Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,590 Year: 2,847/9,624 Month: 692/1,588 Week: 98/229 Day: 9/61 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 116 of 230 (654449)
03-01-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Taq
03-01-2012 11:40 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
quote:
ONE SHOULD NOT BASE ARGUMENTS ON IMPOSSIBILITIES. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS MAKE FOR POOR LOGIC.
Uh--. Those who deny the existence of a Creator are doing exactly that! JCH
THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS ARE WORKING ON THEORIES RIGHT NOW (E.G. M THEORY) THAT MAY VERY WELL BE TESTABLE AND ALLOW US TO DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THOSE BARRIERS AND WALLS. AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, NEVER SAY NEVER. JUST LOOK AT THE AMAZING ADVANCEMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, FROM THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE TO THE LHC.
I don’t really disagree, though testability will be the key and the word determine what happened on the other side of those barriers and walls is a really problematic word. That implies certitude, and certitude is a really difficult concept to affirm in Quantum physics (as you must know). JCH
species."[Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
THAT PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW.
Please reference this assertion. JCH
IF THERE IS A CREATOR OR DESIGNER SOMEHOW INITIATING AND THEN VIEWING EVENTS FROM AFAR . . .
PERHAPS YOU COULD START HERE AND SUPPLY EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THIS CREATOR AND/OR DESIGNER?
There is none, obviously other than the probability/improbability argument. Faith is the belief in something. It is not evidence except in personal experiences which convince some that such a power exists. On the other hand, the impossibility of certitude in certain areas of science is also a big problem for science --- especially quantum mechanics. It all has value, but some small part is still based on faith in the validity of our tests and testing of concepts. JCH
WHICH SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Well, you're asking for a lot of dialog and I’m not a PhD Cosmologist, but those studies with confusing information emanating from the coincidence scandal (amongst others) should give anyone pause. For example:
How finely-tuned is it that we exist in the era when vacuum and matter are comparable?
Between the Planck time and now, the universe has expanded by a factor of approximately 1032.
To be fair, we should consider an interval of logarithmic expansion which is centered around the present time; this would describe a total expansion by a factor of 1064.
If we take the transitional period between matter and vacuum to include the time from / M = 0.1 to / M = 10, the universe expands by a factor of 1001/3 100.67.
Thus, there is an approximately 1% chance that an observer living in a randomly selected logarithmic expansion interval in the history of our universe would be lucky enough to have M and be the same order of magnitude!
Everyone will have their own favorite way of quantifying such unnaturalness, but the calculation here gives some idea of the fine-tuning involved; it is substantial, but not completely ridiculous.
Relative to the cosmologic constant:
There is room to imagine that we are actually not observing the effects of an ordinary cosmological constant, but perhaps a dark energy source that varies gradually as the universe expands, or even a breakdown of general relativity on large scales.
By itself, however, making dark energy dynamical does not offer a solution to the coincidence scandal; purely on the basis of observations, it seems clear that the universe has begun to accelerate recently, which implies a scale at which something new is kicking in.
In particular, it is fruitless to try to explain the matter/dark energy coincidence by invoking mechanisms which make the dark energy density time-dependent in such a way as to always be proportional to that in matter.
Such a scenario would either imply that the dark energy would redshift away as dark a-3, which from would lead to a non-accelerating universe, or require departures from conventional general relativity of the type which are excluded by other measurements. JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 03-01-2012 11:40 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Panda, posted 03-01-2012 7:02 PM jchardy has not replied
 Message 119 by Admin, posted 03-01-2012 7:40 PM jchardy has not replied
 Message 142 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 11:53 AM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 122 of 230 (654678)
03-02-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
02-23-2012 4:34 PM


APPOLOGY FOR BEING TARDY
quote:
Paulk: I appologize for not responding to your message earlier. Though I began this thread, I really am not very good at this and must still learn how to insert items so will be taking the primer at some point, but I'm a physician and have limited time availability. Just incidentally, are you any relation to John & Elinor Paulk of Seabeck, WA?
That asside, I am responding to your message sequentially in this quote, so pardon its length.
In response to your notation of the Wedge Document purpose of the ID movement-":
My belief is that there have been numerous unjust actions by both sides in this controversy. What I would hope is that there can be a new beginning without being burdened by previous injustices. What both sides in this controversy should do is remove their boots from the other’s neck and allow an interchange untrammeled by bias and, particularly poisonous words. I don’t think it is necessary to even mention those words since any well meaning and open minded adherent on either side know those words and when they come to the point of being put into writing, they must learn to restrain themselves. They know it poisons the well and will end discourse (which it seems may be their real goal).
In addition — except when conscience is a factor (a human rights issue) --- bringing legislation or law into this controversy is also a major error.
