Recommended Posts
ahh but thats microevolution, which we ID people dont have a problem with because we've seen it and no one would take us seriouusly if we tried blaming that one on god.
however, it is not MACRO evolution, which can never be perfectly simulated by science and we can always find fault in any attempt at simulating several billion years. Therefor it was God that did it.
I think that about sums up the 'complexities' of the argument.
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
however, it is not MACRO evolution, which can never be perfectly simulated by science and we can always find fault in any attempt at simulating several billion years. Therefor it was God that did it.
I think that about sums up the 'complexities' of the argument.
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
There is no point to it.......other than making one feel "warm & fuzzy" all over..........I don't know if I would even call it "junk science"
More a matter of faith than science......
More a matter of faith than science......Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004
QuoteThere is no point to it.......other than making one feel "warm & fuzzy" all over..........I don't know if I would even call it "junk science"
I think what's going on is people are not recognizing the differences between Creationism (which is literal faith in the Bible) and ID (which is actually does some interesting math and science.)
Of course it's true that ID is MOTIVATED by faith in the Bible. But that isn't sufficient to invalidate any scientific findings.
I think it's unfortunate that people won't pull the anti-creationism blinders off long enough to at least RECOGNIZE that this is different.
The fallacy here, for those following along, is argumentum ad hominem.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
please point me in the direction of an ID based scientific finding .
"god did this' would not count.
And I hope to fuck its a great deal more impressive than 'well, this is pretty complicated, no way it just happened to be random chance that caused this pretty pattern'
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
"god did this' would not count.
And I hope to fuck its a great deal more impressive than 'well, this is pretty complicated, no way it just happened to be random chance that caused this pretty pattern'
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
Intelligent design debate
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate. This debate has not taken place in scientific circles, but in the cultural and political realms.
The intelligent design debate centers on three issues:
1. Whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer
2. Whether the evidence supports such theories
3. Whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate and legal in public education
Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition[34] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science[35] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism",[36] and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena, and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive [37] explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes.
Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. Teaching both, intelligent design supporters argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.[38][39][40]
According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, and that it is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.[41] Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory." There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."[42] Even if evolution could not explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an alien life force)[43] created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.[44][45] In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids.
Many people, while religious, do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and therefore desire some compromise between the two.
[edit]
ID as science
The scientific method is based on an approach known as methodological naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[46] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[47] violates the principle of parsimony,[48] is not falsifiable,[49] is not empirically testable,[50] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[51]
In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[52] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[53]
Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:
* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
* The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
* There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."[54]
source: same as above
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate. This debate has not taken place in scientific circles, but in the cultural and political realms.
The intelligent design debate centers on three issues:
1. Whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer
2. Whether the evidence supports such theories
3. Whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate and legal in public education
Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition[34] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science[35] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism",[36] and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena, and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive [37] explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes.
Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. Teaching both, intelligent design supporters argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.[38][39][40]
According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, and that it is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.[41] Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory." There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."[42] Even if evolution could not explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an alien life force)[43] created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.[44][45] In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids.
Many people, while religious, do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and therefore desire some compromise between the two.
[edit]
ID as science
The scientific method is based on an approach known as methodological naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[46] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[47] violates the principle of parsimony,[48] is not falsifiable,[49] is not empirically testable,[50] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[51]
In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[52] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[53]
Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:
* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
* The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
* There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."[54]
source: same as above
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
Quoteplease point me in the direction of an ID based scientific finding .
I don't know anything about the ID findings. I've been explaining what the CONCEPT is because you (and others) seemed to be curious if it was more rigorous and scientific than "god says so". It IS more rigorous than that, at least in theory.
Maybe somebody else has current findings. My guess is there isn't much.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
Andy9o8 0
The problem with the ID premise that "science has not been able to explain all aspects of development of life on Earth" is that it depends upon presumptions that are actually fallacies. These fallacious presumptions include:
1. That scientific knowledge has developed sufficiently to date to be able to fully decipher all of the processes of the development of the species. Well, ok, I guess the next 500 years of scientific understanding and technological development need not occur, because, folks, this is the smartest we're ever going to get. It's reminiscent of what Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the US Office of Patents, is reported to have said in 1899: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Same kind of
(il)logic.
2. That humans as a species at the current stage of development have the intellectual capacity to fathom out the solution. Maybe as a species we're just plain not intelligent enough to figure out the answer to the puzzle. (That is, until our descendants evolve into a higher life form. Hm, circular, isn't it?)
3. That life ON EARTH is the only life whose development is worth studying. Statistically it's virtually a certainty that other planets (somewhere out there, maybe near, maybe far...) also have life on them that's in the process of development. Maybe Earth only has incomplete pieces of the puzzle, and we're just going to have to wait a few hundred years until warp drive or that wormhole stargate I'm working on in my basement (patent pending) has been perfected so we can travel out to where the other pieces are and analyze them.
1. That scientific knowledge has developed sufficiently to date to be able to fully decipher all of the processes of the development of the species. Well, ok, I guess the next 500 years of scientific understanding and technological development need not occur, because, folks, this is the smartest we're ever going to get. It's reminiscent of what Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the US Office of Patents, is reported to have said in 1899: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Same kind of
(il)logic.
2. That humans as a species at the current stage of development have the intellectual capacity to fathom out the solution. Maybe as a species we're just plain not intelligent enough to figure out the answer to the puzzle. (That is, until our descendants evolve into a higher life form. Hm, circular, isn't it?)
3. That life ON EARTH is the only life whose development is worth studying. Statistically it's virtually a certainty that other planets (somewhere out there, maybe near, maybe far...) also have life on them that's in the process of development. Maybe Earth only has incomplete pieces of the puzzle, and we're just going to have to wait a few hundred years until warp drive or that wormhole stargate I'm working on in my basement (patent pending) has been perfected so we can travel out to where the other pieces are and analyze them.
yeah, thats how the thread began 
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
There are two parts to ID as I've explained it.
A) Discovering whether or not there is too much complexity to be explained by random chance
B) Concluding what the missing element is.
Part (A) is potentially interesting science. Possibly fruitful or fruitless. I have no idea.
Part (B) seems silly in the absence of more information.
Your claimed presumptions of ID are a iittle odd. (1) and (2) are basically synonymous and only come into play with part (B) above.
But (3) is fallacious on YOUR side. It's not necessary to discover that ALL life in the universe is too complex to arise through evolution. It's only necessary to discover ONE example.
I have no idea if any examples have been found, but if one were, it would be enough to satisfy (A) above.
(B) is another matter entirely.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
A) Discovering whether or not there is too much complexity to be explained by random chance
B) Concluding what the missing element is.
Part (A) is potentially interesting science. Possibly fruitful or fruitless. I have no idea.
Part (B) seems silly in the absence of more information.
Your claimed presumptions of ID are a iittle odd. (1) and (2) are basically synonymous and only come into play with part (B) above.
But (3) is fallacious on YOUR side. It's not necessary to discover that ALL life in the universe is too complex to arise through evolution. It's only necessary to discover ONE example.
I have no idea if any examples have been found, but if one were, it would be enough to satisfy (A) above.
(B) is another matter entirely.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
There are lots of examples of viruses such as HIV, influenza (H5N1) that have mutate in response to environmental selection pressures. These organisms have genetic machinery that promote mutation events in specific genes often encoding products that are part of the infection process. In doing so many stains of virus can arise to which immunity has to be re-established in the host. This is part of the normal lifecycle of the virus I guess you could call it evolution.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites