Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 4 of 230 (653701)
02-23-2012 4:55 PM


Well that was a lot of words.
All science is interested in is establishing the truth by testing evidence.
There were a lot of words in your treatise, i didn't notice that one. Maybe I missed where you discussed it?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(8)
Message 19 of 230 (653812)
02-24-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


John S. Hardy, Jr. M.D., A.C.P., F.A.C.A. writes:
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.
So long as each side adheres to its dogma, we will continue to see ID blended with fundamentalism and no dialog will be possible.
Scientists don't care what anybody believes. They really don't, they're only interested in what can be shown by evidence and testing to be true.
Science isn't a 'dogma' and it's not remotely interested in the 'goals (and purpose) of the followers of Intelligent Design, nor does it want a 'conversation' with them. That's not how it works.
It's important to understand this; there's no point crying about 'vitriol' and hoping for a reconciliation because science is not a political or religious movement that is looking for a negotiated settlement.
All the ID movement has to do to engage with science is TO DO SOME.
Do the work, get the evidence, get it peer reviewed and published in Nature, then step forward for the Nobel Prize and listen to the every scientist in the world clap and cheer.
Simple really.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jchardy, posted 02-23-2012 2:44 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 64 of 230 (653940)
02-25-2012 2:37 PM


Are we actually going to be presented with anything new and/or interesting here or is the request to be taken seriously and not ridiculed the only point to be made?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 85 of 230 (654013)
02-26-2012 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jchardy
02-26-2012 3:36 AM


Re: teleology and ID
You can't mix up [quote] with [/qs]
quote:
use one
or
the other
Use the 'peek' button to see how it's done.
It's also a good idea to use the preview buttone before you submit - then your errors will show up highlighted in red so you can fix them easily.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 3:36 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 94 of 230 (654072)
02-26-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jchardy
02-26-2012 5:11 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
Second time of asking
Are we actually going to be presented with anything new and/or interesting here or is the request to be taken seriously and not ridiculed the only point to be made?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 5:11 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(5)
Message 112 of 230 (654406)
03-01-2012 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by jchardy
03-01-2012 12:13 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
JCHardy writes:
A clarification to understand the conflicts between adherents of faith and science.
I've no idea why you think this latest collection of words adds anything new. I still have absolutely no idea what you expect us to do with them except nod and move on or give the standard responses and rebuttals to old arguments.
So that’s it. My last shot. I will be off line for the next month or so.
I see that as well as ignoring our many pleas to use the quote syntax correctly, that this new post of yours is quoting yourself again. Strangely, it's also a reply to yourself and as such, it is now marked as awaiting your next reply to yourself. I therefore suggest that you inform yourself of your pending absence so that you don't disapoint yourself on your return.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 12:13 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 138 of 230 (654965)
03-06-2012 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jchardy
03-05-2012 9:32 PM


Re: purpose in science
Jchardy writes:
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.
You're quite at liberty to fantasise 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.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 9:32 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 2:16 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 146 of 230 (655079)
03-07-2012 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
This is simply special pleading.
You admit science has probably got evolution right.
There is obviously evidence strongly in favor
You accept ID offers no science of its own.
Obviously this is so. This is another point I have made TIME AND TIME AGAIN
Yet you want scientists to be nice to people who have been shown in a court of law to be promoting religion not science.
No. That isn't going to happen unless and until those making their claims join the science community by ACTUALLY DOING SOME. Until then, they can all whistle.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jchardy, posted 03-07-2012 12:48 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 180 of 230 (655352)
03-09-2012 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jchardy
03-09-2012 3:11 PM


Re: purpose in science
Jchardy writes:
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 problem with this sort of language is that it's just waffle. It has no content, it's a religio-sciency mash up without substance. You could substitute any pseudo scienticic nonsense in there and it would make just as much sense and have just as much non-meaning. I mean why leave out muliverses, string theory and brains? You might as well use them, you chucked in everything else big physics you could think of.
The only reason to mangle science like this is to lend fake authority to a very, poor story. As has been said many times, you can believe anything you like but if you want to call it science it has to BE science. Using scientific sounding language to describe elderly philosophical ideas is fooling anyone here.
You still haven't said anything at all new, you've just used a load of verbage to say it. I fully get that you want ID to be respected by science, but it isn't and until it does some, it can't be.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 3:11 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 9:11 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 192 of 230 (655416)
03-10-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by jchardy
03-09-2012 9:11 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:
Well, Tangle old kid, it appears you and I have nothing to talk about since you disrespect all my concepts and everything I say.
That’s OK. Just don’t bother responding if you’re not interested in exchanging ideas. Stick to your satellite and I’ll stick to mine.
Well, John S. Hardy, Jr. M.D., A.C.P., F.A.C.A, you appear to have landed on my satellite and are talking at me, so, if you don't mind, I'll decide whether I wish to talk back.
Your opening request was
"We the people badly need a clarification to understand the conflicts between adherents of faith and science. "
So far, all you've done is confirm the reasons why those conflicts exist. Do you not understand that if you want science to take your ideas seriously, you have to have some science to talk about? Science doesn't mean using sciencie-sounding words to camoflage religious ideas. You can't just chuck in words like chaos theory and quantum uncertainty and hope to impress us.
There are real scientist here who actually understand those terms and groan when religions co-opt them to obfuscate.
So we're all waiting for these new ideas of yours to be presented! when are you going to present them?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 9:11 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 5:30 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 220 of 230 (655598)
03-11-2012 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jchardy
03-11-2012 4:02 PM


Re: A RELUCTANT FAREWELL
jchardy writes:
In my opening of this thread, and over the past week or so, I hope I have opened some minds to realize that there are those of us who believe the probability argument favors some divine direction to the evolution, both of our universe (from the beginning) and to and through evolution toward human existence.
I hope many see that many of us seek out science --- not to validate our beliefs, but rather to expand our knowledge base, utilizing science without the fear that the foundations of our belief might be destroyed. If challenges to our beliefs occur, we are willing to accept those disruptions without losing respect for and toward those who present those challenges.
As I have said previously, that challenge is bimodal: It exists for we the faithful as well as for those who are immutably skeptics.
You'll probably not be surprised to hear that you've been unable to open my mind to, well, what? I simply don't know. You've just spouted mashed-up pseudo-scientific bullshit alongside old philosophy; as though it was an argument in itself to use words like 'quantum theory' alongside 'belief'.
Sorry, if you want to open our minds, just talk straight and save the bullshit for the congregation.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 4:02 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 224 of 230 (655911)
03-14-2012 6:35 PM


I'll finish where I started.
Tangle writes:
Well, that was a lot of words

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024