Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 247 of 337 (664957)
06-06-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 8:43 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Of course you need to know how it was done.
It fun I imagine making stuff up, but until it is tested, examined, duplicated it is still just fantasy.
AbE:
And there is still nothing to teach or even research involving ID.
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 8:43 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 8:55 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 250 of 337 (664960)
06-06-2012 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by NoNukes
06-06-2012 8:50 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
And if and when they do provide something to test it will be tested, just as it has been in each case.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2012 8:50 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 252 of 337 (664962)
06-06-2012 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 8:55 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Bring them on.
Give me a cite and we will look at it.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 8:55 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:05 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 259 of 337 (664971)
06-06-2012 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:05 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Thank you. Have you read that paper? It's available here
Now how is this different from anything you have proposed?
Notice that he proposes several things, most importantly a series of tests to uses, methods and mechanics.
So far that is ONE of the things seldom found in the ID marketing field, and every one that has been put forward has been shown to be false.
The important issue is that YOU are avoiding dealing with ID.
Look at that article again.
First it deals with something humans do, build artificial orbiting bodies.
Second, it deals with how such things could be identified.
This is very comparable to what archeologists and paleontologists do when examine a site. If they find a flake of what looks like dirt, they compare it what we know we do and have done. If they find a rock with sharp edges they compare it to samples made by a knapper.
We know how such objects could be made because we make such objects.
Now let's turn to ID.
What is the method that the Designer uses to preload the genome?
What is the evidence that the genome is preloaded?
Finally, even if they orbiting body was detected as described in the paper, intelligent origin would not be inferred until all other possible sources could be eliminated.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:05 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:32 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 260 of 337 (664972)
06-06-2012 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:08 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Not true.
You need to be able to duplicate the alien method.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:08 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:33 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 263 of 337 (664975)
06-06-2012 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:32 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
We build orbiting bodies even now and were doing so even before 2005.
The method they used is the methods we use.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:32 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:40 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 264 of 337 (664976)
06-06-2012 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:33 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Of course we can determine methods they could use.
The issue is method or model is presented for how the designer influenced evolution or that there is any preloaded genome.
Why is it that those trying to market ID never seem to want to talk about ID, I wonder?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:33 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:45 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 267 of 337 (664981)
06-06-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:40 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Sure, if we can detect the object we can determine lots about it, what it's made of, it's mass, the surface.
We can compare that to what we build, just like the paleontologist examines pottery shards and stone tools.
Why don't ID folk talk about how the designer influenced evolution, the method the designer used?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:40 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:51 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 268 of 337 (664982)
06-06-2012 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:45 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
You brought up SETI.
I believe that is irrelevant and just another attractive rabbit hole so you don't have to do any work related to ID.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:45 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:51 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 271 of 337 (664985)
06-06-2012 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:51 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
You are welcome to think anything you want.
The issue though is NOT SETI, it's ID.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:51 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:55 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 297 of 337 (665035)
06-07-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:55 PM


Summary
Do we, or do we not need the lab where the orbiting body was constructed before reliably inferring design?
We do not need the physical and specific lab. I already said that above.
But we do need to be able to describe (even if we cannot currently duplicate) the way that the signal could be generated.
The generic idea of "Intelligent Design" is not new. Almost every culture has some myths about how humans and the other animals were created by some other entity.
The modern "Intelligent Design" though is just another attempt by the Creationists to get around the laws in the US.
It is presenting the desired conclusion and then looking for evidence that supports the desired conclusion and excluding all evidence that refutes the desired conclusion.
Let's look at design as we see it in human societies.
As I pointed out back over a half decade ago in Message 8 of the thread INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach, when we look at life from an engineering perspective there is no Intellegent Design.
quote:
Consider cars. There are many species or kinds of cars, Packard, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Humber, DKW, AutoUnion, Alfa Romeo, Citroen just as there are many kinds of mammals, lions, tigers, bears, man, orangutan, elephant, horse and of course, ohmys.
The difference between something designed, like cars, and those things that are not designed like mammals though can be seen in the difference in how good ideas do not propagate through out the living species or kinds.
In the early 1920s power windshield wipers appeared on the first car. Within only a few years they were found on every car.
In 1923 the first standard equipment radio appeared. Within only a few years they were found on every car.
In 1939, Buick introduced turn signals. Within only a few years they were found on every car.
The list is almost endless.
  • electric wipers instead of vacuum.
  • internal combustion engines.
  • radial tires.
  • heaters.
  • air conditioning.
  • roll down windows.
  • headlights.
  • mirrors.
  • steering wheels.
  • tops.
  • spare tires.
  • space saver spares.
  • starters.
  • the change from generator to alternator.
I could go on but that list should give you an idea.
In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.
We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.
Looking at living critters what we find is NOT Intelligent Design.
When this subject comes up we often get responses such as "What if SETI gets a signal that includes the first 500 Prime Numbers"; but the reality is that SETI has not received any such signal.
If and when the ID proponents produce some evidence comparable to such a signal, then, and only then, should other groups bother to try and research, duplicate and confirm the findings.
There is more though.
One thing mentioned in this thread was "front loaded genomes".
That wasn't really explained and no evidence was presented that "front loaded genomes" exist, but it really doesn't much matter.
Even if there was a designer, other than as a historical footnote or for product liability would it matter. See Even if there was a Designer, does it matter? for a detailed discussion.
For life as we find it today we have a pretty good handle on how evolution works; we have the model. It's nice to know who first designed tail fins or who first designed the bikini, but only as a bit of trivia.
It would be nice to know who the designer was if we could initiate product liability suits. Looking at life today that alone could keep an infinite number of lawyers occupied and out of the way.
But so far all that has come out of the ID marketers has been incredulity and down right silly assertions such as "complexity is a sign of design" when every designer knows that simplicity is a better indicator of design.
Now if the ID marketers were willing to change the name to Inept Design, Incomprehensible Design, Incompetent Design, Inexpert Design or Inefficient Design then I think they would have a very high probability of success.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:55 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 11:09 AM jar has replied
 Message 302 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 11:23 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 301 of 337 (665039)
06-07-2012 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Genomicus
06-07-2012 11:09 AM


Re: Summary
Actually, I don't think I'm saying anything that I have not said before.
As I have said, talking about SETI is simply an attempt to misdirect attention from the failings of ID.
SETI, as pointed out in the Summary above is looking for a very specific signature, one that we know with a very high degree of confidence exists, namely a technological civilization that lives on the surface of a planet, uses the radio portion of the spectrum for communication and has capability to modify their environment using basic raw materials like metals and semiconductors.
We have evidence that at least on such civilization exists.
But that is not the case with ID.
Where is the evidence of the existence of the designer comparable to what we have to create the radio signals SETI is listening for?
In addition, SETI has so far found no evidence of any signal that matches the criteria.
ID has no project comparable to SETI.
They have no specific signal they are listening for.
They have no program similar to SETI.
Where is the ID equivalent to SETI.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Genomicus, posted 06-07-2012 11:09 AM Genomicus has seen this message but 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