This should be a discourse between educated and well meaning intellects and neither side has any proof that their point of view is absolute. Thus, the logical approach is to allow open discourse and debate based on verifiable data (either historic, scientific or mathematic in foundation) without restriction.
Religious tenants are NOT really testable nor verifiable, BUT it is also not justifiable to speak of those with faith based belief with disdain or to dismiss in whole the foundations of their beliefs. They are their beliefs and in our open society that must be allowed without prejudice (whenever possible!)
For most, ascertaining the LIKELY origins of the universe; matter (dark and ordinary) and organic life, (sentient and non-sentient) must be a SCIENTIFIC investigation. Thus, allowing analysis and — wherever possible, testing to verify or deny formed hypothesis and theories is imperative.
Recognizing the difficulties attending human agreement in ANY situation; EXCEPT IN CASES OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS, (and these must be spelled out clearly and debated openly as well), IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THOSE MOTIVATED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS RESTRAIN THEMSELVES FROM RESTRICTING INVESTIGATIONS AND SHOW MUTUAL RESPECT FOR THOSE ENGAGED IN RESEARCH (WITH CERTAIN HUMANITARIAN RESTRICTIONS ACCEPTED BY MOST ON BOTH SIDES AS REASONABLE).
Similarly, Scientists and mathematicians should endeavor to develop some insight into the tenants of faith. NOT to become faith-based necessarily, but endeavor to understand WHY those who are convinced of the validity of their faith. This requires courage, but as with the dangers inherent while working with a supercollider or viral DNA/RNA, they should face the challenge with the same level headed ad open minded attitude.
The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists - but there are Young Earth Creationists among their ranks. They are NOT shunned by the ID movement at all, and to claim otherwise would be a lie.
Let us not forget that the ID text book "Of Panda's and People" was a creationist text book, rewritten to use "Intelligent Design" in place of "creation".
So let us be clear. ID is religious, and - even though not all ID supporters are creationists - creationism is an integral part of it.
Next, in response to your statement:
The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists — etc.
This is unequivocally true. The initiation of the belief or faith-based movement certainly initiated with the bias of those who (fundamentally) were believers from the beginning. Their use of science is not really other than to help confirm their bias. That is their right, so long as they do not skew their information or data to prove some component of a theory. For that reason, it is my opinion that the best science is done by those who just don’t care what the outcome might be. In fact, the best science is done by those who undertake a study with a negative bias. I.e., that their hypothesis is WRONG or INCORRECT and the data, IF AFFIRMATIVE and statistically significant is then more credible.
RELIGION SHOULD STAY OUT OF SCIENCE other than to utilize it to better understand the LIKELY applicable facts to faith that science can uncover, or not uncover. What has been most valuable to the faith-based is the FAILURE of certain experiments or observations to affirm or reconcile conflicts between well-established (by previous peer reviewed testing) scientific hypotheses or theories. SCIENCE SHOULD BE SOUGHT AS AN INFORMATIONAL TOOL BY THE FAITHFUL, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED THEM.
In addition, POLITICS should stay out of scientific research. While research frequently court financial support from politicians, they do so at a great price. THE TWO DO NOT MIX WELL and politics almost always ends up contaminating science, making it either unwieldy or breaking down the credibility of its conclusions.
ID is primarily about influencing education, seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution. A position that is mainly motivated by religious objections.
Anybody who ignores these points does not understand ID.
Next, to your statement the ID is primarily about influencing eduction seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution.
This certainly is the case when the ID movement induces the justice system to interfere with eductation, and I think this is wrong. The motivations of those promoting ID generally is to present to their children what they consider a more balanced view of science in a compatible way with faith based belief. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS TASK MADE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT BY THE INTRANSIGENCE AND VENOMOUS RHETORIC OF SOME ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CONTROVERSY. Fortunately, they are really a vociferous minority, but they do great damage to both Religious and Scientific institutions. They always have! But here in the 21st century, we should be able to extract ourselves and behave reasonably with one another. We now know that --- much as quantum entanglement connects us all at the Planck level; we are entangled at the spiritual level, in the same universe, with the same fundamental beginnings and all with the same fundamental goals and end.
Thanks for your input.
JCH [/quote]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2012 4:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2012 8:37 PM jchardy has replied
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 03-04-2012 4:16 AM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 123 of 230 (654681)
03-02-2012 8:23 PM


KEY POINTS EARLY IN THIS DEBATE
quote:
This was my reply to PAULK early in this ID debate. He brought up the key concerns of Scientists relative to ID and I wanted to share it generally. JCH
I am responding to his message sequentially in this quote, so pardon its length.
