|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
ID is not science - 6/13/2008 4:39:09 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
But if it is, one could offer an experiment that could test it as an hypothesis or it would suggest lines of inquiry for experimentation, in the way that the theory of evolution does.
I am curious!
I am just not sure if or how anyone might claim it to be so. I sure can't think of any experiments (and I'm not inclined to put God to the test in such an obvious way either.)
Thanks in advance for your responses.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/13/2008 4:57:27 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
But if it is, one could offer an experiment that could test it as an hypothesis or it would suggest lines of inquiry for experimentation, in the way that the theory of evolution does.
I am curious!
I am just not sure if or how anyone might claim it to be so. I sure can't think of any experiments (and I'm not inclined to put God to the test in such an obvious way either.)
What do you hold the 'hypothesis' of ID to be?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/13/2008 5:21:24 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
I suppose that an intelligence engineered biological and other complex systems, right?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/13/2008 6:06:18 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suppose that an intelligence engineered biological and other complex systems, right?
Well, more particularly it is that certain indicators are invariably the result of intelligent design.
Now that intelligence can originate certain things (like information driven machinery) is demonstrated and unchallenged - intelligence does so every day, through a variety of mechanisms.
That some other unguided mechanism or causes can do so is not demonstrated, and such a demonstration would have the effect of falsifying ID - and falsification is probably the most straight forward means to investigate a phenomena scientifically.
< Message edited by Jhud -- 6/13/2008 6:12:26 PM >
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/13/2008 6:11:12 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
That some other unguided mechanism or causes can do so is not demonstrated, and such a demonstration would have the effect of falsifying ID - and falsification is probably the most straight forward means to investigate a phenomena scientifically.
WRONG. The effect would not falsify ID. ID could still be the correct historical explanation even if some other unguided mechanism was demonstrated as possible and even plausible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/13/2008 6:35:05 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
WRONG. The effect would not falsify ID. ID could still be the correct historical explanation even if some other unguided mechanism was demonstrated as possible and even plausible.
Is English your second language?
It would falsify the contention that, "certain indicators are invariably the result of intelligent design."
It's like talking to a thick, hard, wall.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/13/2008 11:20:07 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, more particularly it is that certain indicators are invariably the result of intelligent design. Does the object, event, or entity displaying these certain indicators have to be observed while in the process or action of design by the intelligent agent? If not, how can we be sure some alternative unguided cause did not result in the effect?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/14/2008 10:35:15 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Basically, there is nothing wrong with believing in ID, even as a scientist. Nonetheless, what experiments does it suggest? One can practice science as a believer full of awe at creation, but science is about asking questions and testing them.
Yes, certain claims of Creationism might be falsifiable, such as the earth is 6,000 or so years old. Many would say that has been convincingly falsified. It's still worth looking at all the evidence for oneself, of course, though.
On the other hand "God" in general is not falsifiable. But I'm not sure I'm interested in making this a question even of whether ID is falsifiable. You see, some who believe that evolution is a done deal, so to speak, might not believe it is falsifiable either (however, its premises must be, such as traits are reliably heritable -- there might be a factor which can intervene between genotype and phenotype that can trump genetics under special circumstances and itself cause evolution of species. I'm not saying this is a very educated hypothesis but... take "handedness" exhibited by organisms. It's not apparent that this is genetically controlled, yet it can play an important role in survival. There is some example involving snails with either left-handed or right-handed spirals and the crabs that feed them. I'm not trying to be fanciful or unscientific, I just think it's interesting.) But the TOE does suggest possible experiments.
Design is a valid metaphor for what we see in nature. And it might also be true (personal belief aside). But does it contribute to inquiry or stop it? Awe, gratitude, humility, and other Godly motives can propel one's scientific studies, but science will not occur unless one is also either curious about how things work or doubtful about current explanations.
All I'm saying is science is asking questions, and one cannot ask questions of a "black box." That doesn't mean that a black box isn't out there, it's just that it is unscientific to proceed under that assumption.
Basically, I am saying science is, you could say, a NEGATIVE enterprise. It proceeds out of questions, rather than striving for absolute conclusions.
If one is struck by the glory of God in nature, that perception is itself a gift of God and the Holy Spirit; however, it is incidental to science (perhaps not the scientist though, you see).
I think swan42 and maybe others were making a point that design could be seen as the distal cause of everything, and one which is never falsifiable, while science is only concerned with proximate causes. If the perspective of ID is having a healthy awe for complexity, science has difficulty in asking holistic questions, because experiments become impossible n larger and larger scales -- simply from a practical standpoint -- and it instead tends towards reductionism. Nevertheless, I believe our minds are built to make large scale connections, and perhaps one day some "big" questions can be asked. Until then, a Christian scientist may be blessed with a sense of awe at the nascent understanding of the complexity of God's creation, but, to be a scientist, it seems s/he must be humble enough to be content with reductionism.
One might write a "natural history" of which one believes God to be the author -- and it would be an amazing one if it looked at ALL the available scientific data, or, you know, some editing would have to take place, but, I would hope, it wouldn't have an agenda rather than a hunger for the truth and a healthy awe and passion for the subject matter. The religious aspects of it, of course, would not fall under the category of "proof" but rather testimony.
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 6/14/2008 10:43:22 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/14/2008 11:02:07 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
In ID's defense. I think it might be very helpful for science education, including biology, to include a rigorous component of ENGINEERING. Such might be very helpful in furthering studies of biology and inspiring new insight! It doesn't mean that God is demonstrable in nature, though -- just that this metaphor might be very useful to advance science!
I'm serious about this. However, I'm not sure science is ready to admit that some of its "understanding" of reality really and truly is nothing more than metaphor in the first place. IF you can do that, then ID would be a welcome component of science studies. For instance, we have the "solar system" model and the "plum-pudding" models of the atom. These are clearly metaphors, but they lend an understanding of what is going on. The solar system model appears in elementary textbooks and the plum-pudding one later on. Are either true? No, but they have and might continue to suggest experiments and questions, such as when the question, "If an electron orbits the nucleus like a satellite, then we can calculate its momentum and position at any one time," was subsequently theorized to be false, giving rise to the plum-pudding model, which has been informing experiments and serving as a departure for more informed inquiry ever since.
Why couldn't also a scientist say, "This structure resembles something that one might engineer" -- valid metaphor! -- "therefore, what might I or an intelligence do to solve this OTHER problem," and then proceed to see if the mode of engineering can produce testable (yes, falsifiable) explanations. Why not? However, it is then (and, truly, it should have done this a long time ago) that science must affirm that its metaphors are not necessarily true ways of understanding the universe. They are just modes of thought. In the same way, even as evolution is a powerful tool for generating inquiry and framing thought in biology, to the extent that it ventures into the metaphorical, it must be understood as just that. We all know what happens when poorly stated metaphors or gross sign-posts to guide a scientists thought, e.g.: survival of the fittest, are taken up by the press, the populace, and into a person's heart. Obvious lesson learned: though science is in the business of finding new objects and concepts in the universe, it is purely descriptive. To the extent that it borrows metaphors to aid in its descriptions, we must be careful not to reimport these metaphors into common discourse, believing that just because a scientist said it was so (there is no reason to assume that a scientist might also be an effective poet!!) it is.
Of course, evolutionists could understandably believe that just because evolution says something about human nature, it also tells us that is OUGHT to be that way. But how can science ask "ought"?
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 6/14/2008 11:08:48 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/18/2008 10:08:52 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, more particularly it is that certain indicators are invariably the result of intelligent design.
Then I should set up a camera in my lab to capture this designer at work. When I put a few hundred thousand bacteria in broth there are several billion the next day. That must be one busy designer.
quote:
Now that intelligence can originate certain things (like information driven machinery) is demonstrated and unchallenged - intelligence does so every day, through a variety of mechanisms.
Given the wishy-washy definition of intelligence that most IDer's prefer there is nothing that could not be produced by intelligence and through every possible mechanism.
quote:
That some other unguided mechanism or causes can do so is not demonstrated,
But it needs to be impossible for your argument to work. Where have you demonstrated this?
