Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does intelligent design have creationist roots?
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 61 of 151 (506937)
04-30-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by traderdrew
04-30-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Metascience
Try explaining the people you need to deal with with science.
We do, it's ccalled psychology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by traderdrew, posted 04-30-2009 12:08 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by traderdrew, posted 04-30-2009 12:29 PM Perdition has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 62 of 151 (506938)
04-30-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Perdition
04-30-2009 12:23 PM


Re: Metascience
This is what I mean when I stated that some other posters are employing the use of equivocal statements.

Of course, there is psychology but there are several different theories based on psychology. People are complex and to stand their analyzing them might prove to be availing, would you really want to explain everyone you have to deal with this way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Perdition, posted 04-30-2009 12:23 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Perdition, posted 04-30-2009 12:43 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 63 of 151 (506944)
04-30-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by traderdrew
04-30-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Metascience
No, and in day to day life, we don't. We make assumptions based on what we take in on the fly and act on those, often with less than hoped-for results.
The fact that we may not have a description for everything doesn't mean there isn't one. We're not all-knowing, so differing theories is how we suss out the right path. I'd say we've been very successful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by traderdrew, posted 04-30-2009 12:29 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 64 of 151 (506947)
04-30-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by traderdrew
04-30-2009 12:08 PM


traderdrew writes:
It would be quite a process if you wished to explain everything you encounter with science.
I don't see your point, here. In everyday life common sense works pretty well. Our brains are perfectly equipped to deal with every day circumstances.
However, our brains require the appliance of science when a common sense ideas (say that the sun revolves around the moon or that all things have purpose) conflict with reality.
You don't need to apply science to understand 'that' you like the pretty/handsome guy/girl next door, but you do need it when you ask 'why'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by traderdrew, posted 04-30-2009 12:08 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 65 of 151 (506951)
04-30-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by traderdrew
04-30-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Metascience
Hi traderdrew,
It would be quite a process if you wished to explain everything you encounter with science.
To save us the process of having to explain all of it, just answer the question about the method that science uses. The scientific method which I provided a link for.
Do you at least appreciate the rigorous method used to arrive at conclusions in science? Are you, in your opinion, satisfied with the methods used by science?
It gives the best explanation that fits the evidence until another theory comes along.
...that better explains the phenomenon. It can't just be any theory, it must still do the job of explaining it better.
Consider the theory that the universe is a hologram and that it contains holograms within it of various sizes. So far, as strange as this theory may seem I have not encountered any evidence that refutes it.
Sure we have, the evidence that refutes it is that there is no evidence to support it in the first place. There is no evidence that says the hologram universe is anything more than another attempt to add an outside source for the existance of this universe, that in and of itself, can't be explained, either. It just moves the goal post further back.
It's like answering the question of abiogenesis with saying that aliens did it. Ok. So where did the aliens come from? Did their origin come about from natural causes, or other aliens as well? And so on, etc.
Ok fine, it's a hologram universe, then what? Who created the hologram? And how does the current controler of this hologram universe know that they themselves aren't in a hologram as well? And so on, etc.
The hologram universe idea, ONE, isn't anything other than a hypothesis, and, TWO, doesn't have scientific evidence to support it. If you know of some please show me.
But there seems to be legitimate scientific evidence to support it.
No there isn't, just pseudo-scientific speculation. Show me the evidence for it.
What there is is a lack of being able to provide evidence against the hypothesis. But then again, can you prove to me that God didn't create us last thursday and programed us with all of our memories that you think you've actually experienced? No, you can't. However, would you consider that sufficient evidence for my hypothesis, or, a valid theory as to the origins of our current existance?
Where do you draw the line if there is scientific evidence that supports it and none that proves it wrong?
First, I'd say to re-evalute what you consider to be scientific evidence and see if it's supported with any other laws/facts/theories.
I draw the line at science vs. pseudo-science.
- Oni
PS. Btw, I see you're from Palm beach, ever go to the Palm Beach Improv? I perform there all the time.
Edited by onifre, : added PS.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by traderdrew, posted 04-30-2009 12:08 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by traderdrew, posted 05-01-2009 11:16 AM onifre has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 66 of 151 (507083)
05-01-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by onifre
04-30-2009 1:38 PM


Re: Metascience
Do you at least appreciate the rigorous method used to arrive at conclusions in science? Are you, in your opinion, satisfied with the methods used by science?
Yes, science does have some good uses. It keeps people honest but I think people can be deluded by its use. For example, there are concepts that you cant test such as the anthropic principle.