In response to his notation of the Wedge Document purpose of the ID movement-":
My (JCH) belief is that there have been numerous unjust actions by both sides in this controversy. What I would hope is that there can be a new beginning without being burdened by previous injustices. What both sides in this controversy should do is remove their boots from the other’s neck and allow an interchange untrammeled by bias and, particularly poisonous words. I don’t think it is necessary to even mention those words since any well meaning and open minded adherent on either side know those words and when they come to the point of being put into writing, they must learn to restrain themselves. They know it poisons the well and will end discourse (which it seems may be their real goal).
In addition — except when conscience is a factor (a human rights issue) --- bringing legislation or law into this controversy is also a major error.
This should be a discourse between educated and well meaning intellects and neither side has any proof that their point of view is absolute. Thus, the logical approach is to allow open discourse and debate based on verifiable data (either historic, scientific or mathematic in foundation) without restriction.
Religious tenants are NOT really testable nor verifiable, BUT it is also not justifiable to speak of those with faith based belief with disdain or to dismiss in whole the foundations of their beliefs. They are their beliefs and in our open society that must be allowed without prejudice (whenever possible!)
For most, ascertaining the LIKELY origins of the universe; matter (dark and ordinary) and organic life, (sentient and non-sentient) must be a SCIENTIFIC investigation. Thus, allowing analysis and — wherever possible, testing to verify or deny formed hypothesis and theories is imperative.
Recognizing the difficulties attending human agreement in ANY situation; EXCEPT IN CASES OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS, (and these must be spelled out clearly and debated openly as well), IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THOSE MOTIVATED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS RESTRAIN THEMSELVES FROM RESTRICTING INVESTIGATIONS AND SHOW MUTUAL RESPECT FOR THOSE ENGAGED IN RESEARCH (WITH CERTAIN HUMANITARIAN RESTRICTIONS ACCEPTED BY MOST ON BOTH SIDES AS REASONABLE).
Similarly, Scientists and mathematicians should endeavor to develop some insight into the tenants of faith. NOT to become faith-based necessarily, but endeavor to understand WHY those who are convinced of the validity of their faith. This requires courage, but as with the dangers inherent while working with a supercollider or viral DNA/RNA, they should face the challenge with the same level headed ad open minded attitude.
Next point by Paulk was: "The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists - but there are Young Earth Creationists among their ranks."
Next, in response to Paulk's statement:
The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists — etc.
JCH says:
This is unequivocally true. The initiation of the belief or faith-based movement certainly initiated with the bias of those who (fundamentally) were believers from the beginning. Their use of science is not really other than to help confirm their bias. That is their right, so long as they do not skew their information or data to prove some component of a theory.
For that reason, it is my opinion that the best science is done by those who just don’t care what the outcome might be. In fact, the best science is done by those who undertake a study with a negative bias. I.e., that their hypothesis is WRONG or INCORRECT and the data, IF AFFIRMATIVE and statistically significant is then more credible.
RELIGION SHOULD STAY OUT OF SCIENCE other than to utilize it to better understand the LIKELY applicable facts to faith that science can uncover, or not uncover. What has been most valuable to the faith-based is the FAILURE of certain experiments or observations to affirm or reconcile conflicts between well-established (by previous peer reviewed testing) scientific hypotheses or theories. SCIENCE SHOULD BE SOUGHT AS AN INFORMATIONAL TOOL BY THE FAITHFUL, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED THEM.
In addition, POLITICS should stay out of scientific research. While research frequently court financial support from politicians, they do so at a great price. THE TWO DO NOT MIX WELL and politics almost always ends up contaminating science, making it either unwieldy or breaking down the credibility of its conclusions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paulk then said: ID is primarily about influencing eduction seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution.
JCH response: This certainly is the case when the ID movement induces the justice system to interfere with eductation, and I think this is wrong.
The motivations of those promoting ID generally is to present to their children what they consider a more balanced view of science in a compatible way with faith based belief. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS TASK MADE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT BY THE INTRANSIGENCE AND VENOMOUS RHETORIC OF SOME ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CONTROVERSY. Fortunately, they are really a vociferous minority, but they do great damage to both Religious and Scientific institutions. They always have!
But here in the 21st century, we should be able to extract ourselves and behave reasonably with one another. We now know that --- much as quantum entanglement connects us all at the Planck level; we are entangled at the spiritual level, in the same universe, with the same fundamental beginnings and all with the same fundamental goals and end.
Thanks for your input.
JCH

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 03-03-2012 12:21 PM jchardy has not replied
 Message 143 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 3:27 PM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 125 of 230 (654700)
03-02-2012 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Coyote
03-02-2012 8:37 PM


Re: I would like to respond...
quote:
Hello, Coyote. I don't quite understand why my format makes it difficult to reply but I will have to look at the tutorial because you're not alone -- many don't like my way of responding. In this piece I was rplying to each component of Paulk's response to the first thread I posted. This is an example--
the response to Paulk, so I stated his words:
Paulk then said:
ID is primarily about influencing eduction seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution --.
