|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:54:27 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Absolutely - you wouldn't have that active imagination apart from a Designer.
So if I see a cloud in the shape of a dragon that cloud had to be made by an intelligent designer. Is that what you are saying/
quote:
ID isn't about biology, it's about detecting the activity of intelligence regardless of whether that activity resulted in a coded signal or a DNA molecule.
If ID concerns itself with DNA then it is concerned with biology. The problem is that when ID supporters are pushed on the subject of biology they resort to rocks. That's not a good sign.
quote:
Why what?
Let me repeat. Why not? What in ID says that not everything is reducible to mechanical or material processes?
Your answer? A single letter, I. Not real helpful.
quote:
Let's start with logic and principle.
Let's do. You said that it is too improbable. This is a mathematical and statistical statement. Either you have the mathematical and statistical support or you don't. Which is it?
quote:
What would you consider to be more likely - that unguided forces could deposit a pile of rocks on path, . . .
And again with rocks. When are we going to talk about biology and science?
quote:
or that unguided forces could arrange those rocks into a symanticaly correct ten word sentence, composed of alphabetic characters in standard English language?
Rocks are not biological organisms. Try again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 9:03:52 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
There is no reason scientifically not to consider the possiblity (particularly as scientists are obviously grasping at straws) of intelligence as an option.
A bit of a mischaracterization to say "grasping at straws".
There's lots of progress and promise in the area of biogenesis, there has been anything but a standstill thats for sure. Problem is, many have a tendency to take snippets of the hypotheses of biogenesis and sum them up in the most terse yet outlandish way possible to present the illusion that scientists are 'grasping at straws'... they seem to want to paint the picture like its some desperate last ditch effort on the scientists part to just 'not believe in God' (as if one has anything to do w/ the other).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 9:10:44 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
A bit of a mischaracterization to say "grasping at straws".
There's lots of progress and promise in the area of biogenesis, there has been anything but a standstill thats for sure. Problem is, many have a tendency to take snippets of the hypotheses of biogenesis and sum them up in the most terse yet outlandish way possible to present the illusion that scientists are 'grasping at straws'... they seem to want to paint the picture like its some desperate last ditch effort on the scientists part to just 'not believe in God' (as if one has anything to do w/ the other).
I linked to numerous articles - I didn't 'characterize' anything. The fact is there really has't been any 'progress' in this area.
_____________________________
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 - 7/30/2008 9:19:02 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
So if I see a cloud in the shape of a dragon that cloud had to be made by an intelligent designer. Is that what you are saying/
No, I am aying your imagination couldn't have evolved.
quote:
If ID concerns itself with DNA then it is concerned with biology. The problem is that when ID supporters are pushed on the subject of biology they resort to rocks. That's not a good sign.
Only in so much as DNA is a complex patterned structure that exists for the purpose of storing and transmitting information.
And I 'resort to rocks' just as a way of explaining the difference between how structures could arise through unguided means versus guided means. It's the same thing - particularly as biologsts themselves are 'resorting to rocks'.
quote:
Let me repeat. Why not? What in ID says that not everything is reducible to mechanical or material processes?
Your answer? A single letter, I. Not real helpful.
What don't you understand?
quote:
Let's do. You said that it is too improbable. This is a mathematical and statistical statement. Either you have the mathematical and statistical support or you don't. Which is it?
Again, I gave an example which will allow us to develop the mathematics, if you are truly interested. I will ask again:
What would you consider to be more likely - that unguided forces could deposit a pile of rocks on path, or that unguided forces could arrange those rocks into a symanticaly correct ten word sentence, composed of alphabetic characters in standard English language?
quote:
And again with rocks. When are we going to talk about biology and science?
We are going to talk pattern and probability at your request. The priniciples are the same.
_____________________________
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 - 7/30/2008 9:21:01 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
ID's solution? IT'S A MIRACLE!!!
Lines of research are signs that something is science. Reference to miracles shows that it is not.
Looking at the list of 'solutions', I think materialists better hope a miracle is possible.
Of course, IDists don't invoke miracles - materialists do.
_____________________________
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 - 7/30/2008 9:23:43 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Can any IDer support ID without mentioning evolution?
I was asked. Blame the evolutionist who asked.
_____________________________
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 - 7/30/2008 9:24:30 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
A bit of a mischaracterization to say "grasping at straws".
There's lots of progress and promise in the area of biogenesis, there has been anything but a standstill thats for sure. Problem is, many have a tendency to take snippets of the hypotheses of biogenesis and sum them up in the most terse yet outlandish way possible to present the illusion that scientists are 'grasping at straws'... they seem to want to paint the picture like its some desperate last ditch effort on the scientists part to just 'not believe in God' (as if one has anything to do w/ the other).
I linked to numerous articles - I didn't 'characterize' anything. The fact is there really has't been any 'progress' in this area.
"Grasping at straws" were your exact words.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 9:28:20 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
"Grasping at straws" were your exact words.
That's because that is what they are obviously doing. One doesn't have 10 different theories to explain something if one is at all confident in one's idea.
_____________________________
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 - 7/30/2008 9:31:48 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I still don't see the problem. Natural selection reduces variation and adaptation to specialized eco-niches may reduce survivability overall. I am not seeing anything here yet that is problematical for evolution/Darwinism. (I still don't know if you see these as being synonymous or not.) Perhaps you had better go into more detail on exactly what makes it "problematical for Darwinism".
A reduction in variation limits future evolution.
quote:
Ok, you are looking at sudden emergence in geological time frames. That is surely not "completely anti-thetical" to evolution/Darwinism. Can you again be more specific as to exactly where you see the antithesis?
Actually, these are all genetic estimations. Darwinism proposes the gradual and incremental development of species. These represent explosions of forms without gradual lineages - from a genetic standpoint.
_____________________________
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 - 7/30/2008 10:19:07 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
No, I am aying your imagination couldn't have evolved.
Why couldn't it evolve?
quote:
Only in so much as DNA is a complex patterned structure that exists for the purpose of storing and transmitting information.
This happens as a biological process, does it not?
quote:
And I 'resort to rocks' just as a way of explaining the difference between how structures could arise through unguided means versus guided means. It's the same thing - particularly as biologsts themselves are 'resorting to rocks'.
It has been shown that biological reproduction, mutation, and selection are unguided which makes rocks (which are not subject to these mechanisms) a very poor analogy.
quote:
What don't you understand?
Where ID says that reductionism in the search of material mechanisms is wrong. It would seem to be the very thing that ID argues for.
quote:
Again, I gave an example which will allow us to develop the mathematics, if you are truly interested. I will ask again:
What would you consider to be more likely - that unguided forces could deposit a pile of rocks on path, or that unguided forces could arrange those rocks into a symanticaly correct ten word sentence, composed of alphabetic characters in standard English language?
There is no way to construct any type of statistical prediction as to this occurence. What does this have to do with biology? How is ID science?
quote:
We are going to talk pattern and probability at your request. The priniciples are the same.
No, they are not. Rocks are not subject to mutation, selection, and biological reproduction.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 10:24:50 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I linked to numerous articles - I didn't 'characterize' anything. The fact is there really has't been any 'progress' in this area.
Again, this is about ID. What progress have ID researchers made into the origin of life? How did it originate and how did it come about? Is ID empty rhetoric without abiogenesis to pick on?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 10:55:31 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I still don't see the problem. Natural selection reduces variation and adaptation to specialized eco-niches may reduce survivability overall. I am not seeing anything here yet that is problematical for evolution/Darwinism. (I still don't know if you see these as being synonymous or not.) Perhaps you had better go into more detail on exactly what makes it "problematical for Darwinism".
A reduction in variation limits future evolution.
Quite right. It is an essential part of forming a nested hierarchy. Now the problem for evolution in this is.....?
quote:
Darwinism proposes the gradual and incremental development of species. These represent explosions of forms without gradual lineages - from a genetic standpoint.
Darwin proposed a gradual and incremental development of species. But he was wrong about the "gradual" part of it. Evolution still proposes an incremental development of species, but it no longer (if it ever did) claims that it occur at a steady gradual rate. So by "Darwinism" do you mean only what Darwin originally proposed, or the modern theory of evolution? It would be helpful if you were less vague on this point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 7:32:17 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Glu,
you sed: What is the basis for saying that Darwinism has run into intractable problems? And that there are no solutions in sight? These phrases are used as if they were commonly accepted as true, and I don't think that is the case.
Me: Statements like these by evolutionary biologists (with reference to Behe):
Tom Cavalier-Smith, U of British Columbia: For none of the case mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity."
Yale molecular biologist Robert Dorit: In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or the blood clotting cascade."
Jerry Coyne, U of Chicago: There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and evolution will be hard to unravel...[W}e may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 7:56:36 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Behe, in his new book, The Edge of Evolution, sez this (p. 3): In the past hundred years science has advanced enormously; what do the results of modern science show? In brief, the evidence for common descent seems compelling. The results of moder DNA sequencing experiments, undreamed of by nineteenth-centruy scientists lik Charles Darwin, show that some distantly related organisms share apparently arbitrary features of their genes that seem to have no explanation other than that they were inherited from a distant common ancestor. Second there's also great evidence that random mutation paired with natural selection can modify life in important ways. Third, however, there is strong evidence that random mutation is extremely limited. Now that we know the sequences of many genomes, now that we know how mutations occur, and how often, we can explore the possibilities and limits of random mutation with some degree of precision--for the first time since Darwin proposed his theory.
Behe argues that if there is not a smooth, gradually rising, easily found evolutionary pathway leading to a biological system within a reasonable time, Darwinian processes won't work. Then he cites the history of malaria as the single best test case of Darwinian theory, thanks to its enormous population size, rate of reproduction and our present knowledge of genetics. His conclusion: there are limits to what random genetic mutation paired with natural selection can accomplish.
IOW, when actually observed in nature, Darwinian theory runs into intractable problems.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 8:24:25 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Well, the burden of proof has been shifted. Recall that the claim of proponents of Darwinism and other naturalistic explanations of biology is that it all came about by blind natural processes.
This thread is about ID, not evolution. We are asking if ID is science so you must show that it is science. The first thing one must do is support claims with positive evidence. You and others have consistently shifted the burden of proof from ID onto evolution. This is a logical fallacy known as Negative proof. Your whole argument is based on a logical fallacy.
quote:
Design is excluded in principle.
Not at all. No one can show how it can be included as part of a research program. This is because ID is not science.
quote:
In this regard, ID is actually helpful to Darwinism cuz it should serve to spur you guys into greater efforts as opposed to "resting on your laurels."
Does this mean that IDers will continue to do nothing in the way of science?
Hey method:
According to Wikipedia, negative proof sez: "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
ID doesn't argue that way. It argues that ID is true because Darwinism is limited in its ability to explain things and there are positive reasons to belief design is needed for a full explanation of biological phenomena.
Think about it. If there are only three ways to explain an object (chance, necessity and design), and chance and necessity fail to fully explain the object, then one must conclude that design is also in the mix.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 8:31:38 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
And besides, this thread is necessarily about evolution because ID doesn't deny evolution any explanatory power. See Behe quote above. ID is just supplying a necessary corrective to EB which has oversold its ability to explain everything. Design has to be brought back into the discussion becuase it is becoming increasingly clear that the data shows EB has limits to to its ability to explain stuff.
< Message edited by ferdgoodfellow -- 7/31/2008 8:43:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 8:32:20 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Behe, in his new book, The Edge of Evolution, sez this (p. 3): In the past hundred years science has advanced enormously; what do the results of modern science show? In brief, the evidence for common descent seems compelling. The results of moder DNA sequencing experiments, undreamed of by nineteenth-centruy scientists lik Charles Darwin, show that some distantly related organisms share apparently arbitrary features of their genes that seem to have no explanation other than that they were inherited from a distant common ancestor. Second there's also great evidence that random mutation paired with natural selection can modify life in important ways. Third, however, there is strong evidence that random mutation is extremely limited. Now that we know the sequences of many genomes, now that we know how mutations occur, and how often, we can explore the possibilities and limits of random mutation with some degree of precision--for the first time since Darwin proposed his theory.
Behe argues that if there is not a smooth, gradually rising, easily found evolutionary pathway leading to a biological system within a reasonable time, Darwinian processes won't work. Then he cites the history of malaria as the single best test case of Darwinian theory, thanks to its enormous population size, rate of reproduction and our present knowledge of genetics. His conclusion: there are limits to what random genetic mutation paired with natural selection can accomplish.
IOW, when actually observed in nature, Darwinian theory runs into intractable problems.
Then ID should not be called as such but simply "arguments of refutation of some of the particulars of evolutionary theory." It doesn't need a special name and a supernatural narrative device attached to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 8:49:45 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ID is just supplying a necessary corrective to EB which has oversold its ability to explain everything.
I agree fully that there is some absurdity in the lengths that some people go to apply EB -- but not in science so much as in life, as ideology -- but trying to call ID science ONLY muddles the problem.
The problem is that scientists sometimes make claims, using the aura of their expertise, which there expertise ought not allow them to make, sch as philosophical assertions or ideological ones. (Example?) However, this is also a concise description of what proponents of ID do: push an agenda under the false flag of science.
One example of scientists overstepping their bounds is when they not only feel that all and everything in existence is explainable to science while no coherent questions concerning certain apparently real phenomena have been formulated: without questions, science goes nowhere and ought not to presume or claim that it will ever be able to go there. For instance, there are some scientists (or more likely, science journalists) who are so awed by the progress made so far in neuroscience and the advanced technology employed in that field that exmplaining what consciousness is is all but a "done deal." Now, consider the type of question which it seems fair to ask: "Where is the locus of (apparent) agency? Or, if not that, where is the locus of attention-direction?" Here is a silly question (unanswerable) which nonetheless appears equivalent: "Where is the subjective experience of consciousness?" Pragmatic answer: the brain. Realistic answer: "Ummm." Consider: If affective neural signals (or attention-directing signals) are found to originate in some identifiable brain region, and we can say that information of a global scale is funnelled into this region, then we would have serious candidate for an answer to one of these questions. However, can we say that subjective "projection" occurs within this area? Where within that area? Within an atom? Between? Or is just "an illusion?" Well, what the **** does that mean in scientific terms? Put simply: Science can only investigate objectively, physically observable phenomena; subjective, interior experience (illusory or not) cannot be "seen" except by the subject himself.
Interestingly, a further example is "strong-AI," which I believe is the claim that because a program may pass the Turing Test, that it should be considered conscious in the same way that a human is, to be fair. I will leave aside arguments against this for the moment (I can refer you to Searle's Chinese-speaking room, though) because I am especially interested to point out that this claim is sometimes made by materialists, but it appears, to my mind, to be an implication of one of the ideas of ID as well: that DNA is code, just like a computer program. I do not deny that the "running of the code" of DNA produces consciousness; however, wouldn't we have to extend conscious to anything passing the Turing Test if in fact DNA and programming languages are identical?
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 7/31/2008 8:56:59 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 8:54:42 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey 3H,
No, its still proper to call it ID because that is the element that needs to be reintroduced into the mix. If chance and necessity fail to explain it all, then we have to resort to design as well. Regarding a "supernatural narrative device," ID functions quite well without one. One doesn't need to know anything about the designer, his motives, means, etc. in order to know that something is designed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 8:59:12 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Hey 3H,
No, its still proper to call it ID because that is the element that needs to be reintroduced into the mix. If chance and necessity fail to explain it all, then we have to resort to design as well. Regarding a "supernatural narrative device," ID functions quite well without one. One doesn't need to know anything about the designer, his motives, means, etc. in order to know that something is designed.
But how can you say that the general categories "chance and necessity" have failed to explain: because Dembski's math has "swept the field?" Ridiculous. Ask a mathematician if you don't want to take my word for it.
I'll grant that ID is smart to sometimes be nonspecific about the nature of the designer; however, an unseen and unobservable entity or force is always unobservable. Consider this: If investigating this intelligence is tantamount to inquiring as to what sort of conscious experiences this being has (being unseen, we ought to think of its mind before its body, no?, since that is the only thing we have evidence of) but a mind is not observable either. Thus, as I have been saying, ought we to use forensics and psychology to understand this fellow? Hmm. How else can science ask questions about a mysterious, conscious subject? Is pschology really science anyway? I'll grant that cognitive science is, but some psychology, certainly not, even though it is apparently useful, such as psychoanalysis. Ultimately, it involves asking questions of an ambiguity: consciousness.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 9:50:59 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey 3H
quote:
But how can you say that the general categories "chance and necessity" have failed to explain: because Dembski's math has "swept the field?" Ridiculous. Ask a mathematician if you don't want to take my word for it.
Speaking as an uneddicated layman, I can only make these observations:
1. I be spishus of EB because of how its practictioners have acted over the last 100 years or so. At times it has functioned more as an ideology than as a science. (Actually, this whole ID/EB controversy would make a very interesting study in the sociology of knowledge.)
2. In terms of what is a proper subject for scientific inquiry, there is nothing in the philosophy of science which precludes investigating the possibility of design. Yet the leading EB'ers , gatekeepers of knowledge, don't even want the question asked, judging by their actions.
3. While I have questions about the theoretical justifications for ID laid out by Dembski (I have no idea whether he has given us a valid method to accurately calculate the improbabilities of this or that), I really doubt whether he has been given a fair hearing, given the vitriol directed at him.
4. EB's admit that they don't they don't "yet [have] a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity." They have ideas but no proof. In the mean time we are to take it on faith that some undirected natural process or other is responsible. Well, after 150 years, aren't we allowed to doubt their ability to produce the same, even a little bit?
5. Behe's work provides some pretty good empirical arguments that genetic mutation and natural selection are limited in their ability to produce complexity. And as we better unnerstand the bio-chemical foundations of life the task facing EB, according to Behe, only becomes more difficult. EB'ers have this implicit faith in scientific progress, and that the more we know about basic science, the more it will vindicate EB. But that is not turning out to be the case.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 10:37:21 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Hey 3H
quote:
But how can you say that the general categories "chance and necessity" have failed to explain: because Dembski's math has "swept the field?" Ridiculous. Ask a mathematician if you don't want to take my word for it.
Speaking as an uneddicated layman, I can only make these observations:
1. I be spishus of EB because of how its practictioners have acted over the last 100 years or so.
Very fair.
quote:
At times it has functioned more as an ideology than as a science.
Yes, go back further than 100 years, though, for a more thorough study.
quote:
(Actually, this whole ID/EB controversy would make a very interesting study in the sociology of knowledge.)
Yeah, I guess. Philosophy of knowledge, too.
quote:
2. In terms of what is a proper subject for scientific inquiry, there is nothing in the philosophy of science which precludes investigating the possibility of design.
I concur on that point, but the reasoning and analysis I have seen offerred so far is irresponsible and shoddy. If bio-systems were designed, I say "how interesting," but the arguments supplied are not only vague and invalid, but given their context and the presence of motive (money, respect, ostensibly Christian influence), likely consciously untruthful. I think the obscurantists are liars. It is simply my opinion.
quote:
Yet the leading EB'ers , gatekeepers of knowledge, don't even want the question asked, judging by their actions.
Perhaps, but perhaps too if ID had some more reasonable representatives, such would not be the case. I speak mainly of Dembski, because I have read little of Behe. I started his no-famous work back in 2000 or whenever, but it seemed empty of argument and long on rhetoric in the first pages, so I set it down. Perhaps I was too quick too judge, but at the time, it just didn't strike me as interesting or thorough. That was 8 years ago, so forgive me if I am in error.
quote:
3. While I have questions about the theoretical justifications for ID laid out by Dembski (I have no idea whether he has given us a valid method to accurately calculate the improbabilities of this or that), I really doubt whether he has been given a fair hearing, given the vitriol directed at him.
No, perhaps you should begin considering whether any of the attacks on his work are actually objective and reasoned rather than purely emotional. Also, consider stated motives: the Wedge document. You cannot blame the politicization of the matter on his opponents. I believe he was directly involved in the formulation of the Wedge, no?
quote:
4. EB's admit that they don't they don't "yet [have] a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity." They have ideas but no proof. In the mean time we are to take it on faith that some undirected natural process or other is responsible. Well, after 150 years, aren't we allowed to doubt their ability to produce the same, even a little bit?
Science is all about doubt. It proceeds out of doubt. Doubt can be understood as a synonym for inquiry. However, isn't there a difference between reasoned, informed doubt and abject doubt -- if only of degree? Apply your doubt and your reason to the facts. Read primary sources. See what you think. Such is called science education. You may find that there is flaws in some studies' reasonig, or that their conclusions were too broad given the scope of their study, etc., etc. I love this kind of analysis, personally.
quote:
5. Behe's work provides some pretty good empirical arguments that genetic mutation and natural selection are limited in their ability to produce complexity.
Judging from what I have gathered from these forums, I do not agree. Perhaps you can offer further explication.
quote:
And as we better unnerstand the bio-chemical foundations of life the task facing EB, according to Behe, only becomes more difficult. EB'ers have this implicit faith in scientific progress,
Yes, sometimes it is explcit -- or is such just the appearance given by journalism? I don't know.
quote:
and that the more we know about basic science, the more it will vindicate EB. But that is not turning out to be the case.
Whatever. The jury is out means the jury is out. Science is about asking questions. If you want to write a book about the conclusions of science, I for one will not buy it. If you want to write a book about what science will ask next before it has had time or occasion to, I pray you will not get published. However, I guess it is likely you will, because it will sell.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 11:40:32 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 190
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
In gradual process where components may at some time become necessary or unnecessary, how in the world is combinatorial dependency a problem? Evolution explains and expects such a thing. You're dreaming if you believe that. This is nothing more than a brush off of impossible odds - exactly as I stated.
quote:
And the chicken-egg problem isnt really a problem anymore. Interesting bare assertion that goes against the facts. No one has solved, not even close, the concurrent problems involved. If you have then you should be up for a Nobel soon.
quote:
Now your just blowing smoke. Anyone who claims to have any reliable measure of the probability of the formation of the first replicators is making **** up. We don't need exact numbers, ballpark figures do fine thank you.
You deniers of "odds against" problems are in big trouble. It's nothing more than a denial of mathematical facts and principles as well as statistical mechanics.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 11:45:55 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 190
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Sort of like "ID science" as a phrase is a real laugh to real scientists? Are your referring to real scientists like Jonathan Wells, Charles Thaxton, John Sanford, John C. Lennox, Michael Denton, Richard Sternberg, Charles Townes, ...
This argument is old and useless seeing it is entirely false and deceptive.
quote:
Dembski is not a scientist. He has no science background. He has math and philosophy, neither of which are sciences. So mathematicians don't count as scientists anymore huh? You argument here is extremely lame.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/31/2008 11:46:49 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
It's nothing more than a denial of mathematical facts and principles as well as statistical mechanics.
Can you present the statistics for us? If not, why should we take your word for it? Till then, it is hearsay and rhetoric -- nothing to be proud of.
I do not find | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
