgotten somewhere along the line...
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
(See that bit at the end between the "⁅⁆"? That's how you show your sources. Give it a shot.) |
Keep trying that...but, unlike Bikerman, I'm looking for a reasonably clean source. I do keep getting things like this, this (which defines the issue pretty well), and this. In essence, I'm finding a lot of sources, but none that I feel that great about; even the Gallup polls I'm not sure if they are asking the right questions (for example, is it right to ask whether or not you believe in Evolution as put forth by Darwin and other scientists, or Creationism, knowing that Darwin's theory still allowed for God? The more I look at poll results, the more I doubt that they can be used to prove anything; if I ask "Do you believe in God?", wouldn't someone who was Buddhist or Hindu answer in the negative? I'm just finding too many polls that I'm not sure if they are asking the right questions...
| Quote: |
| Oh, i understood what you meant. i meant: "what the hell does that have to do with ID being a science or no - or being creationism or no?" |
One of the more interesting questions that was asked of the Burgess Shale is that there seemed to be a lot of successful lifeforms that seemed to ignore the rules that we know and love today (one vertebrate had seven limbs, for example). Relative to this debate, if there was so much diversity, what happened to it? Why were vertebrates with a specific number of limbs successful, and others not? Just trying to point out that there are some interesting questions here and there...
| Quote: |
| You mentioned "heart disease", which made me think you might be referring to this study. If so, you might want to check the conclusion. ^_^; |
"Inconsistent" in this situation didn't refer to that particular study; rather, that the results re: prayer in a wide variety of studies do not show consistent effects. Read: If prayer was something that could be easily quantified, then why does it seem to of positive, negative, and negligible effect?
| Quote: |
| What?!?! Ghosts ignore a lot of science? O_o What in the hell are you talking about? |
Sorry; wasn't aware that ghosts (and other paranormal) had easy scientific explanations.
| Quote: |
| You think science is just a bunch of opinions? Opinions that just happen to work? O_o Are you serious? |
Just personal opinions with some very good backing;-). Sorry; had all of the wrong science teachers. They had this silly little idea that science needed to be looked at critically no matter the source, especially given that science seems to be changing its own laws. More importantly, that this constant changing isn't to be seen as a bad thing; consider the refinements of evolutionary theory since Darwin. In essence, you needed to allow that something revolutionary could come up any day, but to treat the current rules as biding. Even Einstein pointed out that he didn't know everything, and that some kid could change everything he had discovered.
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | Consider phlogiston before you post...It was something that was "proven" to exist, and then we found that it wasn't there or needed. Interestingly, some scientists have been revisiting the concept in light of dark matter. |
^_^; |
The logic is simply that dark matter only makes sense if it permeates everything (as phlogiston was thought to); the idea in looking back to see what research was done as inspiration re: dark matter. Not because pholgiston was taken seriously; it's just that there some perceived benefit to looking at even failures...
| Quote: |
| Ok, here's a very quick lesson in remedial philosophy of science. Science does not "prove" anything. Never. Not ever. Does not happen. It had been that way since the beginning of modern science (known as Baconian science) in the 17th century, even before it was called science. Oddly enough, you even seem to know this, because you go on to argue it in the very next paragraph! |
So, what's the difference between this and personal opinion? Science will always be the explanation that best works; Occam's Razor says it best. However, it needs to be noted, especially in the current discussion, that Science is an opinion. That's why I noted in the beginning of this post what I noted; even Science has factions, especially when there is a major New Idea that needs clarification. There are new terms to be defined, new standards to worry about, and a host of major complications. When the New Idea is shinier than the Old Idea it's replacing, you have factions that are there solely to nail the New Idea (which is as it should be; the New Idea needs to show that it has legs). And the New Idea will eventually be an Old Idea; Science can be circular that way.
Ultimately. Science is nothing but an opinion. It's just one that has the backing of hard research...
| Quote: |
Science did not "prove" the existence of phlogiston, or the lumiferous aether, or anything like that. Never. Science hasn't even "proven" the existence of atoms. Science hasn't even freaking "proven" the existence of water!
Phlogiston was assumed to exist because assuming it existed provided explanations for a host of observed phenomena. It made predictions that could be tested, and they were. By and large, they seemed to support the idea, but there were things that were not quite kosher. They knew of these problems, but could not find a way to explain them, and could not think of another way to explain the things that phlogiston did explain. So they kept working.
Once they came up with the idea of caloric, which explained everything phlogiston explained and then some, they moved on to the new theory. That's the way science works. Neither phlogiston nor caloric were opinions, they were theoretical explanatory models; models that were developed because they explain observations well and provide directions for further research. Both were disproven and replaced with superior models, but both guided science well enough while they were in use. |
Um...Duh? But if you knew that I knew that, why type it in? Weird...
| Quote: |
| Ok, about the extremophile thing: what? ^_^; |
It was provable that life forms had very set limits that defined the entirety of existence; just making a point that those limits were not as hard and fast as were thought.
| Quote: |
| About the question: "if it's able to be disproven, how is it not an opinion?"... it's not an opinion because it's not a personal view, and nor is it subjective. Don't you know what an opinion is? It is a subjective belief. Scientific theories, like phlogiston and caloric, are neither subjective nor beliefs. They are intersubjective models of natural systems. Therefore, they are not opinions. |
If it lets you sleep at night...A better way of looking at it, by the way, is that science is the best interpretation of the data at hand. However, there should be nothing wrong with admitting that it is an opinion; by ignoring that, you set yourself set up for hubris, and that can lead you down some mighty dark paths.
| Quote: |
| No, you are not challenging limited thinking about science. You are challenging limited thinking in science. That would be challenging science. ^_^; |
Meh...Science should always be challenged. Too many people get caught up in Occam's Razor; sometimes, the simplest explanation isn't the best one...
| Quote: |
| You disagree with who? i didn't say that being a deist is necessarily atheist. i said the exact opposite. i also explicitly said that Hawking's beliefs are unclear. But i don't see how that makes it "noteworthy" to any discussion of ID. |
Actually, his beliefs are clear; he has been the first to point out that he isn't an atheist. And that there has been a disagreement makes it noteworthy; after all, if he believes in a Him, doesn't that change things a little bit?
| Quote: |
| i also don't care about what version of ID you're proposing, unless you're publishing an article on the matter to be peer-reviewed. ID is a theory - outlined by its proponents - that exists regardless of what you think about it. If you don't buy the theory of ID, you don't buy the theory of ID. That's all there is to it. There is no "i don't buy the theory published by the creators of ID, but i have my own take on it". That's like saying "i don't buy the theory of general relativity, but i have my own take on it". It's nonsense. |
We're not dealing with ID as a scientific theory here, but as personal belief. I believe in a creator, but not that the rules as put down by science are wrong. Rather, that sometimes some sort of higher intelligence nudges things a bit in favor of a pre-determined result, or that there at least appears to. In essence, I'm not debating that an event happened; just that sometimes the event had to be nudged in order to happen.
| Quote: |
| If you have your own personal interpretations and beliefs based on the theory of ID, fine - but irrelevant. If you have a modified version of ID (ie, a new theory) in mind, fine - but irrelevant. Unless you're talking about the same thing everyone else is talking about, which is the theory of intelligent design, you are just sowing confusion. There is only one theory of intelligent design, and if you don't know it, you should probably learn it before engaging in a debate on it. |
Sometimes sowing confusion can be a good thing. In this case, I'm looking at a difference between a theory as it has been proposed and a theory as it has been practiced. If the goal is to find some sort of clarity for future discussions, then I fail to see how it is "irrelevant"; if we basically disagree that ID is the wrong term for it, than what do you propose is a better term? Especially as the only difference is the degree to which they disagree with proper science...