Then MY (JCH) response was:
"This certainly is the case when the ID movement induces the justice system to interfere with eductation, and I think this is wrong.
The motivations of those promoting ID generally is to present to their children what they consider a more balanced view of science in a compatible way with faith based--etc."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2012 8:37 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 03-03-2012 12:55 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2012 8:47 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2012 9:06 AM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


(1)
Message 131 of 230 (654742)
03-03-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
03-03-2012 9:06 AM


Re: I would like to respond...
Ah!! Finally, a straight foreward clarification!! I've been misusing the "quote" component! I'm headed out on a long trip with only intermittent contact, but will try to improve seaquentially now! JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2012 9:06 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 136 of 230 (654832)
03-05-2012 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by SensibleBloke
03-04-2012 7:39 AM


Re: NO ROLE FOR I.D. IN SCIENCE!
quote:
Well John S. Hardy, from your rambling, then if I.D. is not wanting to divert science nor include divine intervention into scientific reasoning, which is impossible anyway.
Then, there is no argument at all with I.D.ers, since science will just remain as is. There is certainly no reason to promote I.D. in any science classes for that same reasoning.
There's no argument.
Quite right. There is no need to introduce faith into the class rooms of science. There is only a need for tolerance of those who believe that the fragility of initial conditions in any sequence of events in the universe (from the big bang forward to the evolution of sentient life) MIGHT be subject to the actions of SOMETHING other than mere chance at the quantum level; and that little is firmly predictable in subsequent sequences. But that does not necessarily mean God or even a directing alien intelligence. It just means we should keep an open mind as to origins of sequences we haven’t the foggiest idea of their actual origin and just leave it at that.
quote:
It is only when they try to insert divine intervention (magic) into the scientific theories surrounding the origin of the universe, thus render it unscientific. should logically cause the I.D. concept to be excluded from science and science classes.
Such insertion of divine magic or intervention, makes them as bad and silly as the fundamentalist creationists who very stupidly, keep trying to get magic accepted as scientific.
From a friend's blog:
The moment Creation (magic) is apparent, it cannot be made scientific (form a theory with consistent, measurable and predictable outcomes).
As stated above, because chaos is so rampant in all systems in the universe, few if any theories have consistent measurable and predictable outcomes. Ed Lorenz found that out and (along with Neils Bohr) dispelled the pseudoconcept of certainty and absolute predictability.
quote:
So they cannot ever exist together.
Magic (creator intrusion) destroys predictability which destroys any scientific accountability and scrutibility.
That is the principle reason Creation cannot be taught in science classes. Because there's no science involved.
Completely agree! Faith and science should never be conflated. But they should never be demonized either. Dogma is BAD, both in science and faith. And when the two are dogmatic at the same time, they are nuclear in destructive ability.
quote:
It cannot even be promoted as an alternative scientific theory, because it is not a scientific theory
It is only a religious argument based on faith alone, never a scientific argument, so it still cannot logically be introduced into science classes, EVER!
As he stated: Any form of magic (divine intervention) anywhere renders any concept unscientific, (esp. the beginning of the universe) therefore excluding it totally from science and it is grossly evident that they cannot teach unscientific concepts in science classes as scientific.
Since you stated that basically I.D. advocates have no quarrels with scientific theory. Like the fact of evolution. Which you should also logically agree with.
Almost totally agree. There are questions in evolution (as to its sequencing and certitude of its predictions) which make it a bit less than "fact", but I certainly accept it as a demonstrated liklihood (with some possible nuances or fine tuning which I would keep to myself in a classroom setting). But, there’s ALWAYS argument in the scientific community. That’s what keeps it healthy -- skepticism. Dogma and closed mindedness is what stunts the growth of science!
Edited by Admin, : Add square brackets to the closing code for the opening quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by SensibleBloke, posted 03-04-2012 7:39 AM SensibleBloke has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 137 of 230 (654951)
03-05-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Trixie
03-04-2012 6:42 AM


Re: purpose in science
Right, Trixie. Sorry for the delay, but I just cannot answer everyone's response. Your enquiry is straight forward and without venom and I appreciate that!
My position is this:
1. Everyone has a right to believe what they wish to believe, recognizing that much work has been done and is being done within science resulting in much benefit to mankind through accumulation of knowledge and application of that knowledge.
2. Dogma (inflexible positions both in science and religion) has been damaging to both the image of science and Religion.
3. Religious, political and scientific concepts are mutually toxic to one another and should NOT be mixed except on an individual non-institutional basis. I.e., it’s OK to express a bias in one direction or the other, but there is no certitude== not really.
4. The work of science should be to elaborate hypotheses and theories which are testable by the scientific method. If they are not testable, they may be promoted on an individual basis but should never attempt to dominate without verification and testing.