And if you were fair you would be giving us observations of this supposed designer actually doing some designing. Where are those demonstrations?
quote:
and such a demonstration would have the effect of falsifying ID
Then a supernatural deity producing flagella in front of a group of scientists would falsify evolution. Until this is done evolution stands as true, right? After all, if you can't show that an intelligence is actually doing it then the other option is true by default. Is this a valid way to support evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 2:28:09 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Then I should set up a camera in my lab to capture this designer at work. When I put a few hundred thousand bacteria in broth there are several billion the next day. That must be one busy designer.
'Certain indicators'... do you know what those words mean?
quote:
Given the wishy-washy definition of intelligence that most IDer's prefer there is nothing that could not be produced by intelligence and through every possible mechanism.
Given that evolution can mean everything from 'change over time' to the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor, I would say evolutionists have the corner on wishy-washy definitions.
But I was fairly specific about what couldn't be produced (note the word 'produced' - not 'reproduced', since you have a problem distinguishing the two), namely information driven machines, of the sort found in every cell that exists.
quote:
But it needs to be impossible for your argument to work. Where have you demonstrated this?
Well, all you have to do to prove it 'possible' is demonstrate it happening. It's called falsification - something evolution isn't subject to.
quote:
And if you were fair you would be giving us observations of this supposed designer actually doing some designing. Where are those demonstrations?
I thought you worked in a lab? Isn't there any intelligence at work there?
quote:
Then a supernatural deity producing flagella in front of a group of scientists would falsify evolution. Until this is done evolution stands as true, right?
Why would the inability to produce any evidence for the evolutionary production of information driven machines, and the regular observation of intelligences producing the same be evidence for evolution?
Evidence against ID being the only possible option would be the demonstration of the development de novo of an information driven machine by incremental and incidental means - and it would also constitute a shred of evidence that evolution can do so.
quote:
After all, if you can't show that an intelligence is actually doing it then the other option is true by default. Is this a valid way to support evolution?
No more valid than saying that if you didn't see an egyptian build a pyramid it must be a natural formation.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 9:36:54 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
I just want to hear about lines of inquiry suggested by ID. I'm not denying that there may be one who has thought more about this than I. However, I'm not convinced that there are any.
I think ID would represent more of a personal philosophy or narrative guide than a scientific platform for launching questions.
For instance, I am struck by the idea that it seems contradictory to ask questions of a "black box."
I can grant that one could investigate HOW a black box works if what is thought of as opaque is the WHY or the process in which the black box came to be. However, the TOE DOES ask questions about the why of these so-called black boxes. Unfortunately for those with a political agenda (and abused by some OTHERS with another political agenda) science is in the business of asking questions. If it can come up with an hypothesis and an experiment, then it gets busy. If it then produces many experiments involving analogous hypotheses which are repeatable and peer-reviewed, then science then speaks of a theory. If at this time, science wants to sit back, toast itself and delclare that knowledge is almost complete, then they are not being scientists but aspiring retirees. Ratherm theories should simply be understood as a BROAD platform from which to express a range of questions and discuss experiments.
I say ID might have a place if they admit that there's is not a comprehensive scientific theory of nature in the sense that it can ask questions BROADLY, but since it ought to be capable of asking the "how" and "what" of systems from an engineering standpoint, perhaps it has a place in science, as long as it acknowledges itself to be natural philosophy rather than the relentless and abject force of inquiry that is science. That is, it could find a niche -- especially if collaboration with engineering-types leads to greater insight into the "how" and "what" questions.
I am not trying to set up a compromise, however; I just think ID is not science. As I have expressed in the other thread, it just so happens that what some scientists discuss, abusing their expertise, is not science either. An excellent example is emergence. Another would be when they step from "that" to "ought," when getting carried away by the hypotheses concerning human behavior that can be considered through the evolutionary lens.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 10:40:03 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Given that evolution can mean everything from 'change over time' to the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor, I would say evolutionists have the corner on wishy-washy definitions.
How is this "wishy-washy"? Both "change (in a species) over time" and "common descent...from a single ancestor" are perfectly logical inferences from imperfect replication with cladistic speciation. Strictly speaking, the latter is the process of evolution, but the results of a process are entailed in the process.
quote:
It's called falsification - something evolution isn't subject to.