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | Quote: | | Science is not about personal beliefs. Who cares if you're atheist or not? It has no relevance to whether ID is a scientific theory, and whether or not it is correct. |
Apparently it does. |
Because you say it does? |
Or because it keeps coming up?
| Quote: |
| ID will be science or not on the basis of whether it meets the requirements of a scientific theory. Nothing more, nothing less. Your religion is irrelevant. |
And that assumes that it is a scientific theory. It's not; at least, not at this point. There's too little evidence, and no way to properly test it. It can be a philosophy, but that's it.
| Quote: |
You are not, however, allowed to have your own facts.
Fact: there is a theory called the theory of intelligent design, with several published books that outline the theory and attempt to apply it.
Fact: there are not two theories of ID in the scientific literature, or the popular literature.
Fact: there are a number of religious groups that use ID as a basis, and make their own (religious) interpretations using it.
Fact: there is still only one underlying theory. |
As atheism as proven, these are, at best, opinions. You would think that there is only way to believe that there is no God; yet there are how many different schools of atheism...? Again, what would you call it?
| Quote: |
| You can have your own opinions - any opinions you want. They don't matter here. Neither do mine. |
You typed in way too much for your opinion not to matter...
| Quote: |
| You are also not talking about the theory of intelligent design, which means you are wasting our time. |
Not really, on both counts; I don't think it's wasting time for clarification, and I think I'm describing intelligent, or at least some version of it.
| Quote: |
| And no, creationist theory doesn't mean what you say it means. |
So what does it mean? I've been working under the assumption that it had something to do with a literal interpretation of The Bible....Is there another one out there...?
| Quote: |
| Opinion is not a factor here. |
Yes, it is. When it comes to any form of belief, there will always be different perspectives. The difference here is that we're trying to clarify a particular belief to eliminate a lot of repeat debates; you're trying too hard to define MY beliefs so as to show that it isn't relevant. The problem is that my belief doesn't quite jibe with your interpretation of either science or intelligent design, and rather than letting it go at that (which is all the clarification that should have been needed), you're continuing to ask for more clarification. It's been clarified for the purposes of this forum; time to move on.
| Quote: |
| Ever think that by trying to find precise definitions we might be trying to help you complete the theory? Then it wouldn't be so easily dismissable, now would it? |
Yeah. However, I think that it's hit the point of pure belief, and that's fine.
| Quote: |
People see interesting things all the time. i read about this lady that saw Jesus Christ in her grilled cheese sandwich. That's pretty interesting.
It's also pretty useless, because when a precise analysis is applied, one finds the claim to be nonsense. Would you rather we didn't apply that precise analysis and left people worshipping a fried processed-cheese lunch? |
No; I definite think that people will always look for things to match their system of belief, and that sometimes it goes too far. And I think that of atheism as well as religion...
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | It's just interesting that atheists are the flat-earthers this time, debunking something just because they don't believe in it before a proper hypothesis has even been put together. |
You have the most whimsical analogies. ^_^; |
In this case the analogy is that flat-earthers don't want to believe something simply because it disagrees with how they perceive things, just as atheists don't want to believe that some people can believe in religion and some form of deity at the same time because it would mean that their perceptions are wrong.
| Quote: |
| One minute science is a religion, next minute... ^_^; |
Some people do take science as religion; I think it's more scary than it should be...
[/quote]What i'm saying is that being a work in progress is no great barrier to being scientifically relevant. Your claim that ID is not "ready" for mainstream science is hooey. (It's also contrary to what the very designers and proponents of the theory say, and certainly contrary to the argument that it should be taught in schools.)[/quote]
Good thing I'm not claiming to be scientific theory, then, eh? String theory at least has some hard evidence for it; ID (as I'm describing it) will never hit that, I think...
| Quote: |
| Second, i don't care what religions anyone in the ID or general science community have. Your religion is irrelevant to science (or should be). What i said was that while describing the theory, every ID proponent named God as the designer. They didn't say they believed in God (some did at other points, some didn't, but i wasn't interested anyway), they said the theory pointed to God. In theory, they could have been Raellians stating that the theory pointed to the Christian god. Because - assuming the theory is science - what the theory points to should not be a function of anyone's beliefs. No ID proponent names anyone or anything as the creator, except the Christian god. That is an indisputable fact. (In fact, at least one has explicitly ruled out any possibilities except the Christian god... using argument from the theory, not their own personal beliefs.) |
Weird...I've been seeing some variant for just about every religion pop-up every few years, with that religion claiming it to be theirs.
| Quote: |
| No, it's a philosophy. The methodology is built on the philosophy, but i am not talking about that. i am talking about the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science is called "the scientific method", or "methodological naturalism" (the methodology is also called "the scientific method", but the methodology implies&requires the philosophy... meaning they're effectively inseparable). It has many different aspects, such as reductionism (it is possible to explain the universe by looking at its parts), naturalism (it is possible to explain natural effects by natural causes), empiricism, and so on. It applies limitations on what can be studied by virtue of assumptions about the subject of study. |
And...I think you went someplace weird. Scientific method has nothing to do with scientific philosophy; although there are those that teach that there should be ethics re: science, they rarely use the scientific method as the basis for that...
| Quote: |
| You said that science's philosophy was flawed/lacking. i said changing it would be stupid given its wildly successful track record. So, logically, if you have an improved philosophy, start a new field with that philosophy. That way science remains untouched and continue doing what it does. And at the same time this new, better philosophy gets applied. Everyone wins. No? |
Well, yeah. I just like everyone having different philosophies; helps keep the more radical elements in check.
| Quote: |
| You go for it. ^_^; It's always uplifting to see someone sticking to their guns in the face of all logic. Good for you to stand by your definition of atheism even though it's contradicted by every writing on the subject! After all, that's what the flat Earthers do- |
Meh. That's the problem with any religion, including atheism; there's always a convenient blind eye somewhere. A good reason to keep a variety of them around, if nothing else...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
As Bikerman said above they HAD to practice those religions otherwise they would end up in a fire(Execution by burning) not hell. And especially in the middle ages in Europe the only people who could afford studying something where monks, clerks, etc. However a lot of scientists from the Middle East or Asia did come up with a lot of smart stuff which is religious at all. But all of that has been forgotten and/or ignored by modern Western scientists. |
Just not buying that; are you seriously telling me that the only reason anyone has to be religious is because of fear of being torched? Get real; |
i seriously doubt that most scientists felt any real sense of threat - except for a small number of them. Philosophers, certainly, had to tread lightly. But scientists (or proto-scientists) generally assumed that when they examined nature, they would find God. (Newton's a great example of this thinking, and also a sad example of how damaging it was. Newton was convinced that he would find God in nature. Instead he found gravity. But he went on to claim that God made the planets move regularly, even though he knew it was gravity.)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Obvious question: If what I'm describing is not ID, then what is it? |
You're going to have to describe it a hell of a lot more clearly than you have to answer that question.
If you believe that all creatures evolved from basic lifeforms to the species that they are today through solely naturalistic processes, that is (roughly) evolutionary theory. If you believe that that was how God intended for it to work, you are buying into theistic evolution.
If you believe that at one or more points throughout the evolution of the species, something had to intervene in some way, then you are buying into intelligent design/creationism (they are the same).
If you believe that all species were made as they are now by something in some way, then you are buying into hard creationism.
The only differences between general creationism and hard creationism are:
In hard creationism, the something intervenes only one time.
In hard creationism, the something creates everything essentially as they are now.
General creationism is more flexible. It allows for some limited evolution, usually with "steps" where the something intervenes for the next stage. It also allows for multiple interventions. An example of this is progressive creationism.
As i've said, you've been far to vague to pin down what you're arguing. But it sure sounds to me like progressive creationism. That's a form of old Earth creationism that doesn't require complete spontaneous generation of any species or features - it allows for God to have added little bits and pieces over time.I love having my memory 
....After some checking around, I've decided that fanatics of any stripe need some serious therapy...
ID, in the sense that I've been using it, was fine until 1987; that's when the United States Supreme Court ruled that (in Edwards v. Aguilard) Creationism could not be taught in school because it was essentially religious instruction, and therefore verboten (church vs. state issues). However, they should be allowed to teach any secular theory that happened to mention the same basic theory. That's when all of the idiot Creationists glommed onto the term "intelligent design"; they took out all the religious notes, and replaced it with a generic "designer". I wasn't aware that there is actual ID research; talk about psuedo-science at its worst...
Prior to that, it was a term that was kicked around by scientists in order to debate the possibility that the universe was designed by some form of intelligence; unlike the Creationists, the "designer" wasn't defined. Keep in mind that Science was looking at a lot of weird ideas (electric belts, anyone?), so it's entirely possible that they could have been referring to just about anything. The term itself goes all the way back until at least 1847, when it was mentioned in Scientific American. This article on the Jefferson Lab is a bit closer to my beliefs; a lot simpler than the Wikipedia version.
Read: Until 1987, it was a term that held no real import; it was just a term in order to discuss things like theistic evolution. After 1987, it was a boondoggle in order to push a religious agenda unto an undeserving population due to the politicization of evolution.
I think that I've pretty much decided to use "ID" to define my beliefs, but in the pre-1987 version, not the so-called "Modern" version....
Oh, and the memory issue? It was Newsweek, not Time. See? As for the 62%? ABC News but not as I remembered it (obviously); (the 62% is made of 31% who said that they don't believe in God, and 31% who don't know and can't prove). However, I would argue that they misinterpreted their stats, as the group was only 271 individuals, and the report itself notes that it was skewed.
Also, a 2006 report by Scientific American is interesting; it purports that 40% of scientists today consider themselves religious (note: not necessarily Christian). It's only about half the general population, but it's still a tad higher than Bikerman's figures.
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
Also, a 2006 report by Scientific American is interesting; it purports that 40% of scientists today consider themselves religious (note: not necessarily Christian). It's only about half the general population, but it's still a tad higher than Bikerman's figures.
HM |
What figures are those? I said that the majority of scientists reject creationism. You are showing that the majority of scientists reject religion per se. How does this contradict my statement? | HereticMonkey wrote: |
Keep trying that...but, unlike Bikerman, I'm looking for a reasonably clean source.
HM |
If you are going to make these snide little personal comments then you should tell me which source I have used that you find so dirty.Given that you have problems reporting science accurately I'd just like to pick up on a couple of the specific comments in the above posting. I'll leave the meat of the posting to Indi, I'll just deal with specific points of science. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| One of the more interesting questions that was asked of the Burgess Shale is that there seemed to be a lot of successful lifeforms that seemed to ignore the rules that we know and love today (one vertebrate had seven limbs, for example). |
That is an extraordinary claim. Have you got any evidence to back this up?
| Quote: |
| String theory at least has some hard evidence for it; ID (as I'm describing it) will never hit that, I think... |
What hard evidence is that? | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| I love having my memory ....After some checking around, I've decided that fanatics of any stripe need some serious therapy... |
All true. ^_^;
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
ID, in the sense that I've been using it, was fine until 1987; that's when the United States Supreme Court ruled that (in Edwards v. Aguilard) Creationism could not be taught in school because it was essentially religious instruction, and therefore verboten (church vs. state issues). However, they should be allowed to teach any secular theory that happened to mention the same basic theory. That's when all of the idiot Creationists glommed onto the term "intelligent design"; they took out all the religious notes, and replaced it with a generic "designer". I wasn't aware that there is actual ID research; talk about psuedo-science at its worst...
Prior to that, it was a term that was kicked around by scientists in order to debate the possibility that the universe was designed by some form of intelligence; unlike the Creationists, the "designer" wasn't defined. Keep in mind that Science was looking at a lot of weird ideas (electric belts, anyone?), so it's entirely possible that they could have been referring to just about anything. The term itself goes all the way back until at least 1847, when it was mentioned in Scientific American. |
The term "intelligent design" first came into vogue in the late 80's as you say, largely because SCOTUS ruled that "creation science" was not science and the creationists needed a sciencey-sounding term to label their brand new, shiny, sciencey-sounding theory. It was not, as you say, "kicked around by scientists" before that (or, i suppose you could say it was - scientist kicked the crap out of the idea ^_^). It was, rather, kicked around by creationists and some offbeat metaphysicists (Thomson Jay Hudson, Ferdinand Schiller), and only mentioned by scientists to make fun of the idea. It was used by John Tyndall in 1847... but Tyndall was a rabid anti-creationist and a firm believer in evolutionary theory. Dude's best friend was Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog"! He used the term to mock the teleological argument.
But i'm not sure what your hangup with the term is. It's what the term refers to that matters. If you do not want to use it to refer to the actual, hypothetically scientific intelligent design theory, then you must be referring to the teleological argument. Even though it may not have been specifically called "intelligent design" until the 19th or 20th century, the teleological argument has been around since at least 500 BCE.
The teleological argument is: nature exhibits evidence of intelligent design, therefore it requires a designer. Isn't that pretty much what you're calling "intelligent design"?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| This article on the Jefferson Lab is a bit closer to my beliefs; a lot simpler than the Wikipedia version. |
Er. That article does not describe any beliefs, it just describes a debate between a bunch of scientists. And the scientist in the article that speaks of "intelligent design"... is Ken Petzinger (creationist, who says - right in the article - that it was God). In fact, of the four scientists named (Victor Stenger, Petzinger, Mark Sher and Joseph Mitchell), only Petzinger speaks for any kind of intelligent design - all of the others rebuke the idea.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Read: Until 1987, it was a term that held no real import; it was just a term in order to discuss things like theistic evolution. After 1987, it was a boondoggle in order to push a religious agenda unto an undeserving population due to the politicization of evolution. |
Well, yes. ^_^; Because until the late 1980's, the term had no real import because it was just a synonym for the teleological argument - which has been discredited in all modern philosophical and scientific thought. ^_^; After 1987 it because the name of a hypothetically scientific theory, so now it was somewhat relevant.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Oh, and the memory issue? It was Newsweek, not Time. See? |
That Newsweek article is infamous. ^_^; It's not just an article, it was a cover story. It has been hacked to smithereens by scientists and thinkers in the years since. Here is just one such rebuttal, from Reason (which actually takes on two similar articles, the Newsweek one, and a TNR one). i haven't read the original Newsweek story in a while, but if i recall (and the Reason article seems to agree), its primary sin is falling prey to the anthropic principle. You're surely heard it, how the universe seems so perfectly "fine-tuned" for humans. There are lots of problems with that principle, but i'm sure the Reason article will numerate them.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| As for the 62%? ABC News but not as I remembered it (obviously); (the 62% is made of 31% who said that they don't believe in God, and 31% who don't know and can't prove). However, I would argue that they misinterpreted their stats, as the group was only 271 individuals, and the report itself notes that it was skewed. |
Excuse me... they have misinterpreted their stats? ^_^; Explain to me how you can go from 62% answering no/don't know/don't care to "does God exist?" to 62% "believe in more significant than man that seems to have had a hand in how things developed"... and yet they are the ones with the statistical problems? ^_^;
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Also, a 2006 report by Scientific American is interesting; it purports that 40% of scientists today consider themselves religious (note: not necessarily Christian). It's only about half the general population, but it's still a tad higher than Bikerman's figures. |
i'm not sure how that is relevant. Who gives a crap what the religion of scientists is? The question should be whether or not the believe evolution was accomplished by natural mechanisms, or did something supernatural have a hand in it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | String theory at least has some hard evidence for it; ID (as I'm describing it) will never hit that, I think... |
What hard evidence is that? |
(A string theorist would say: "gravity" ^_^; ) | Bikerman wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | Keep trying that...but, unlike Bikerman, I'm looking for a reasonably clean source.
HM |
If you are going to make these snide little personal comments then you should tell me which source I have used that you find so dirty. |
You mean besides using atheist sources even when non-biased sources are available? None....
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I said that the majority of scientists reject creationism. You are showing that the majority of scientists reject religion per se. How does this contradict my statement? |
No; I"m showing that the majority of scientists don't consider themselves religious. Only 31% actually rejected religion. Putting it another way: 9.7% had no doubt, 27.3% apparently still believed, and 31% didn't know if there was a god. I just wish that they had broken the numbers down a bit more...
| Bikerman wrote: |
Given that you have problems reporting science accurately I'd just like to pick up on a couple of the specific comments in the above posting. I'll leave the meat of the posting to Indi, I'll just deal with specific points of science. | HereticMonkey wrote: | | One of the more interesting questions that was asked of the Burgess Shale is that there seemed to be a lot of successful lifeforms that seemed to ignore the rules that we know and love today (one vertebrate had seven limbs, for example). |
That is an extraordinary claim. Have you got any evidence to back this up? |
The critter in question was the Hallucigenia, which seems to change taxonomical classification every time someone looks at it (and some scientists think it may be part of a bigger animal, considering the Anomalocaris was thought to be three different animals, in part because of its huge size for a Cambrian creature (almost two meters!)). It lost out on the earliest chordate (that's the Pikaia, also from the Burgess Shale), and is currently considered an armored velvet worm.
| Quote: |
| String theory at least has some hard evidence for it; ID (as I'm describing it) will never hit that, I think... |
What hard evidence is that?[/quote]
That it wasn't hard evidence was sort of the point....In other words, I sort of agree that it isn't a valid theory.
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | Keep trying that...but, unlike Bikerman, I'm looking for a reasonably clean source.
HM |
If you are going to make these snide little personal comments then you should tell me which source I have used that you find so dirty. |
You mean besides using atheist sources even when non-biased sources are available? None.... |
So you have no examples then? I always try to use the source which seems to be most authoratitive when giving links. In many cases it is wiki - but only after checking. In other cases I do use 'atheist' sources but only if they are the best source (by which I mean they have verifiable data). I have also used religiously-biased sources if they have good data - for example the health study that I quoted in this thread was from the Templeton Foundation. If you are saying that I have used biased sources when there are alternative sources, then please point them out and I will consider them. Otherwise please do not make allegations you are unprepared to substantiate. | Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | I said that the majority of scientists reject creationism. You are showing that the majority of scientists reject religion per se. How does this contradict my statement? |
No; I"m showing that the majority of scientists don't consider themselves religious. Only 31% actually rejected religion. Putting it another way: 9.7% had no doubt, 27.3% apparently still believed, and 31% didn't know if there was a god. I just wish that they had broken the numbers down a bit more... |
My comment was, specifically | Quote: |
| The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths. |
You questioned this and now you provide a survey which in fact confirms it. Am I missing something here? | Quote: |
The critter in question was the Hallucigenia, which seems to change taxonomical classification every time someone looks at it (and some scientists think it may be part of a bigger animal, considering the Anomalocaris was thought to be three different animals, in part because of its huge size for a Cambrian creature (almost two meters!)). It lost out on the earliest chordate (that's the Pikaia, also from the Burgess Shale), and is currently considered an armored velvet worm. |
And you claim that this creature is a vertebrate with 7 limbs? I think not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucigenia | Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: | | String theory at least has some hard evidence for it; ID (as I'm describing it) will never hit that, I think... |
What hard evidence is that? |
That it wasn't hard evidence was sort of the point....In other words, I sort of agree that it isn't a valid theory. |
So when you said string theory has some hard evidence what you actually meant was string theory doesn't have hard evidence? I must be missing the irony...
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:12 am; edited 1 time in total | Indi wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | I love having my memory ....After some checking around, I've decided that fanatics of any stripe need some serious therapy... |
All true. ^_^; |
Keep in mind that this applies to atheists as well as fundamentalists...
| Quote: |
| It was not, as you say, "kicked around by scientists" before that (or, i suppose you could say it was - scientist kicked the crap out of the idea ^_^). It was, rather, kicked around by creationists and some offbeat metaphysicists (Thomson Jay Hudson, Ferdinand Schiller), and only mentioned by scientists to make fun of the idea. It was used by John Tyndall in 1847... but Tyndall was a rabid anti-creationist and a firm believer in evolutionary theory. Dude's best friend was Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog"! He used the term to mock the teleological argument. |
Although I agree that it was originally used in a mocking fashion, it was a term that stuck (for better or worse), and was adopted by some scientists to discuss the idea (I found it referenced in some letters dated around 1910); in essence, it was used both as joke and buzzword.
| Quote: |
| The teleological argument is: nature exhibits evidence of intelligent design, therefore it requires a designer. Isn't that pretty much what you're calling "intelligent design"? |
Pretty much.
| Quote: |
| Er. That article does not describe any beliefs, it just describes a debate between a bunch of scientists. |
| Quote: |
| One controversial theory, called the "intelligent design" concept, asserts that some higher power "fine-tuned" the creation of our universe billions of years ago. |
Basically, what I got out of the article is that you had four scientists that put forth their beliefs and others were given a chance to knock 'em down. It's worth noting that Stenger's point re: religion muddying science is one of my favorite points...
| Quote: |
| And the scientist in the article that speaks of "intelligent design"... is Ken Petzinger (creationist, who says - right in the article - that it was God). |
a) How do you figure that he's a Creationist? He has no problems with evolution or the age of the universe, which would seem to make him counter-creationist.
b) As a Christian who happens to be a scientist, did you expect him to say that it was a non-specific supernatural force?
