Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2018 1:10 AM
232 online now:
Dr Adequate, edge, Faith (3 members, 229 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,555 Year: 7,378/29,783 Month: 1,602/1,708 Week: 5/488 Day: 5/77 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 3804 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 31 of 337 (424212)
09-26-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
05-30-2007 10:31 AM


Re: I have no problem with teaching ID in a school but...
What do you think about his comment about ID being proven false? Has it really? Where is the proof?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 05-30-2007 10:31 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 09-26-2007 9:43 AM DivineBeginning has responded
 Message 34 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 11:04 AM DivineBeginning has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17174
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 32 of 337 (424218)
09-26-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by DivineBeginning
09-26-2007 9:06 AM


Re: I have no problem with teaching ID in a school but...
DivineBeginning writes:

What do you think about his comment about ID being proven false? Has it really? Where is the proof?

Just for reference, here's what Pwnagenpanda said:

pwnagenpanda writes:

The best reason that Intelligent design should not be taught is that A. it has been proven false and B. it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

What the other replies were noting was the inherent contradiction in his claim. He claims both that ID is unfalsifiable, and that it has been falsified. These two claims cannot both be true.

The accurate claim is that ID is unfalsifiable. No matter what one might learn about the real world, it will always be consistent with ID. Since there is no possible evidence one might imagine that could contradict ID, ID is therefore unfalsifiable.

Some examples make this clear. Let's say we found human fossils back in the pre-Cambrian (before 540 million years ago). Evolutionary theory denies this possibility, therefore evolution would be falsified. ID theory would simply say that the designer designed humans a bit earlier than we originally thought.

Or what if we found fossils of griffins and minotaurs. Evolutionary theory would have an extremely difficult time explaining such fossils, and at a minimum their existence would have to be considered a severe and high priority problem for evolution. ID theory would simply say that the designer designed griffins and minotaurs.

Or say that genetic analysis discovered that humans are most closely genetically related to bananas than to any other life form. This would possibly completely falsify evolution, or at least the modern synthesis portion that unites Darwinian evolution with the science of genetics, while ID theory would say that the designer simply chose to use very similar genes when designing the banana and the human.

Because ID cannot be falsified, it cannot be considered science.

One of the other problems for ID when attempting to qualify as science is that it doesn't make any verifiable predictions. You can find proponents of ID who claim successful predictions for it, but these are predictions of things already known. For example, it is often claimed that ID predicts what we find in the fossil record. But the qualities of the fossil record they're claiming ID predicted were known before the theory was proposed, and so they're not predictions. ID theory would have to make a prediction about the some quality of the fossil record that was not already known, and then if and when that quality was actually identified in the fossil record, it would have to be considered pretty strong evidence for ID.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : falsifiable => unfalsifiable in what should have said, "Id is therefore unfalsifiable."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by DivineBeginning, posted 09-26-2007 9:06 AM DivineBeginning has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by DivineBeginning, posted 09-26-2007 9:49 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 11:09 AM Percy has responded

    
DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 3804 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 33 of 337 (424219)
09-26-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
09-26-2007 9:43 AM


Re: I have no problem with teaching ID in a school but...
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I appreciate your examples. I happen to have faith in the divine creation of the world we live in. For me, it's easier that way. I can understand why some people don't believe the way I do. Outside of the realm of pure faith, it does seem implausible. But I happen to believe, that's just the kind of person I am.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 09-26-2007 9:43 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 09-26-2007 11:23 AM DivineBeginning has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 34 of 337 (424244)
09-26-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by DivineBeginning
09-26-2007 9:06 AM


Re: I have no problem with teaching ID in a school but...
ID is also a dead end.

ID is terrible theology and it would also mean that science is useless and worthless.

If there is some cosmic tinkerer who steps in a creates on whim, we can never know is any science is valid or repeatable.

The ID folk point to a very few examples and declare they are designed. When others point to examples of really piss poor design found, and to the generally mediocre at best design that is the norm, the response is "We cannot tell the intent of the Designer."

Well, regardless of the intent of the Designer, we can judge the products based our own understanding. Just as when we buy a washer or dryer, we can examine the products and decide which is well designed, which was designed to achieve a price point and which is just junk.

A second issue is if we cannot know the intent of the designer, we cannot make predictions on the basis of past history. We have no assurance that the Designer will not step in and decide that plane number two will not fly.

I think ID should be taught, taught as an example of silliness.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by DivineBeginning, posted 09-26-2007 9:06 AM DivineBeginning has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 12:41 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 83 by DivineBeginning, posted 09-27-2007 8:17 AM jar has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 254 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 337 (424247)
09-26-2007 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
09-26-2007 9:43 AM


Percy writes:

The accurate claim is that ID is unfalsifiable......Since there is no possible evidence one might imagine that could contradict ID, ID is therefore falsifiable.

Either you've fallen under pwnagenpanda's influence, Percy, or that was a rather misleading typo. (If you edit it, do wipe this post).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 09-26-2007 9:43 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-26-2007 12:19 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14590
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 36 of 337 (424251)
09-26-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by DivineBeginning
09-26-2007 9:49 AM


DivineBeginning writes:

I happen to have faith in the divine creation of the world we live in. For me, it's easier that way.

Isn't it better to teach what's right instead of what's easy?

quote:
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DivineBeginning, posted 09-26-2007 9:49 AM DivineBeginning has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by DivineBeginning, posted 09-27-2007 8:20 AM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17174
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 37 of 337 (424273)
09-26-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluegenes
09-26-2007 11:09 AM


Oops - thanks!

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Only three words, typo, believe it or not!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 11:09 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

    
pbee
Member (Idle past 3805 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 38 of 337 (424275)
09-26-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
02-28-2006 7:42 PM


quote:
Teaching ID in a science class would be teaching religion in a science class.
Wrong, teaching that life originated as the result of a higher power has nothing to do with religion.

quote:
Either life had a natural origin or it doesn't, ie. therefore God/s. Since ID essentially tries to rule out #1, it implicitly requires that life (& a lot more besides) was created by divine intervention.
circular argument. God/Creation has no bearing on natural /unnatural laws. Such arguments are nothing more than literary implications people employ to satisfy beliefs.

quote:
The ID movement tries very hard to distance itself from mentioning god, even going so far as to say, "we don't know what the designer is". Regardless, it is implicit that ID must invoke the supernatural at some stage.
Again, more word play. Supernatural ranks up with magic and hocus-pocus. Such classifications are purely human and has no reflection on an entities ability to manipulate matter etc.

a few years back it would have been supernatural to promote the carrying of several tons of material in the air. Today, it is commonplace. Perhaps it's time to come out of the closet and start evaluating evidence matters with an open mind instead of adding breath to the indoctrinations of our ancestors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 02-28-2006 7:42 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 12:34 PM pbee has responded
 Message 82 by mark24, posted 09-27-2007 3:34 AM pbee has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 254 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 39 of 337 (424279)
09-26-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by pbee
09-26-2007 12:25 PM


pbee writes:

Wrong, teaching that life originated as the result of a higher power has nothing to do with religion.

It certainly does. Science requires evidence. Faith isn't good enough, but teaching things based on blind faith can be and is done in Sunday schools, Koran schools, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 12:25 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 12:39 PM bluegenes has responded

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 3805 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 40 of 337 (424281)
09-26-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by bluegenes
09-26-2007 12:34 PM


Lets drop the religious labels and stick to basics. The creation account was not written in the name religion. It was adopted as such and has been misused ever since. Nonetheless, this implication alone has no consequence on the heart of the matter. That a Creator/Creation is unscientific. Such reasoning resides purely on our own limitations and understanding of matters.

Evidence? It was written that God created the heavens and the earth, and here we are...
Let's save ourselves a large portion of time, and throw out the concept of matter originated from nothing as science(talk about supernatural).

Edited by pbee, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 12:34 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 12:55 PM pbee has responded
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2007 1:14 PM pbee has responded

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 3805 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 41 of 337 (424282)
09-26-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
09-26-2007 11:04 AM


Re: I have no problem with teaching ID in a school but...
quote:
ID is also a dead end.
No one has any given advantage here. Likewise, no one holds any authority over the other either.

quote:
ID is terrible theology and it would also mean that science is useless and worthless.
Depends on the quality of ones research. I happen to think that the concept of life and it's origins as a result from a common point of energy precedes any theory that life just fell into place as a result of nothing and somehow produced results which end in total defiance of the natural laws which bind us(but that's just me).

quote:
The ID folk point to a very few examples and declare they are designed. When others point to examples of really piss poor design found
Such as...

quote:
Well, regardless of the intent of the Designer, we can judge the products based our own understanding. Just as when we buy a washer or dryer, we can examine the products and decide which is well designed, which was designed to achieve a price point and which is just junk.
Yes, and if there is one thing we have proven as a race, it is that we are very qualified in our capacity to identify good from bad. I mean, just look around you, the world is destined to a path of prosperity and longevity!

quote:
I think ID should be taught, taught as an example of silliness.
In the face of the competition, ID trounces the alternates. Science has nothing but convoluted theories and dead ends. The only thing that drives people away from ID is fear.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 11:04 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 09-26-2007 1:03 PM pbee has responded
 Message 46 by anglagard, posted 09-26-2007 1:15 PM pbee has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 42 of 337 (424284)
09-26-2007 12:51 PM


Flock of Dodos
Getting ready for work this morning I caught the tail end of "Flock of Dodos," which is a critique of Intelligent Design. I'd like to see the rest of it. Anyone know where about I might be able to find the full series on the web?

I found this rebuttal.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3890

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 254 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 43 of 337 (424285)
09-26-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by pbee
09-26-2007 12:39 PM


pbee writes:

The creation account was not written in the name religion.

Which creation account? There are many creation mythologies.

Evidence? It was written that God created the heavens and the earth, and here we are...

bluegenes, ye olde wise seer writes:

quote:
God didn't create the heavens and the earth, and here we are...

I just wrote that, so because it's written down, it must be up to date evidence, mustn't it?:)

Let's save each other large potions of time and throw out the concept of matter originated from nothing as science(talk about supernatural).

Are you implying that something cannot come from nothing? Then all Gods must themselves require creators.

Edited by bluegenes, : punctuation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 12:39 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 1:55 PM bluegenes has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14590
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 44 of 337 (424287)
09-26-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by pbee
09-26-2007 12:41 PM


pbee writes:

Science has nothing but convoluted theories and dead ends.

That says it all right there, doesn't it? Let's throw science out with the bath water.

The topic is about teaching ID in science class. If you're going to dismiss science as "convoluted theories and dead ends", what's the point of teaching science at all?


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 12:41 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 1:16 PM ringo has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16015
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 45 of 337 (424289)
09-26-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by pbee
09-26-2007 12:39 PM


pbee, message #38 writes:

Wrong, teaching that life originated as the result of a higher power has nothing to do with religion.

pbee, message #40 writes:

Evidence? It was written that God created the heavens and the earth, and here we are...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 12:39 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 1:21 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
23NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018