5. Faith is not testable outside of an individual’s sphere of influence. It is a mistake to make faith an imperative universally, even though one believes strongly there is a benefit.
6. Some scientific theories have been rigorously tested and held up, and much of it (in the realm of particle physics and cosmology) is exciting and under way and still full of controversy.
7. With the sensitivity to initial conditions espoused by Chaos theory, there is the possibility that some force or design or non-human engineering effect could/might direct the evolution of the Universe from the beginning (i.e., from the Big Bang onward) toward a preconceived goal.
8. By nuanced manipulation of chaos — at the quantum or, eventually molecular level, that designer might subtly direct subsequent events,--- elaborating systems to result in the highly improbable and idyllic conditions Earth, and possibly other select planetary systems --- leading thus to life and then through evolutionary means, well hidden, toward ---- first sentient, then sapient (intelligent) beings such as ourselves.
Thus, my concept. JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Trixie, posted 03-04-2012 6:42 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2012 3:13 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 139 by Pressie, posted 03-06-2012 5:01 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 140 by Trixie, posted 03-06-2012 6:57 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2012 7:16 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 147 by Pressie, posted 03-07-2012 5:57 AM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 144 of 230 (655077)
03-07-2012 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Taq
03-06-2012 11:53 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
quote:
Evolution does have evidence. Science also has a strong track record of producing usable knowledge.
ID does not have evidence. It is a faith based belief that has produced no usable knowledge.
You want to pretend that these are on equal footing. They are not.
I said no absolute proof. There is obviously evidence strongly in favor, especially in regard to natural selection. I find the lack of gradualism (graded evolutionary change sequentially in continuum) a problem with classical Darwinian evolution. I certainly agree science has a very strong track record of producing usable knowledge. I have said this time and time again!
quote:
ID does not have evidence. It is a faith based belief that has produced no usable knowledge.
Obviously this is so. This is another point I have made TIME AND TIME AGAIN! I am only advocating three major points: 1) A courteous relationship based on some degree of mutual respect (though it appears that is very difficult for some, and I wonder why malignancy has to be part of any discourse since it offers nothing of benefit.)
quote:
You want to pretend that these are on equal footing. They are not.
I want to convince as many as possible that MUTUAL RESPECT BETWEEN INTELLIGENT PEOPLE SHOULD be the operator in discussion.
No one will be convinced of anyone’s rectitude (correctness) if they are assaulted by poisonous rhetoric. This approach is unnecessary and destructive to any communication --- if communication is what we are attempting to accomplish.
quote:
That would require ID supporters to do actual scientific research which they have refused to do. Until such research is done there is nothing to discuss or debate.
You may not realize this, but there are some ID supporters who do real scientific research. NOT on PROOVING intelligent design (even teleologic ID) — since ID can never be proven --- obviously! But those who have a faith-based belief ensconced in their final results keep that belief well hidden, because should they discuss their interpretations openly, they would be maligned and ostracized and their work ignored or denied publication no matter how valid because there is such an incredibly strong bias against such scientists. It would be almost like being of the wrong caste or wrong race or wrong sexual orientation which seems to be much more reasonably tolerated today than having a faith based interpretation of anything. How can such a disparity exist in the 21st century?
quote:
What scientific research has Behe done to support his contention that IC systems were intelligently designed? None. He attacks evolution, and that's it. He has never tried to marshal positive evidence to support ID. Never.
I don’t disagree. He expounds, but offers no original research to confirm his pronouncements. I’m not sure that IC should be used as a validation for teleologic ID since I don’t believe there are any possible ways to affirm something as strange as an occult designer of all that is.
Our interpretation is: the designer had no intention of being confirmed by scientific research. What we interpret is the peculiarity of the universe as it is and how improbable it is that we are here now in such an idyllic environment in an otherwise hostile universe. Racking it all up to probability seems just too improbable == to some of us.
quote:
ID, at it's very foundation, is nothing more than an attack on science. ID sees scientific knowledge as a threat to theistic beliefs, so it attacks knowledge. This is why there is conflict. Some people view knowledge as a good thing. Go figure. They frown on those who would censor knowledge in an attempt to bolster faith.
WRONG — WRONG — WRONG! ID is an INTERPRETATION, NOT an attack on science.
Most of us IDers find science valuable and wonderful in almost all aspects, if for nothing more than it provides an insight into the processes of creation (that is, what the BB initiated and all that proceeded thereafter).
We believe knowledge accumulation is good. It has always been so. It is DOGMA that is BAD. Thinking one has all the answers and then demeans those who have opinions or interpretations which extend the range of possibilities beyond those which they consider acceptable.
It is certainly true that RELIGION has imposed dogma on science in the past, but this no longer applies except in a miniscule irrelevant circle who represent a fringe.