I had a chance to think about your post overnight. Let's state a version of this argument in one sentence.

"If something cannot be tested by the scientific method, it cannot be true."

How does someone test this statement with the scientific method?

Or let's take a pseudo-scientific statement such as this one:

"Pseudo-science credits the supernatural when natural causes are unable to adequately explain the phenomenon."

How do you disprove that statement with the scientific method?

Steven Jay Gould recognized that science had its boundaries. He is an evolutionist and I think he is intelligent. (I don't know if he is still with us.) You can read about his concept of NOMA in wikepedia.

Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia

I'm running out of time. If you haven't noticed I have been taking on more than one person with these debates.

I think the Improv is upstairs near the theater in City Place? I have never been inside. I have lived here for about two years.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by onifre, posted 04-30-2009 1:38 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 12:04 PM traderdrew has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 67 of 151 (507090)
05-01-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by traderdrew
05-01-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Metascience
For example, there are concepts that you cant test such as the anthropic principle.
How do you "test" something that is nothing more than a rule for reasoning?
Here's a quote I found in wiki to help you understand why invoking the anthropic principle is flawed:
quote:
The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of undermining the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. Those who invoke the anthropic principle often invoke multiple universes or an intelligent designer, both controversial and criticised for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of accepted science.
Note that both a mutliverse system and intelligent design were considered controversial, they did not single out intelligent design only.
"If something cannot be tested by the scientific method, it cannot be true."
How does someone test this statement with the scientific method?
I have never said that if something is not testable using the scientific method it is not true. However, since the evidence is gathered by objective observation, and if the only evidence rendered by this method shows no sign of a creator or design, then, based off of this objective evidence, whatever it is that one proposes as existing cannot be verified objectively. Now, does that mean it doesn't exist, of course not, but it does mean that there is no current evidence to support the assertion.
"Pseudo-science credits the supernatural when natural causes are unable to adequately explain the phenomenon."
How do you disprove that statement with the scientific method?
Again, how do you support the assertion that the supernatural exists to begin with?
I have evidence for the natural, so I have reason to believe that natural causes can and are capable of acting in such a way that complexity can arise. You however, do not have evidence for the supernatural and therefore cannot invoke anything supernatural until such time as evidence for it is produced.
Now, given that the long list of things that supernatural forces were responsible for has, as many have pointed out to you, been reduced throughout time, why does this now newly introduced supernatural force for biological lifes origin considered any better than any other assertion about supernatural forces that has been proven wrong?
Steven Jay Gould recognized that science had its boundaries.
It may very well have a limit as well, not just boundaries, but currently it is on the rise due to new technology and doesn't seem to have a limiting factor, yet.
I think the Improv is upstairs near the theater in City Place? I have never been inside. I have lived here for about two years.
Yeah, it's right next to the theater. They actually just re-opened it, it's very nice. Next time I'm there I'll let you know.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by traderdrew, posted 05-01-2009 11:16 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 05-02-2009 12:41 PM onifre has replied
 Message 71 by traderdrew, posted 05-02-2009 12:46 PM onifre has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 68 of 151 (507117)
05-01-2009 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by traderdrew
04-30-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Metascience
Science doesn't explain everything in terms as though it is the truth. It gives the best explanation that fits the evidence until another theory comes along.
The important part here is HOW science determines the best explanation. Science uses the testing of hypotheses to determine the best explanation. For ID proponents the preferred method for determining the best explanation is how well the explanation fits their theology. This is made clear in the Wedge Document where the authors state, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (source)
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by traderdrew, posted 04-30-2009 12:08 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by traderdrew, posted 05-02-2009 12:35 PM Taq has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 69 of 151 (507168)
05-02-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
05-01-2009 4:02 PM


Re: Metascience
For ID proponents the preferred method for determining the best explanation is how well the explanation fits their theology.
Why does it have to be this way? Why can't we use science to filter some of evidence out?[/i]
This is made clear in the Wedge Document where the authors state, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Why does it have to be Christian? Why can't it be represented by Muslim or Hindu traditions?
Edited by traderdrew, : html edit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 05-01-2009 4:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by lyx2no, posted 05-02-2009 2:05 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 05-02-2009 2:49 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 05-04-2009 3:31 PM traderdrew has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 70 of 151 (507169)
05-02-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by onifre
05-01-2009 12:04 PM


Re: Metascience
Don't you find it ironic that people who don't believe that science can discredit some things are trying very hard to discredit certain things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 12:04 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by onifre, posted 05-03-2009 11:25 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 71 of 151 (507170)
05-02-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by onifre
05-01-2009 12:04 PM


Re: Metascience
Now, given that the long list of things that supernatural forces were responsible for has, as many have pointed out to you, been reduced throughout time, why does this now newly introduced supernatural force for biological lifes origin considered any better than any other assertion about supernatural forces that has been proven wrong?
In other words, the trend has been finding evidence that renders suspected supernatural activity as naturalistic explanations. Is this what you are saying? Trends are one thing but trends don't necessarily disprove the existence of something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 12:04 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by onifre, posted 05-03-2009 11:33 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 05-04-2009 3:39 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 72 of 151 (507174)
05-02-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by traderdrew
05-02-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Metascience
Why does it have to be Christian? Why can't it be represented by Muslim or Hindu traditions?
Because the people who wrote the Wedge Document were Fundamentalist Christians playing political games because they aren't able to play science.
If you're here to sharpen your skills might I suggest you read your opponent's posts.
If you type [qs] ☞ Your message here! [/qs] will get you
☞ Your message here!
It will make it a lot easier to follow you.
Edited by lyx2no, : Clarity.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by traderdrew, posted 05-02-2009 12:35 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by traderdrew, posted 05-03-2009 2:21 PM lyx2no has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 151 (507178)
05-02-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by traderdrew
05-02-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Metascience
Why does it have to be Christian? Why can't it be represented by Muslim or Hindu traditions?
The ID movement as it exists today arose largely in response the US Supreme Count's Edwards decision that determined creation "science" was religion and not permitted in schools.
ID was an attempt to file the (religious) serial numbers off the same set of beliefs so that it could be snuck back into the schools.
Here's some evidence from a creationist textbook and how it changed through different editions before and after the Edwards decision (source):
quote:
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34:
Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

Of Pandas and People (1987, intelligent design version), p. 3-41:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.


Did you catch that "cdesign proponentsists?" That's from a poor cut-and-paste job changing "creationists" to "design proponents." And this came imediately after the Edwards decision!
And as to why not Muslim or Hindu? The folks pushing ID are Christian fundamentalists, and they're not about to accept a competing brand.
But they are willing to be dishonest in their approach, pretending to do science when they are actually pushing their narrow view of religion. Actually, they are anti-science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by traderdrew, posted 05-02-2009 12:35 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 74 of 151 (507274)
05-03-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by traderdrew
05-02-2009 12:41 PM


Re: Metascience
Don't you find it ironic that people who don't believe that science can discredit some things are trying very hard to discredit certain things?
Yes, of course. It seems that you are doing this very thing.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by traderdrew, posted 05-02-2009 12:41 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 75 of 151 (507275)
05-03-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by traderdrew
05-02-2009 12:46 PM


Re: Metascience
In other words, the trend has been finding evidence that renders suspected supernatural activity as naturalistic explanations.
No. In other words, people in the past have taken to invoke supernatural forces to explain what they considered to be a mystery, until science came along and explained in by naural means.
This is not a "trend", and it seems like if you are taking this route in your responses, then you are out of argument.
Is this what you are saying?
No.
Trends are one thing but trends don't necessarily disprove the existence of something.
WTF are you taling about? What "trend"?
Are you comparing scientific theories to Ed Hardy t-shirts?
That's a "trend" and "cultural style", science showing evidence against certain imagined supernatural miracles is just science doing it's job.
Is that all that you have left?
Why don't you address the actual points I make in my posts instead of trying to quote mine me?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by traderdrew, posted 05-02-2009 12:46 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by traderdrew, posted 05-03-2009 2:19 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024