Yes, evolution is subject to falsification. If the process and its mechanisms were not observed in nature, that would be falsification. If species did not change over time, that would be falsification. It the indicators of common descent were lacking or contradicted by anomalous information, that would be falsification.
quote:
I thought you worked in a lab? Isn't there any intelligence at work there?
Surely the point in an experiment is not whether there is intelligence in the lab, but whether there is intelligence in the test tube.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 10:53:26 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
'Certain indicators'... do you know what those words mean?
Yes. Do you?
quote:
Given that evolution can mean everything from 'change over time' to the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor, I would say evolutionists have the corner on wishy-washy definitions.
We are talking about ID, not evolution.
quote:
But I was fairly specific about what couldn't be produced (note the word 'produced' - not 'reproduced', since you have a problem distinguishing the two), namely information driven machines, of the sort found in every cell that exists.
You said, "Well, more particularly it is that certain indicators are invariably the result of intelligent design." I guess you need to add reproduction to the list of things that produce "certain indicators".
quote:
Well, all you have to do to prove it 'possible' is demonstrate it happening. It's called falsification - something evolution isn't subject to.
Every theory must have positive support. Lack for positive support for competing theories does not count as positive support for a theory.
Has anyone ever observed this supposed designer designing anything? No. Therefore you are without support.
quote:
I thought you worked in a lab? Isn't there any intelligence at work there?
Humans have only been around for a few hundreds of thousands of years. They can't be the designer you are proferring.
quote:
Why would the inability to produce any evidence for the evolutionary production of information driven machines, and the regular observation of intelligences producing the same be evidence for evolution? [/quoet]
What intelligences? The ones that were not around 3.5 billion years ago? You lack a designer for ID. You lack a mechanism.
quote:
Evidence against ID being the only possible option would be the demonstration of the development de novo of an information driven machine by incremental and incidental means - and it would also constitute a shred of evidence that evolution can do so.
Where is the demonstration of ID? You require it for evolution but you strangely leave this requirement out for ID.
quote:
No more valid than saying that if you didn't see an egyptian build a pyramid it must be a natural formation.
We have evidence of those designers that is independent of the design.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 10:54:58 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
'Certain indicators'... do you know what those words mean?
Yes. Do you?
quote:
Given that evolution can mean everything from 'change over time' to the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor, I would say evolutionists have the corner on wishy-washy definitions.
We are talking about ID, not evolution.
quote:
But I was fairly specific about what couldn't be produced (note the word 'produced' - not 'reproduced', since you have a problem distinguishing the two), namely information driven machines, of the sort found in every cell that exists.
You said, "Well, more particularly it is that certain indicators are invariably the result of intelligent design." I guess you need to add reproduction to the list of things that produce "certain indicators".
quote:
Well, all you have to do to prove it 'possible' is demonstrate it happening. It's called falsification - something evolution isn't subject to.
Every theory must have positive support. Lack for positive support for competing theories does not count as positive support for a theory.
Has anyone ever observed this supposed designer designing anything? No. Therefore you are without support.
quote:
I thought you worked in a lab? Isn't there any intelligence at work there?
Humans have only been around for a few hundreds of thousands of years. They can't be the designer you are proferring.
quote:
Why would the inability to produce any evidence for the evolutionary production of information driven machines, and the regular observation of intelligences producing the same be evidence for evolution? [/quoet]
What intelligences? The ones that were not around 3.5 billion years ago? You lack a designer for ID. You lack a mechanism.
quote:
Evidence against ID being the only possible option would be the demonstration of the development de novo of an information driven machine by incremental and incidental means - and it would also constitute a shred of evidence that evolution can do so.
Where is the demonstration of ID? You require it for evolution but you strangely leave this requirement out for ID.
quote:
No more valid than saying that if you didn't see an egyptian build a pyramid it must be a natural formation.
We have evidence of those designers that is independent of the design. We know that there were humans alive at the time. We can actually read their records on the pyramid blocks themselves. Also, pyramids do not reproduce.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 10:56:32 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
'Certain indicators'... do you know what those words mean?
Yes. Do you?
quote:
Given that evolution can mean everything from 'change over time' to the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor, I would say evolutionists have the corner on wishy-washy definitions.
We are talking about ID, not evolution.
quote:
But I was fairly specific about what couldn't be produced (note the word 'produced' - not 'reproduced', since you have a problem distinguishing the two), namely information driven machines, of the sort found in every cell that exists.
You said, "Well, more particularly it is that certain indicators are invariably the result of intelligent design." I guess you need to add reproduction to the list of things that produce "certain indicators".
quote:
Well, all you have to do to prove it 'possible' is demonstrate it happening. It's called falsification - something evolution isn't subject to.
Every theory must have positive support. Lack for positive support for competing theories does not count as positive support for a theory.
Has anyone ever observed this supposed designer designing anything? No. Therefore you are without support.
quote:
I thought you worked in a lab? Isn't there any intelligence at work there?
Humans have only been around for a few hundreds of thousands of years. They can't be the designer you are proferring.
quote:
Why would the inability to produce any evidence for the evolutionary production of information driven machines, and the regular observation of intelligences producing the same be evidence for evolution?
What intelligences? The ones that were not around 3.5 billion years ago? You lack a designer for ID. You lack a mechanism.
quote:
Evidence against ID being the only possible option would be the demonstration of the development de novo of an information driven machine by incremental and incidental means - and it would also constitute a shred of evidence that evolution can do so.
Where is the demonstration of ID? You require it for evolution but you strangely leave this requirement out for ID.
quote:
No more valid than saying that if you didn't see an egyptian build a pyramid it must be a natural formation.
We have evidence of those designers that is independent of the design. We know that there were humans alive at the time. We can actually read their records on the pyramid blocks themselves. Also, pyramids do not reproduce.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 11:23:56 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes. Do you?
Of course.
quote:
We are talking about ID, not evolution.
Simply pointing out that as an evolutionist, you are in no position to either criticize or rectify wisy-washyness.
quote:
You said, "Well, more particularly it is that certain indicators are invariably the result of intelligent design." I guess you need to add reproduction to the list of things that produce "certain indicators".
I think I stumbled into the English as a second language thread here – could you direct me to the science threads?
Reproduction doesn’t produce such indicators; it merely reproduces them, thus the term ‘reproduction’.
quote:
Every theory must have positive support. Lack for positive support for competing theories does not count as positive support for a theory.
ID of course has vast positive support, observed continually every time an intelligent agent produces an information system or machine.
quote:
Has anyone ever observed this supposed designer designing anything? No. Therefore you are without support.
It of course doesn’t need to be ‘the’ designer, but a designer. I don’t need to see an Aztec produce pictographs to know that intelligence is required for them to exist, because they bear indicators of intelligent design.
quote:
Humans have only been around for a few hundreds of thousands of years. They can't be the designer you are proferring.
Again, irrelevant – they are observable examples of intelligent agency. If we found remains of a lab on Mars we would still know that it was the product of intelligent agency, human or otherwise.
quote:
Where is the demonstration of ID? You require it for evolution but you strangely leave this requirement out for ID.
The computer in front of you is a demonstration of ID.
quote:
We have evidence of those designers that is independent of the design. We know that there were humans alive at the time. We can actually read their records on the pyramid blocks themselves. Also, pyramids do not reproduce.
Again, all irrelevant for several reasons – if we didn’t know anything about the existence of Egyptians, we could still infer intelligence. And life originated from non-living material – if ‘not capable of reproduction’ is the basis for inferring ID, then you just acknowledged the origination of life required intelligence. Glad we agree on at least this.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 11:27:28 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
We have evidence of those designers that is independent of the design. We know that there were humans alive at the time. We can actually read their records on the pyramid blocks themselves. Also, pyramids do not reproduce.
Wait, you mean y'all didn't know aliens built the pyramids?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 12:06:59 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Simply pointing out that as an evolutionist, you are in no position to either criticize or rectify wisy-washyness.
Again, this is about ID.
quote:
I think I stumbled into the English as a second language thread here – could you direct me to the science threads?
So you can't tell the difference between an original production and a reproduction?
quote:
Reproduction doesn’t produce such indicators; it merely reproduces them, thus the term ‘reproduction’.
Reproduction is still production.
quote:
ID of course has vast positive support, observed continually every time an intelligent agent produces an information system or machine.
So humans designed life 3.5 billion years ago?
quote:
It of course doesn’t need to be ‘the’ designer, but a designer.
Yes it does. It needs to be THE designer.
quote:
Again, irrelevant – they are observable examples of intelligent agency. If we found remains of a lab on Mars we would still know that it was the product of intelligent agency, human or otherwise.
We don't find labs on Mars, and labs do not produce imperfect copies of themselves. Just-so stories are not going to help you here.
It is not irrelevant that you have zero evidence for the presence of a designer independent of the design.
quote:
The computer in front of you is a demonstration of ID.
If I come back tomorrow will there be two computers?
quote:
Again, all irrelevant for several reasons – if we didn’t know anything about the existence of Egyptians, we could still infer intelligence.
But we do have evidence of humans existing independent of the pyramid. No such evidence for your supposed designer. This is not an irrelevant point. It is an incovenient point for ID.
quote:
And life originated from non-living material – if ‘not capable of reproduction’ is the basis for inferring ID, then you just acknowledged the origination of life required intelligence. Glad we agree on at least this.
I have no idea how life originated, but I thought we were discussing biodiversity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 12:12:09 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
We have evidence of those designers that is independent of the design. We know that there were humans alive at the time. We can actually read their records on the pyramid blocks themselves. Also, pyramids do not reproduce.
Wait, you mean y'all didn't know aliens built the pyramids?
Teach the controversy!
http://controversy.wearscience.com/design/ufo/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/19/2008 12:16:51 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Why do y'all think "No it's not, yes it is, no it's not, yes, no, no, huh-uh, wrong, etc." is productive for either side?
Please express how ID is science. Also, I acknowledge that scientists are not always scientific, so perhaps it is appropriate to the OP to mention instances of scientists over-stepping their knowledge, and explain thoughtfully why you think this is the case. I look forward to thoughtful argument!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/25/2008 10:26:23 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 410
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
There is no hypothesis of Intelligent Design. Hypothesis are built upon testable evidence. The reason why ID cannot be taught as science is because ID is a belief based on a book, invoking the supernatural, and without any imperical evidence to lay on any table.
When ID becomes a hypothesis, science will be able to work with the evidence.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/25/2008 11:36:18 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
There is no hypothesis of Intelligent Design. Hypothesis are built upon testable evidence. The reason why ID cannot be taught as science is because ID is a belief based on a book, invoking the supernatural, and without any imperical evidence to lay on any table.
When ID becomes a hypothesis, science will be able to work with the evidence.
To put it another way, ID can't stand on it's own. It needs evolution as a foil. They believe that by casting doubt on evolution it makes ID the winner by default. In fact, they claim that ID is falsifiable by referring to what evolution has done in the lab. As Elliot Sober put it,
Defenders of ID often claim to test their position by another route, by criticizing the theory of evolution. Behe (1996) contends that evolutionary processes cannot produce “irreducibly complex” adaptations; since we observe such traits, evolutionary theory is refuted, leaving ID as the only position standing. Behe (1996) says that a system is irreducibly complex when it is “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (p 39). Before considering whether evolutionary theory really does rule out irreducible complexity, I want to note that this argument does nothing to test ID. For ID to be testable, it must make predictions. The fact that a different theory makes a prediction says nothing about whether ID is testable. Behe has merely changed the subject.
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what%27s%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf
And that is what I find in discussion after discussion. As soon as IDers are put in a corner, asked to supply observations of this designer at work, the reflexively criticize evolution. They act as if this is somehow a testable or falsifiable claim. It isn't. It is "changing the subject".
Besides, when was the last time any evolutionists has stated "no one has ever seen God produce mutations, therefore evolution is true by default." It's an outrageous and stupid argument, yet it is the only one put forth by ID advocates.
< Message edited by Method -- 6/25/2008 11:44:58 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 1:30:33 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Please express how ID is science.
ID is falsifiable. UCD is not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 1:36:26 AM
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