The fringe have a right to their opinions and beliefs, but do not have a right to impose their opinions and beliefs on others either.
quote:
As it stands now, the theory of evolution is being used by scientists right now to further our knowledge of nature. No one is using ID to increase our knowledge of nature. No one. They don't even try. The goal of ID is not knowledge. It is indoctrination at the expense of knowledge. This should be opposed at every turn.
Again, WRONG! The goal of ID is to PROMOTE A SPIRITUAL CONNECTION to the universe; its evolution and to life and intelligence as it evolves in that universe. Perhaps there is an important meaning to some of us if we attempt to associate a spiritual connection or purpose to knowledge of nature. Does everything have to be cut and dried to make it relevant? Isn’t sensitivity to the miraculous fine tuning of the universe something to hold in wonder? Isn’t spirituality a need for humans as well as knowledge?
quote:
There are already plenty of psychological studies on this --" endeavor to develop some insight into the tenants of faith; to understand WHY those who are convinced of the validity of their faith."
Psychological needs are different from spiritual needs. Those who claim no need for a spiritual connection with the universe are simply deluding themselves. I.e., they are in a sense of denial.
quote:
"---the best science is done by those who just don’t care what the outcome might be." Can you point to a single ID scientific study where this occurs?
No, because I agree. I doubt if any scientist does a study --- with all it entails (including the statistical analysis and subsequent peer review) really ever does such a study. Not just ID motivated scientists, but ANY scientist.
quote:
"What has been most valuable to the faith-based is the FAILURE of certain experiments or observations to affirm or reconcile conflicts between well-established (by previous peer reviewed testing) scientific hypotheses or theories."
I think that sums it up best. This is why ID wants all science to stop. Surely you can understand why there is conflict between ID supporters and scientists?
Completely WRONG. Certainly teleologic IDers WANT all science to continue to every possible logical and testable hypothesis, seeking every possible conclusion.
We want to see EVERY obstruction overcome to see if science CAN do what it aims to do: To render an explanation for all we see!
We LOVE science; we love especially mathematics which provides insights into theories (some of which are ours about the fundamentals of matter --- ordinary and dark, and the interchangeability of energy with matter).
No, I do NOT see why there must be such a conflict at all.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 11:53 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Pressie, posted 03-07-2012 1:26 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 146 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2012 2:17 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 148 by Panda, posted 03-07-2012 7:52 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 149 by Admin, posted 03-07-2012 8:45 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 150 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2012 9:44 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2012 10:14 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 03-07-2012 11:40 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 155 by jar, posted 03-07-2012 11:51 AM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 160 of 230 (655276)
03-09-2012 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Trixie
03-06-2012 6:57 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
It doesn't matter if there's logic in your idea, it has to be falsifiable. You have to ask what sort of evidence, if it came to light, would falsify your hypothesis. How would you go about looking for that evidence? That's what science is and does and it is something that ID has notably failed to do.
Trixie: I agree. The question ---what sort of evidence, if it came to light, would falsify your hypothesis. is a very valid question.
It seems to me that this is precisely what scientific investigation is all about! The goal of science is clarification; affirmation; predictability and explanation of all we see in a verifiable format that is uniformly accepted by all, arrived at by the scientific method.
Irrefutable proof of the origin of matter at the fundamental (sub-quark) level for example might be:
Proof that all matter is energy, stabilized at the Planck level by harmonics, with a clarification of the fundamental structure and mechanism of quark stability, and the strong force maintaining quark adhesion to produce protons and a full elaboration of supersymmetry so we know ALL the particles and antiparticle relationships in our universe INCLUDING dark matter and dark energy; the Higgs; the axion; the Neutralino, --- and that’s just the fundamental physics of the universe; then there’s its laws and possible exceptions or violations of those laws in the special regions of our universe (which may never be accessible) .
We have to know it all! Then we must turn to DNA; its origin; its permutations; the mystery of junk DNA including transposons, retroposons, pseudogenes, and introns.
My point is, complete confidence in our knowledge base such that we are assured there are no possible outside influences we cannot detect or track down. I think this is virtually impossible. We seek certitude in all things. There is no possible certitude I can imagine right now. Perhaps in a millennium? JCH
quote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ID can never do it, just that they haven't yet. Instead, we get propaganda, sound bites and a lot of hot air about atheistic "evilutionists". We get "refutations" of the ToE based on a comlete misunderstanding of what the ToE actually says and no amount of explanation as to how they've misunderstood the ToE will deflect them from repeating the same pointless strawman refutations.
Science has observed the amazing variety of life on this planet and come up with a testable hypothesis of how that variety of life has come about. Subsequently, much evidence has come to light which fits with this hypothesis. Additionally, no evidence has come to light which falsifies it. It can be falsified, it just hasn't been so far.
Compare that with ID.
ID also observes the amazing variety of life on this planet and has come up with a hypothesis that it has been designed like that. However, they have no way to detect evidence of design. They can't describe how it would look if it wasn't designed, i.e., they can't suggest a way to falsify their hypothesis. Well, to be more accurate, they did in that they said that more than 2 mutations couldn't happen without design, but when that was shown to happen they moved the goalposts and now it's up to four mutations (this is a very condensed version of what they've done).
Instead of testing their hypothesis, they continually try to discredit evolution, but to date their results have supported evolution, even when they've deliberately "loaded the dice" against evolution in their experimental design. For example one experiment on 2 related proteins (common ancestor type thing) tried to turn the 2 proteins into each other. It didn't work so they declared that they couldn't have a common ancestor (again simplistic and brief). Now, me and my cousin share a grandparent. I cannot turn into my cousin and my cousin cannot turn into me. Does that prove that we don't share a grandparent? According to Doug Axe it does because that's the logic he used when he did the work. (See Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway, BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).)
There is no way that science and scientists should be flexible to factually incorrect information, poor science, even poorer understanding of scientific concepts, deliberately misleading information, blatant lies and propaganda and sloppy experimental design and analysis. Why should they hold themselves to one standard, yet be flexible enough to allow those with lower standards to claim that they have the same standards?
The mistake IDers make is to even try to prove the concept of ID by attempting to disprove natural selection; or evolution in general or mathematically projected information about the course of the universe prior to the Big Bang; inflation or subsequently the evolution of life. They engage in a fools game, and it’s absolutely unnecessary, because if I am correct, fundamental proof of intelligent design can never be demonstrated. It’s not supposed to be provable because to do so would be like proving there is life after death! No matter how many NDE’s are reported, none of them can really produce tangible evidence of survival after death. But that doesn’t disprove the concept. JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Trixie, posted 03-06-2012 6:57 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 11:27 AM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 161 of 230 (655277)
03-09-2012 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Pressie
03-06-2012 5:01 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
Yes, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.
However, nobody has the right to teach sham science as "science". Only science should be taught as science.
Religious beliefs should not be taught as "science". Therefore no accommodation of religious beliefs in science classes.
The fraudulence of creationists pretending that Intelligent Design is "science" should be exposed for what it is: dishonesty. That's it. Pseudo "science" should not be taught in science classes.
I really don’t disagree. Perhaps the best way to look at teleologic ID is as speculation or the proposal of un-testable hypotheses.
I would agree it should never be taught as science, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be brought in to discussion in science as an afterthought based on scientific foundation so long as it is qualified as palpably NONfactual, unverifiable and without more than speculative evidence. But it does not belong in the classroom as curriculum, certainly. JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Pressie, posted 03-06-2012 5:01 AM Pressie has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 162 of 230 (655278)
03-09-2012 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Tangle
03-06-2012 3:13 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
You're quite at liberty to fantasize like this but without the slightest mote of evidence, it's just more words. I still have no idea what point you're trying to make.
My point is that there are plausible means by which an agent (far beyond our understanding) might manipulate the evolution both of the physical universe and of life and its evolution.
Of course it’s fundamentally imagination and NO it can never be verified (or disproven). But it’s an interesting concept is it not?
After all, Einstein’s thought experiments were founded in his imagination and not evaluable until mathematically formatted. But Special and General Relativity were simple compared to the concept (fantasy) I propose as a POSSIBILITY (relating to the evolution of life and then intelligence) --- which I do base on the reasonable scientific foundations of Quantum Mechanics; entanglement; uncertainty and the complexity of DNA.
ALL of these concepts are obviously nothing more than prattle --- of course. They go beyond what can be tested at this time (or probably ever). None-the-less, ideas should not be labled as stupid or mindless when proposed as a possibility.
They are (simply speaking) un-testable hypotheses, nothing more.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2012 3:13 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Trixie, posted 03-09-2012 4:30 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 164 by Pressie, posted 03-09-2012 4:47 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2012 7:23 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 03-09-2012 8:00 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2012 10:39 AM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 169 of 230 (655333)
03-09-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
03-09-2012 7:23 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
Still sounds more like Deism than ID as currently used by the majority of proponents.
Dear RAZD and ALL:
NO. While Deism DOES "---presuppose the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator BUT "HE" does NOT intervene in the universe". I (and many teleologist IDers) believe that a Creator PROBABLY DID AND DOES take an ACTIVE role in both the initiation process of the universe, and --- by subtle effects at the quantum level, utilizing chaos and modifications of initial conditions of each component system, DID direct the evolution --- first of the universe and then of life as it evolved with goal toward first sentient and then sapient beings such as ourselves.
The prospective GOAL of that evolution is to act as a communication mechanism of spiritual components of the kingdom of the Creator (God) with His ultimate creation (man, and possibly other sapient beings in the universe), allowing them (and Him) physical interaction and spiritual development within the universe so created such that He (as a spiritual whole) might participate in His (or IT’s) creation.
