Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do Intelligent Design People act?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1 of 55 (502553)
03-12-2009 9:16 AM


The inspiration for this post is from a discussion I was having with Peg here:
Message 31
I thought the question was big enough for a topic of it's own, and also thought it took the existing thread too far off-topic.
From that message:
Peg writes:
Stile writes:
Stile writes:
They'll (proponents of ID) try deception in order to get into schools so they can reach a multitude of young-minds for the only purpose of "getting more people to act exactly like they do."
how do they act?
ps. i dont think we have ID people here in australia...i've never met one anyway.
A basic explanation is as follows:
ID people act in such a way that they do whatever they can to glorify the God they believe in. It is generally a USA phenomenon, but aspects of it can be found pretty much world-wide.
The problems begin when they include the following as "glorifying God":
-the idea that everyone should be a Christian and there is absolutely no other "right" choice
-the idea that it's the ID'ers personal responsibility to make sure that as many people as possible become Christians in order to be included in the "right" choice
-interfering with other people's decisions in order to force other people to also "glorify God" as the ID people think it should be done.
-getting into positions of political power in order to create/edit laws so that they can force other people to "glorify God" as the ID people think it should be done.
-reaching out to as many children as possible (by even abusing schools and other public venues) in order to force other people to "glorify God" as the ID people think it should be done.
The basics on "glorifying God":
-the Bible (KJV?) explains everything that ever needs to be known about life and relationships and the world (including scientific exploration)
-the science of evolution should not be acknowledged because certain areas of the Bible do not literally agree
-the science of abiogenesis should not be acknowledged because certain areas of the Bible do not literally agree
-the science of geology (including radiometric dating) should not be acknowledged because certain areas of the Bible do not literally agree
I hope that's a good start, and I hope others can add their definitions as well. Hearing from actual people who accept Intelligent Design would be greatly appreciated.
Here's some things I found on the internets:
1. The following is from a proponent of ID. Note that it is written in such a way as to "get you to feel sorry" for ID. It doesn't just present facts, it presents facts and tries to make you feel guilty for simply not knowing them already. This is how ID people act, they will do anything they can in order to sway as many people as possible into believing "their side" of the story. There is no regard for honesty or truth.
Teaching Intelligent Design as Religion or Science?
By William A. Dembski
(From the page: This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use)
2. The following is a news article about how a Judge (who, politically speaking, should have been as close to "sympathetic" to ID as possible) rules that ID should not be allowed in Pennsylvania public schools. I think that William Dembski (the author of the paper linked above) was involved in the trial, but I'm not sure. I do know that Michael Behe (another prominent proponent of ID) was very involved in the trial and even "took the stand" at one point.
‘Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classes
I think this should be placed in the Intelligent Design forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by hari, posted 03-12-2009 12:39 PM Stile has replied
 Message 4 by hari, posted 03-12-2009 12:44 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 7:38 AM Stile has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 55 (502558)
03-12-2009 10:09 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
hari
Junior Member (Idle past 5489 days)
Posts: 15
From: Harmandar
Joined: 03-10-2009


Message 3 of 55 (502585)
03-12-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
03-12-2009 9:16 AM


Teaching ID in schools
Re the two links in the OP.
Dembski assumed that a conspiracy was taking place against teaching ID in science classes, but even without Judge Jone’s summary that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory it would fall into the same category as all the other unproven theories like String Theory — there’s no point in teaching it at school level when children already have a full timetable.
It would be a fine, not to say essential, candidate for science teaching once it has made some testable and proven predictions, i.e. there is well-founded evidence for it as with, say, Ohm’s Law or evolution.
The only predictions I know of were Beth’s claims for irreducible complexity that were quickly and easily found to be false. Does anyone know of any other predictions (or should that be prophesies?)

Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 9:16 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 1:05 PM hari has replied

  
hari
Junior Member (Idle past 5489 days)
Posts: 15
From: Harmandar
Joined: 03-10-2009


Message 4 of 55 (502586)
03-12-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
03-12-2009 9:16 AM


As a Christian, I will argue with your premise that ID is to glorify God — rather it is to glorify the Bible.
Some more points for your list:
- The Intelligent Designer is required to act within the retrospective guidelines as set out in the theory (which prohibit any form of evolution as a valid design tool) and so is clearly denied omnipotence. In Baptist circles this is known as shutting God in a box.
- ID does appeal to folk who like things to be simple. One proponent remarked that the universe cannot be billions of years old because God would never do anything so unimaginable. (I know, I know).
- By making such a big deal out of creation (Jesus said zilch about it), and often by refusing to get beyond the first paragraph of the first page of the Bible, ID proponents cause friction in the church and send out the message that faith is irrelevant.

Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 9:16 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2009 1:08 PM hari has not replied
 Message 8 by grandfather raven, posted 03-12-2009 3:46 PM hari has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 5 of 55 (502593)
03-12-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by hari
03-12-2009 12:39 PM


Re: Teaching ID in schools
hari writes:
It would be a fine, not to say essential, candidate for science teaching once it has made some testable and proven predictions
Absolutely. In fact, I would adamantly defend ID's right to be included in science classes... if it actually did any science
hari writes:
As a Christian, I will argue with your premise that ID is to glorify God — rather it is to glorify the Bible.
I will argue that such a thing isn't my premise
I'm just saying that's what I think ID thinks glorifying God is about. Personally, I think they don't really understand what is meant by "glorifying God", I think they're missing the point. I don't really believe anything IDers say, even about religion.
Not even glorifying the Bible, you can even argue that they are merely glorifying themselves.
I certainly agree that there is nothing virtuous about ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by hari, posted 03-12-2009 12:39 PM hari has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by hari, posted 03-12-2009 2:43 PM Stile has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 55 (502594)
03-12-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hari
03-12-2009 12:44 PM


ID
As a Christian, I will argue with your premise that ID is to glorify God — rather it is to glorify the Bible.
I think ID is actually creationism in disguise, created in an attempt to sneak creationism back into the schools after the court decisions of the '80s (specifically Aguillard).
It is an attempt to update creation "science" to hide the religious component and add a veneer of science.
ID is also a political movement, rather than a scientific one, because there is no scientific evidence that supports their case.Behe came closest with irreducible complexity, but all of his examples I believe have been falsified.
Welcome!
Edited by Coyote, : punctuation

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hari, posted 03-12-2009 12:44 PM hari has not replied

  
hari
Junior Member (Idle past 5489 days)
Posts: 15
From: Harmandar
Joined: 03-10-2009


Message 7 of 55 (502614)
03-12-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Stile
03-12-2009 1:05 PM


Re: Teaching ID in schools
Stile writes:
Not even glorifying the Bible, you can even argue that they are merely glorifying themselves.
That's a bit hard on sincere followers who get caught up in what I can only describe as Bible worship, but as for the leaders, say it plain:
quote:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
Mt 23:15 NIV
Coyote - thanks! but I'll probably be excommunicated now for quoting scripture

Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 1:05 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 7:31 AM hari has not replied

  
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 8 of 55 (502635)
03-12-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hari
03-12-2009 12:44 PM


wow
As a Christian, I will argue with your premise that ID is to glorify God — rather it is to glorify the Bible.
i love you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hari, posted 03-12-2009 12:44 PM hari has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 9 of 55 (502754)
03-13-2009 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by hari
03-12-2009 2:43 PM


Re: Teaching ID in schools
hari writes:
Stile writes:
Not even glorifying the Bible, you can even argue that they are merely glorifying themselves.
That's a bit hard on sincere followers who get caught up in what I can only describe as Bible worship
Very true. But, well, that's why I never mentioned anything about sincere followers...
My statements are only intended to be about what they say, and I did state what I thought "problematic" IDer's ideas about "glorifying God" were.
This has absolutely no bearing on sincere believers. Even sincere believers who also accept ID. Again, the problems only start if people begin to think their beliefs are so incredibly absolute, that they must begin forcing others into that belief as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by hari, posted 03-12-2009 2:43 PM hari has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 8:04 AM Stile has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 10 of 55 (502755)
03-13-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
03-12-2009 9:16 AM


Ah, now im in the picture
thumbs up for the links... very interesting article by Dembski.
We dont have this issue in australia because australians are not religious people. We like our beer, bbq and sport...all our idols are living and usually hitting a ball of one sort or anther (except for me, i hate sport)
It does seem like a political movement but i must say that I like the idea of having something to challenge the theory of evolution.
Dembski makes an interesting challenge
quote:
It is another thing to look at the world and find features in it that can be reliably correlated with intelligent agency. In the latter instance, attributing the world to an intelligent cause is no longer simply a faith commitment, but actually constitutes a scientific inference.
Science isnt limited to evolution, it covers a broad field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by principles (rules).
We know that almost any kind of knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the scientific method.
So what if ID was perused in this method. Is it possible to pursue ID in the scientific method???
The 'scientific method' goes along the lines of...
Observe, Theorize, Test, Conclude
Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 9:16 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2009 7:54 AM Peg has replied
 Message 13 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 8:06 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 03-13-2009 9:20 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 26 by hari, posted 03-13-2009 10:19 AM Peg has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 11 of 55 (502757)
03-13-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peg
03-13-2009 7:38 AM


Is it possible to pursue ID in the scientific method???
Yes, just like it is possible to pursue astrology using the scientific method. Unfortunately for them, they both do badly.
Unfortunately, "ID People" tend to ignore these problems and proclaim victory anyway. Occasionally they'll recant, but it often takes a lot of time and effort to get them to accept even rudimentary mistakes.
The 'scientific method' goes along the lines of...
Observe, Theorize, Test, Conclude
Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution???
Not usually by high school teachers, for obvious reasons. However, evolutionary biologists do use this method (though the method you describe is obviously simplified), and some of them teach at university.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 7:38 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 8:12 AM Modulous has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 12 of 55 (502758)
03-13-2009 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Stile
03-13-2009 7:31 AM


Re: Teaching ID in schools
Stile writes:
the problems only start if people begin to think their beliefs are so incredibly absolute, that they must begin forcing others into that belief as well.
its strange that you say that in light of Dembski's article which is about a christian school being prohibited from teaching ID in its own science classes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 7:31 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 8:22 AM Peg has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 13 of 55 (502759)
03-13-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peg
03-13-2009 7:38 AM


Feel free to look around
Peg writes:
We know that almost any kind of knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the scientific method.
Very true.
So what if ID was perused in this method. Is it possible to pursue ID in the scientific method???
If ID was pursued in an actually scientific method, then it would be welcomed into the scientific community.
And, actually, it has been done so many, many years ago. It was found to be a dead-end with no supporting evidence. In fact, it's this dead-end that turned scientists towards the theory of evolution in the first place.
The facts are that ID does not seemed to be concerned with "being scientific", they seem to be more concerned with "getting people to agree with them." Such a thing is not scientific.
But you don't have to take my word for it. I gave a few links above but there are many, many more on teh internets if you'd care to poke about.
Science demands correct information. There are intense methods developed to ensure that information is correct, untainted, and valuable. A basic example of this is strict definitions. Science explicitly defines everything. Energy, mass, evolution, gravity... they all have extremely precise, unconfusing defintions. ID does not have this, and they do not seem willing (in 20+ years!!) to provide any when asked. One of the most basic words to define would be "design." However, there is no definition of design in ID. It's just "I'll see it when I see it..." Well, what good does that do, scientifically?
Is a rock designed?
A snowflake?
A beetle?
A cow?
A naturally forming crystal?
Sand?
What if I think something's desinged but no one else does?
Does popular opinion of the moment actually define "designed?"
Is everything designed? (In which case... how can the term be scientifically useful?)
The main point is that it's very, VERY obvious that ID is not science in any even relaxed definition of the term. That is why ID is not accepted by the scientific community. For the exact same reasons that astrology and my opinion on the usefulness of cottage cheese are not scientific... they don't follow the scientific rules.
What should be a very simple, and easy concept to understand just plain isn't. That's why ID causes such a ruckus. It's like an average kid who wants to go to college because his big brother is there. Sure, it might be nice to have the kid follow his brother around for a day or so. But if the kid insists on continually telling the physics professors that "the moon is made of cheese!" over and over and over again... sooner or later they're going to kick the kid out of college. There is a certain point in academics where you just simply have to follow the structured rules or your input will no longer be welcomed (because it can't be trusted).
IDs been disregarding the rules for 20+ years.
"Creation Science" and "Creationism" (basically what ID really is) have been disregarding the rules for almost 100 years.
It's just not acceptable. It wasn't acceptable then, it isn't acceptable now, and it's not likely that it ever will be as long as honest, rigorous discovery is the goal of science.
Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution???
Absolutely.
And if it isn't, there's a nobel prize, millions of dollars, and world-wide fame for the rest of human history for the person who can show otherwise.
(This is the same prize for anyone who can overturn any currently held scientific standard... and, in fact, it's what every scientist dreams of finding).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 7:38 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by hari, posted 03-13-2009 10:09 AM Stile has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 14 of 55 (502760)
03-13-2009 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Modulous
03-13-2009 7:54 AM


Modulous writes:
Not usually by high school teachers, for obvious reasons. However, evolutionary biologists do use this method (though the method you describe is obviously simplified), and some of them teach at university.
high school teachers can barely even explain evolution! when i was in Year 10 i asked the teacher why there are still monkeys and she could not give a satisfactory answer... she probably didnt understand it herself...yet she taught it.
Now, im interested in what the 'testing' part of evolution is
I get the observations, I see how the theory is developed based on thsoe observations... but what is the 'testing' procedures for those theories???
how do they test it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2009 7:54 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2009 8:18 AM Peg has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 15 of 55 (502761)
03-13-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
03-13-2009 8:12 AM


how do they test it?
They construct an experiment and make a prediction based on their hypothesis, then run the experiment and see if the results match what they expected. Pretty much how any scientific test works.
I carried out one such test in Message 17 if you wanted a specific example, but you just go read some evolutionary biology science papers - they are filled with more more precise tests than that. Either way, you need to go to a different thread to get into detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 8:12 AM Peg 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