| Quote: |
| In fact, of the four scientists named (Victor Stenger, Petzinger, Mark Sher and Joseph Mitchell), only Petzinger speaks for any kind of intelligent design - all of the others rebuke the idea. |
Keep in mind that I was looking more for a quick synopsis, as well as some interesting debate on the theory; the Jefferson Lab article provided both. Petzinger and Stenger give the most interesting commentary, although I would have liked to have heard more about Stenger's multiple universe theory...but the idea was to discuss religion as it pertained to science, especially as regards how the universe was created. Nonetheless, I think it gives a reasonably well-balanced perspective on both sides of the debate (at least compared to some other sites).
| Quote: |
| Because until the late 1980's, the term had no real import because it was just a synonym for the teleological argument - which has been discredited in all modern philosophical and scientific thought. |
On the philosophy side: Only if you're an atheist, or if you're looking at the wannabe-creationist silliness. I'm still bloody amused that there is some idiot who thinks that you can research or actually prove it...
| Quote: |
| Here is just one such rebuttal, from Reason (which actually takes on two similar articles, the Newsweek one, and a TNR one). i haven't read the original Newsweek story in a while, but if i recall (and the Reason article seems to agree), its primary sin is falling prey to the anthropic principle. You're surely heard it, how the universe seems so perfectly "fine-tuned" for humans. There are lots of problems with that principle, but i'm sure the Reason article will numerate them. |
YAY! Stenger! (Well, I did say I wanted more on his ideas...) His theory does seem reasonably sound, if you have no problem with multiple universes (I don't, and you can blame too much sf on that!). As re: the anthropic principle: Yeah, I'm definitely familiar with it (even though I did misspell it horribly recently). If there is a more naturalistic (ie, non-ID) approach, I think this would probably be the way to go. Arguably the reason for the upsurge in ID is that there are too many happy coincidences; using multiple universe to get the same result could work. Unless of course we find out somewhere along the line that the constants are the only possible choice...
| Quote: |
| Excuse me... they have misinterpreted their stats? ^_^; Explain to me how you can go from 62% answering no/don't know/don't care to "does God exist?" to 62% "believe in more significant than man that seems to have had a hand in how things developed"... and yet they are the ones with the statistical problems? ^_^; |
Meh. It happens. At least it was corrected...
| Quote: |
| i'm not sure how that is relevant. Who gives a crap what the religion of scientists is? The question should be whether or not the believe evolution was accomplished by natural mechanisms, or did something supernatural have a hand in it. |
And thus the crux of the debate. I guess it comes down to: Do you view the History of The Universe as a ridiculously long string of happy coincidences, or as something designed for life? Note that I'm not being egotistical enough to suggest that it may human life (for some reason I like the idea of the entomologic principal, where the universe was designed for insects (blame Indi; it was mentioned in the article she mentioned).
[Of course, the multiple universes theory works, as does the idea that the universe was inevitable. However, the former does seem to be a bit material-intensive (implying a truly infinite amount of matter), and the second just feels wrong on some level (I'm looking more at probabilities here; everything would just need to line up, and there have been too many coincidences).]
Of the four, ID feels like the best fit. I don't think that the universe is random (nailing the first), or that this universe is the only one that could have resulted (nailing the fourth), and the multiple universes is still on the table, but I'd like to see it developed more...
HM | Bikerman wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | Keep trying that...but, unlike Bikerman, I'm looking for a reasonably clean source.
HM |
If you are going to make these snide little personal comments then you should tell me which source I have used that you find so dirty. |
You mean besides using atheist sources even when non-biased sources are available? None.... |
So you have no examples then? |
Remember the Nature article? From the ATHEIST SITE?
[quote]My comment was, specifically | Quote: |
| The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths. |
You questioned this and now you provide a survey which in fact confirms it. Am I missing something here?[quote]
Yeah; that the survey can be interpreted in two ways. There's a 31% group that could be interpreted as eschewing religion, or having some minor belief in it. That's why I mentioned that I would have liked to have seen a better breakdown than just four groups.
| Quote: |
And you claim that this creature is a vertebrate with 7 limbs? I think not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucigenia | Quote: |
Yep, at least at some point.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | String theory at least has some hard evidence for it; ID (as I'm describing it) will never hit that, I think... |
What hard evidence is that? |
That it wasn't hard evidence was sort of the point....In other words, I sort of agree that it isn't a valid theory. |
So when you said string theory has some hard evidence what you actually meant was string theory doesn't have hard evidence? I must be missing the irony... |
No; what I'm saying is that there isn't any hard evidence re: ID. Yeesh...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | Keep trying that...but, unlike Bikerman, I'm looking for a reasonably clean source.
HM |
If you are going to make these snide little personal comments then you should tell me which source I have used that you find so dirty. |
You mean besides using atheist sources even when non-biased sources are available? None.... |
So you have no examples then? |
Remember the Nature article? From the ATHEIST SITE? |
Nature is a scientific journal of repute. It is not an 'atheist site'. http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
Can you suggest a better source? | Quote: |
| Yeah; that the survey can be interpreted in two ways. There's a 31% group that could be interpreted as eschewing religion, or having some minor belief in it. That's why I mentioned that I would have liked to have seen a better breakdown than just four groups. |
Completely irrelevant, as well as factually wrong. The survey clearly shows that a majority of scientists (ie MOST) do not report themselves as religious. Even if we suppose that all the scientists who do report themselves as religious are supporters of ID (which is a rather ridiculous assumption) then 60% of scientists do not report themselves as religious. That is MOST.
| Article concerned wrote: |
| Surveys indicate that scientists are only half as likely as the general public to describe themselves as religious, but 40 percent still do. |
| HM wrote: |
Yep, at least at some point. |
It's not a vertebrate, so where is the 'some point'? It's true to say that there is some controversy over what exactly it is, but nobody, except you, is suggesting it is a vertebrate - for the very sound reason that it doesn't in fact have a backbone.
| HM wrote: |
No; what I'm saying is that there isn't any hard evidence re: ID. Yeesh...
|
No, what you said was that string theory has hard evidence. I asked you what evidence that is.
I agree that there is no evidence for ID, but you keep making references to science which, I believe, you don't really understand. You have already done this with physics (Young's experiment), biology (the difference between a vertebrate and a non-vertebrate) and geology (the origin of iron on earth). Interestingly enough it is these three areas of science which the ID lobby normally have problems with - just a coincidence, I'm sure.