This concept is neither provable by ANY means mankind could devise, nor is it magic nor witchcraft. It is merely a concept; a belief system, felt strongly by many to be valid, and should be left at that.
Its teachings or concepts should be restricted to individuals; families; accepting religious organizations and it should not find itself at loggerheads with science nor formal education since such discussions are purely philosophical.
However, since its precepts demand a continuum of evolution (at the quantum, molecular and macroscopic levels) within the universe and within life systems and are founded on scientific knowledge as it evolves, concepts evolving from physics, astrophysics, biology, chaos theory and mathematics et al are pivotal in RECOGNIZING the process emanating there-from.
In short, science is a VALID TOOL OF INVESTIGATION AND AFFIRMATION for those who believe that --- what we are experiencing, from the beginning, is NOT by CHANCE; but purposeful.
THEREFORE EVERY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE PROVIDES ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE; ANOTHER COG TO COMPLETE OUR CONCEPT, AND VALIDATE OUR BELIEF IN AN ULTIMATELY DIVINE ORIGIN AND PROCESSES WITH ULTIMATELY DIVINE GOALS.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2012 7:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2012 3:41 PM jchardy has not replied
 Message 180 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2012 5:37 PM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 170 of 230 (655334)
03-09-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
03-09-2012 8:00 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
So if you're not arguing that ID is science and if you're not trying to force ID on children or anyone else, I'm fine with letting you go your happy way.
--Percy
Percy: Quite right. I do NOT take the position ID should be a science. It utilizes science to affirm its beliefs and those who believe in a teleologic ID. I.e., a PURPOSE for what we see from a spiritual point of view. There SHOULD be no conflict. JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 03-09-2012 8:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 03-09-2012 4:22 PM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 172 of 230 (655336)
03-09-2012 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by NoNukes
03-09-2012 10:39 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
This characterization is wrong, and the analogy is completely inapt. Einstein's thought experiments were based on hypothetical scenarios that showed the ramification of postulates that were based on observed phenomena. The thought experiments were not random speculations and guesses divorced from any and all evidence.
Quite true. But teleologic ID concepts are also NOT random speculations and guesses divorced from any and all evidence.
Our concepts ARE also based on science and its known, prospective and introspective considerations. In this regard, OUR concepts have just as much founding as those that Einstein had which initiated his integration of Maxwell’s EM equations and Hendrick Lorentz’ work subsequently integrated into ideas leading to GR.
The difference is, our concepts extend it (science) to the "impossible" --- to the spiritual aspect of the universe --- we, of course, assume the validity of those concepts BUT do NOT demand you (or any one else) accept those same concepts as "valid", since ---- they may not be; and certainly will never be "provable".
JCH
quote:
I would characterize Einstein's thought experiments as hypothesis generating activity, where the result of the activity is predictions that were both falsifiable and explicitly logically (i.e. mathematically) required by the hypotheses. In other words, Einstein's thought experiments represent science activity of the highest order. Quite unlike your speculation.
As an aside, there is no doubt about in my mind, that there is an "I'm like Einstein, struggling in the patent office" corollary to Godwin's law.
Well, sir, --- This has not even the foggiest reference to Godwin’s law, and to your relief, I admit that I AM NOT LIKE EINSTEIN.
But you, I, and all of us have the advantage of his same quantum computer (our fertile human brain) which struggles continuously to make sense of our world, and universe, and our human condition as a reflection of the remarkable universe we find ourselves in.
I am quite certain Einstein didn’t struggle in the patent office position. It afforded him the hours of boredom to contemplate, which to one of such dynamic brilliance (along with probable ADD), could only find solice in his genius imagination.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2012 10:39 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2012 5:28 PM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 173 of 230 (655339)
03-09-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Taq
03-09-2012 11:27 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
If you are arguing for a God-of-the-Gaps then you are arguing from an extremely weak position. If ID is nothing more than "God exists in our ignorance" then it is not a position that deserves respect. It is both bad science and bad theology. Every time we discover something new about Nature your God-of-the-Gaps gets smaller and weaker.
This is a peculiar concept: God-of-the-Gaps is it not? I certainly don’t respect the concept at all. God does NOT exist in our ignorance! He may, however, be found to exist in the thorough contemplation of our knowledge, even then, though, He will NEVER be obvious, nor verifiable.
quote:
The mistake IDers make is to even try to prove the concept of ID by attempting to disprove natural selection;
If this is removed, what is left other than religious beliefs that predated ID by thousands of years?
These are primitive concepts. Teleologic IDers do NOT attempt to disprove NS. They look for end-points which seem to lead to new questions to answer which should be pursued by science.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 11:27 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 03-09-2012 4:26 PM jchardy has not replied
 Message 177 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 5:09 PM jchardy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024