In general, however, I'm not at all sure that you understand what science is actually saying in many areas, and I therefore think it is a bit presumptuous to say things like | HM wrote: |
| I'm not trying to challenge science, but rather limited thinking about it. |
On the specifics of this point, I find it hard to believe that you have any grasp of string theory, and so I'm puzzled as to why you would raise it in debate. Since you have raised it, however, I simply ask you to explain your assertion : | HM wrote: |
| String theory at least has some hard evidence for it |
Last edited by Bikerman on Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:19 am; edited 9 times in total | Quote: |
| 1) Is Intelligent Design (ID) scientific? Is it a valid scientific hypothesis and is it supported by any evidence? What is the definition of ID and how can it be tested? |
ID is a failed attempt to put science in reverse. It takes a conclusion - the Bible, and tries to build up evidence around it, ignoring anything that doesn't support their "theories". Simply put: that is not science. Nor is it anything similar.
| Quote: |
| 2) Is ID distinct from Creationism? Is ID functionally different from creationism? Are the supporters of ID different and distinct from the supporters of creationism? |
I've spoken to people who believe in intelligent design and ultimately what it seems to boil down to is an attempt to substantiate their own beliefs. Their beliefs remain as unaltered as possible from Creationism and they use already disproven 'evidence' to undermine evolution. So effectively it's a less blind, but nonetheless blinkered belief.I think that is a resonably accurate summary, although I'm not sure about the last sentence.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | HereticMonkey wrote: | | I love having my memory ....After some checking around, I've decided that fanatics of any stripe need some serious therapy... |
All true. ^_^; |
Keep in mind that this applies to atheists as well as fundamentalists... |
How could it not?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | It was not, as you say, "kicked around by scientists" before that (or, i suppose you could say it was - scientist kicked the crap out of the idea ^_^). It was, rather, kicked around by creationists and some offbeat metaphysicists (Thomson Jay Hudson, Ferdinand Schiller), and only mentioned by scientists to make fun of the idea. It was used by John Tyndall in 1847... but Tyndall was a rabid anti-creationist and a firm believer in evolutionary theory. Dude's best friend was Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog"! He used the term to mock the teleological argument. |
Although I agree that it was originally used in a mocking fashion, it was a term that stuck (for better or worse), and was adopted by some scientists to discuss the idea (I found it referenced in some letters dated around 1910); in essence, it was used both as joke and buzzword. |
The idea was not discussed in "science" until the creation science movement. The term was only used by scientists to mock the idea. A few metaphysicists did argue for "intelligent design" (the teleological argument, not ID), but they were of little note. Unless you count "creation science", the term was not used in any scientific context until the formation of ID theory, starting in the late 70's.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | The teleological argument is: nature exhibits evidence of intelligent design, therefore it requires a designer. Isn't that pretty much what you're calling "intelligent design"? |
Pretty much. |
So you're saying that the teleological argument is what you're calling "intelligent design"?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | Er. That article does not describe any beliefs, it just describes a debate between a bunch of scientists. |
| Quote: | | One controversial theory, called the "intelligent design" concept, asserts that some higher power "fine-tuned" the creation of our universe billions of years ago. |
Basically, what I got out of the article is that you had four scientists that put forth their beliefs and others were given a chance to knock 'em down. It's worth noting that Stenger's point re: religion muddying science is one of my favorite points... |
There were only two points of view in that article. Stenger, Sher and Mitchell all spoke for a naturalistic view of science, and Petzinger spoke for ID. The article was not about a panel discussion. Stenger gave a lecture, then everyone was asked what they thought about the lecture's topic. Three agreed (including the lecturer), and one did not.
And Stenger did not make a point about religion muddying science. Stenger said religious groups were trying to find their god in science, and they were causing a big noise to be made about a non-issue. In plain English: there's nothing to any of it, and it wouldn't even be an issue except some religious groups are fighting to make it one. There is no "muddying". Just people crying wolf.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | And the scientist in the article that speaks of "intelligent design"... is Ken Petzinger (creationist, who says - right in the article - that it was God). |
a) How do you figure that he's a Creationist? He has no problems with evolution or the age of the universe, which would seem to make him counter-creationist.
b) As a Christian who happens to be a scientist, did you expect him to say that it was a non-specific supernatural force? |
a) i figure he's a creationist because he's a well-known creationist. How else would i know him? He's a quantum physicist, affiliated with the Discovery Institute. If you have a copy of Darwin Strikes Back, by Thomas Woodward, just open it up and read the review comments.
a2) Your definition of creationist is too narrow, and you know that because i've pointed it out to you half a dozen times already. He does have a problem with evolution. The fact that he doesn't believe in a young Earth does nothing except make him an old Earth creationist.
b) One minute you are all for keeping religion out of science, the next you are cheerfully endorsing am overt violation of that policy. Which is it?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | In fact, of the four scientists named (Victor Stenger, Petzinger, Mark Sher and Joseph Mitchell), only Petzinger speaks for any kind of intelligent design - all of the others rebuke the idea. |
Keep in mind that I was looking more for a quick synopsis, as well as some interesting debate on the theory; the Jefferson Lab article provided both. Petzinger and Stenger give the most interesting commentary, although I would have liked to have heard more about Stenger's multiple universe theory...but the idea was to discuss religion as it pertained to science, especially as regards how the universe was created. Nonetheless, I think it gives a reasonably well-balanced perspective on both sides of the debate (at least compared to some other sites). |
As i said, it wasn't a debate. There was a lecture, then some scientists were asked for their comments on it. The idea was not "to discuss religion as it pertained to science, especially as regards how the universe was created". It was to listen to Stenger's lecture, then comment on it to a reporter. i'm really at a loss as to how you got a "reasonably well-balanced perspective" on the issue from that.
Stenger gave "interesting comments" because he delivered the lecture. Petzinger gives "interesting comments" because they support your view. Sher and Mitchell just add comments that support the lecture's thesis.
(Incidentally, it's not "Stenger's" multiple universe theory. It is a conclusion that arises out of quantum mechanics when you examine it using a certain paradigm of parsimony - i'd recommend Stenger's books to describe it, because it's something he has talked about before so i know where he's coming from, but i find they're rather overly technical. It also arises in string theory.)
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | Because until the late 1980's, the term had no real import because it was just a synonym for the teleological argument - which has been discredited in all modern philosophical and scientific thought. |
On the philosophy side: Only if you're an atheist, or if you're looking at the wannabe-creationist silliness. I'm still bloody amused that there is some idiot who thinks that you can research or actually prove it... |
Er... no. The teleological argument has been discredited since - at least - David Hume in the mid-18th century. Whether you're atheist or not. It just doesn't work.
Not to mention that it has been functionally discredited by science a hundred times over. Every single example of teleology that has been mentioned in history has been shown to arise without design. Modern teleological proponents have been reduced to scrounging around in the farthest corners of science for things that haven't been answered yet - like molecular biology (Behe), and the fine structure constant of the universe. In fifty years, given current pace, those will be gone, too.
[quote="HereticMonkey"] | Quote: |
| Here is just one such rebuttal, from Reason (which actually takes on two similar articles, the Newsweek one, and a TNR one). i haven't read the original Newsweek story in a while, but if i recall (and the Reason article seems to agree), its primary sin is falling prey to the anthropic principle. You're surely heard it, how the universe seems so perfectly "fine-tuned" for humans. There are lots of problems with that principle, but i'm sure the Reason article will numerate them. |
YAY! Stenger! (Well, I did say I wanted more on his ideas...) His theory does seem reasonably sound, if you have no problem with multiple universes (I don't, and you can blame too much sf on that!). As re: the anthropic principle: Yeah, I'm definitely familiar with it (even though I did misspell it horribly recently). If there is a more naturalistic (ie, non-ID) approach, I think this would probably be the way to go. Arguably the reason for the upsurge in ID is that there are too many happy coincidences; using multiple universe to get the same result could work. Unless of course we find out somewhere along the line that the constants are the only possible choice...[/logic]
Stenger is a big name in quantum physics. The multiple universe theories he's talking about are not what you think they are. He is not talking about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. He is talking about multiple universes literally, as in multiple big bangs. In other words, he is not talking about multiple universes existing right now, he is talking about multiple universe that may have existed in the "past", and may exist again in the "future".
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Quote: | | i'm not sure how that is relevant. Who gives a crap what the religion of scientists is? The question should be whether or not the believe evolution was accomplished by natural mechanisms, or did something supernatural have a hand in it. |
And thus the crux of the debate. I guess it comes down to: Do you view the History of The Universe as a ridiculously long string of happy coincidences, or as something designed for life? Note that I'm not being egotistical enough to suggest that it may human life (for some reason I like the idea of the entomologic principal, where the universe was designed for insects (blame Indi; it was mentioned in the article she mentioned).
[Of course, the multiple universes theory works, as does the idea that the universe was inevitable. However, the former does seem to be a bit material-intensive (implying a truly infinite amount of matter), and the second just feels wrong on some level (I'm looking more at probabilities here; everything would just need to line up, and there have been too many coincidences).]
Of the four, ID feels like the best fit. I don't think that the universe is random (nailing the first), or that this universe is the only one that could have resulted (nailing the fourth), and the multiple universes is still on the table, but I'd like to see it developed more... |
The coincidences are only coincidences if you look at the end result as expected/required. If our existence is not predestined, then we are the random result of a series of random events. What's weird about that?
Also, the multiple universe theory does not require an infinite anything, and it has been developed under both quantum field theory and string theory.The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
The problem is basic. Human beings need explanations for everything to hide their fear of the unknown. Religions provide answers. Science also provides answers. However, much of science is based on very dubious assumptions. The Theory of Evolution is such, science, with its magical mutation methods and lack of testability.
Human beings seem to be able to do genetic engineering. Can we somehow know that we are not products of genetic engineering ourselves?
| bardi wrote: |
| The Theory of Evolution is just another religion. |
It's not a religion. For one thing, the basics of evolution are a scientifically proven fact. Sure, we don't know everything about how we came to be what we are, but we do know that there is such a thing as evolution as we've witnessed things evolve.
Plus, religion is concerned with the supernatural. Evolution is concerned with the way things actually are. Nobody worships evolution. Nobody believes that it will send them to eternal paradise.
| bardi wrote: |
| The problem is basic. Human beings need explanations for everything to hide their fear of the unknown. Religions provide answers. Science also provides answers. However, much of science is based on very dubious assumptions. The Theory of Evolution is such, science, with its magical mutation methods and lack of testability. |
You clearly don't know much about evolution. Either what is still theory or what is now accepted across the scientific community as fact.
I agree with the first part however. People do need explainations for things and sometimes science does explore some pretty radical theories with little grounding in fact. But those are theories. Evolution is fact.
| bardi wrote: |
| Human beings seem to be able to do genetic engineering. Can we somehow know that we are not products of genetic engineering ourselves? |
Because we're a mess, that's why. If we were engineered it would be to a far higher standard. Most of our DNA is useless. Worse still, it can actually cause a wide array of problems. There's no way that it's the result of some kind of 'intelligent design'. It doesn't even make sense to look at the facts of the matter in those terms. | bardi wrote: |
| The Theory of Evolution is just another religion. |
Enlighten yourself before making absurd comments that aren't even worth a reply -.- | bardi wrote: |
The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
The problem is basic. Human beings need explanations for everything to hide their fear of the unknown. Religions provide answers. Science also provides answers. However, much of science is based on very dubious assumptions. The Theory of Evolution is such, science, with its magical mutation methods and lack of testability. |
There is nothing magical about evolution. The fact that you either don't understand, or choose not to understand the mechanisms doesn't make them magic. Genetic mutation is an observable fact. Evolution is, likewise, an obervable fact. There is even fairly recent experimental data showing that humans are still evolving;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
| Quote: |
| Human beings seem to be able to do genetic engineering. Can we somehow know that we are not products of genetic engineering ourselves? |
No we cannot know that for sure. We can be sure that humans evolved from 'lesser' primates - the evidence for this is overwhelming. We cannot, however, be sure that there is not some 'master genetic engineer' taking a hand. The evidence against this is rather compelling, however.
Evolution provides a complete and testable theory about how the various species came about. There is no testable counter-theory (how do you test for God?). We therefore accept that evolution is the best theory (in fact it is the only coherent theory) for speciation.The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
All right, many people believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Where does genetic engineering fit into the Theory of Evolution?
How are you going to classify the new life forms that human beings develop with genetic engineering and very powerful computers programmed with clever artificial intelligence?
In the whole vast universe, are human beings the only genetic engineers?
If not, is it not reasonable to guess that there are many, many very sophisticated genetic engineers out there?
Is it also not reasonable to guess that those genetic engineers would be much more efficient at generating new life forms than the mechanisms given by current politically correct science?
| bardi wrote: |
| The Theory of Evolution is just another religion. |
Err....no, not really. Religion is something you believe as a matter of faith. Evolution is something you accept because you can observe it. | Quote: |
| All right, many people believe in the Theory of Evolution. |
Yes...and?
| Quote: |
| Where does genetic engineering fit into the Theory of Evolution? |
It doesn't. One is called 'the theory of evolution' and the other is called 'genetic engineering'. | Quote: |
| How are you going to classify the new life forms that human beings develop with genetic engineering and very powerful computers programmed with clever artificial intelligence? |
Well, let's see. One would be a generically engineered organism and the other would be an artificial intelligence... | Quote: |
| In the whole vast universe, are human beings the only genetic engineers? |
The only ones we know about, yes.
| Quote: |
| If not, is it not reasonable to guess that there are many, many very sophisticated genetic engineers out there? |
Reasonable? Perhaps, yes. Why would we want to do so, though? Evolution provides a complete explanation without the need to invoke an alien genetic engineer. The 'solution' that you offer is no real solution anyway. Where did these genetic engineers come from themselves? Did they evolve or are they the result of other genetic engineers?
| Quote: |
| Is it also not reasonable to guess that those genetic engineers would be much more efficient at generating new life forms than the mechanisms given by current politically correct science? |
What is politically correct about science? Science makes statements which can be tested. Political correctness doesn't enter into it.
You really need to read about evolution before you start embarking on flights of fancy like this.... | bardi wrote: |
The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
All right, many people believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Where does genetic engineering fit into the Theory of Evolution?
How are you going to classify the new life forms that human beings develop with genetic engineering and very powerful computers programmed with clever artificial intelligence?
In the whole vast universe, are human beings the only genetic engineers?
If not, is it not reasonable to guess that there are many, many very sophisticated genetic engineers out there?
Is it also not reasonable to guess that those genetic engineers would be much more efficient at generating new life forms than the mechanisms given by current politically correct science? |
There is no "believing" in evolution. It is what it is. It requires no faith or belief that it is "right."The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
The religious doctrines of the Theory of Evolution are becoming apparent in these posts.
1. In the beginning (of genetic engineering) there was one and only one species, Homo Sapiens, and it was good. (The earth is the center of the universe.)
2. All life arose from the immaculate mutation, and it was good.
And then we have the arguments that the Theory of Evolution religion explains everything. It is true, proven, factual, observable. (The hand of God is everywhere.)
We also have the spiritual awakening type arguments. If only you would delve into the various manifestations of the immaculate mutation, you will see the truth.
Genetically modified tomatoes -- where do they fit in?
| bardi wrote: |
The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
The religious doctrines of the Theory of Evolution are becoming apparent in these posts.
1. In the beginning (of genetic engineering) there was one and only one species, Homo Sapiens, and it was good. (The earth is the center of the universe.)
2. All life arose from the immaculate mutation, and it was good.
And then we have the arguments that the Theory of Evolution religion explains everything. It is true, proven, factual, observable. (The hand of God is everywhere.)
We also have the spiritual awakening type arguments. If only you would delve into the various manifestations of the immaculate mutation, you will see the truth.
Genetically modified tomatoes -- where do they fit in? |
I think you are beginning to gibber and dribble. Do you actually know the theory of evolution?
Let me make it really simple.
1) Evolution has nothing to do with genetic engineering
2) The original species was certainly not homo sapiens
3) There is nothing immaculate about genetic mutations
4) Evolution DOES explain speciation, it IS factual and it IS observable
5) A religion is something you accept on faith with no proof. Science is something you accept because of proof with no need for faith.
6) You don't have to delve into any manifestations of anything. Simply do some reading on the subject.
Get it?The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
Try answering the question.
Genetically modified tomatoes -- where do they fit in?
| bardi wrote: |
The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
Try answering the question.
Genetically modified tomatoes -- where do they fit in? |
Fit in with what? Genetic engineering has nothing to do with evolution. There is no connection what so ever.
On a side note, repeating the same ignorant remark over and over doesn't strengthen your argument. | Quote: |
| The Theory of Evolution is just another religion. |
There is little point debating evolution with someone who clearly doesn't understand what evolution is. Arguing from a position of ignorance is not really sensible and I would, again, urge you to consider actually reading about evolution before you decide to make rather foolish comments about it. | bardi wrote: |
The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
Try answering the question.
Genetically modified tomatoes -- where do they fit in? |
The diffusion theory for radiative energy transfer is just another religion.
Try answering the question.
Traffic signals -- where do they fit in?
--------------------------
See? i can do it, too. ^_^;Whilst debating ID in another place I came across the creationist 'proof' using a banana:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk
It's hillarious
Also - Poe's Law
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law I dont really get this whole text.
| bardi wrote: |
The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
The religious doctrines of the Theory of Evolution are becoming apparent in these posts. |
understand this part.
| bardi wrote: |
1. In the beginning (of genetic engineering) there was one and only one species, Homo Sapiens, and it was good. (The earth is the center of the universe.) |
In the beginning of genetic engineering so that's a "few" years ago. Well yes only we can genitically engineer.
| bardi wrote: |
2. All life arose from the immaculate mutation, and it was good. |
Yes it did arose from muation however some argue wheter it was random mutation or a bit more "steered". (Why is the good part in there?)
| bardi wrote: |
And then we have the arguments that the Theory of Evolution religion explains everything. It is true, proven, factual, observable. (The hand of God is everywhere.) |
Yes its more or less proven there are some holes in the theory but al around the world you can find different animals. In a forest on Papoea-Nieuw-Guinea scientists found an isolated forrest with al kinds of animals including some whitch are slightly different from others found on different area's on the island. But (The hand of God is everywhere.) part is well... a bit misplaced dont really get that one. If you mean god did that well, there's no proof (that I think is reliable, or any good) god did that. Since the only "proof" of god is the Bible. And the bible was wrong a "few" times
| bardi wrote: |
We also have the spiritual awakening type arguments. If only you would delve into the various manifestations of the immaculate mutation, you will see the truth.
|
Spiritual arguments? which ones. Explain!
| bardi wrote: |
Genetically modified tomatoes -- where do they fit in? |
Genetically modified tomatoes fit between biologic tomatoes and potatoes. 
No really its not related to the theory and has nothing to do with it. To the above:
He's just trying to make connections with how the Theory of Evolution is often portrayed and how the creation of the universe as explained by Christianity are related. He's attempting to paint the Theory of Evolution as a religion by making connections that aren't there. Needless to say, his attempt was horrid and unsuccessful.
What he/she is doing, which is typical of creationist/ID supporters, is to dishonestly represent any scientific theory which contradicts the basic Genesis account of creation. It is the most common tactic used, and you will see it applied to all sorts of science - palaeontology, genetics, evolutionary theory, cosmology, geology etc. It is a very familiar gambit to those of us who have been around this debate for some time.
The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
I think I am dealing with Darwinian fundamentalists.
As I see it, a Darwinian fundamentalist believes:
1. Human beings are the only genetic engineers ever.
2. All life arises from the immaculate mutation.
If one looks at the Theory of Evolution of Automobiles one can see that automobiles over the years have evolved to fit their environment. For instance, those in Britain are generally characterized by having the steering wheel towards the right. Over the years, automobiles have mutated into a whole variety of brands and configurations. They have mutated into many variants, Some can even operate off road. They are classified into models. Models are automobiles which are very similar to each other, but no individuals are identical. Many, if not most, models have become extinct.
Of course, we know that the mutations of automobiles are controlled by human beings. So they are not immaculate mutations.
The genetically modified tomato is mutated into being by human beings and it is therefore not created by immaculate mutation.
I really can't do anything besides laugh...I'm sorry. Honestly, it's not worth debating with someone like yourself. No offense, but before you pretend to know what you're talking about, attempt taking at least a few educational classes on it from professors/experts who aren't creationists or ID supporters. I don't claim to be an expert, but it's 100% apparent that you've A) Not even read anything on the subject outside of maybe a few brief articles B) Were taught the Theory of Evolution my some hardcore creationist.
And cars aren't living organisms.
Again, you're making meaningless connections that aren't there. Again, genetic engineering has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
Lastly, there are no Darwin Fundamentalists here. Darwin's explanation has been somewhat retired now in the scientific community.
The only way to deal with this level of idiocy is to ignore it, which is exactly what I will be doing from this point...
Ah, creationists. ^_^; Putting the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" since 1984.
Er... wait a minute... ^_^;
| Indi wrote: |
Ah, creationists. ^_^; Putting the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" since 1984.
Er... wait a minute... ^_^; |
LOL...where do they dig them up?
Is this a case of cognitive dissonance, do you think? 
I just knew we shared genes with a banana for some reason 
| bardi wrote: |
The Theory of Evolution is just another religion.
I think I am dealing with Darwinian fundamentalists.
As I see it, a Darwinian fundamentalist believes:
1. Human beings are the only genetic engineers ever.
2. All life arises from the immaculate mutation.
If one looks at the Theory of Evolution of Automobiles one can see that automobiles over the years have evolved to fit their environment. For instance, those in Britain are generally characterized by having the steering wheel towards the right. Over the years, automobiles have mutated into a whole variety of brands and configurations. They have mutated into many variants, Some can even operate off road. They are classified into models. Models are automobiles which are very similar to each other, but no individuals are identical. Many, if not most, models have become extinct.
Of course, we know that the mutations of automobiles are controlled by human beings. So they are not immaculate mutations.
The genetically modified tomato is mutated into being by human beings and it is therefore not created by immaculate mutation. |
[*]Wiping the tears of laughter away[*]
Dude this is completely messed up it might be me. But whats the connection between the "mutations" of cars and us... I know that some people give their cars names but this.... :/
Its like blaming the DEcrease of pirates for the INcrease for CO2.
You are COMPLETELY missing the point, first read about the theory of evolution before you say any more. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | Ah, creationists. ^_^; Putting the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" since 1984.
Er... wait a minute... ^_^; |
LOL...where do they dig them up?
Is this a case of cognitive dissonance, do you think? |
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." The same is true for clueless people.
Not every creationist suffers from CD. Only the intelligent ones. ^_-
