Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 4:05 AM
437 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 436 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,907 Year: 6,513/21,208 Month: 2,274/2,634 Week: 462/572 Day: 9/70 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Nature belongs to ID
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 1587 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 1 of 146 (661510)
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


I attended a five day Intelligent Design conference to see if it really was 'religion masquerading as science'. I was impressed with the level of scientific evidence supporting ID. The arguments were robust and compelling, but I believe it's all for naught. ID in its present incarnation will not usurp current evolutionary theory for two reasons - one of which I discuss in the post.

ID proponents call their opposition Naturalism and this is their first mistake. Everyone loves Nature, no matter religion or epistemological position, Nature inspires us all. Nature is where we see the glory of God. Nature is where ID finds its evidence. Nature lies dear to all our hearts. To pit yourself against Nature is not the way to win hearts and minds.

And Naturalism has nothing to do with Nature. Naturalism explains our solar system and the life within it as the result of unrelated accidents - one planet smashes into the Earth and the result is the moon, meteors rain down, volcanoes erupt, even the evolution of life is a arbitrary - mutations (accidents) in DNA provide the fuel by which natural selection steers the course of evolution. It is car crash evolution - a car goes through a bush, hits a tree and ends up in a lake - the bush, the tree and the lake are objects of Nature but the car crash is not a natural process.

Galileo was tried for heresy because he could not accept the received wisdom of the day that insisted the sun, the planets and stars rotated around an immovable Earth. He argued that the movement of the stars made no sense with that explanation. He said: God is perfect, God's work is perfect, Nature is God's work. If a natural phenomenon does not make sense, it is not Nature that is illogical, but rather our understanding of its processes. Nature makes sense - mathematical sense. Science, medicine, engineering are only possible because of the intelligibility, predictability and logic of Nature.

If ID is to succeeds it must lay claim Nature. Nature is God's work and ID is a champion for God. By calling its opponent Naturalism, ID is giving credence to an explanation that is not a natural process. Call it what it is - Car Crash Evolution. I believe this will pique the public's interest and allow ID to better explain itself.

Edited by Vanessa, : punctuation correction


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 05-07-2012 9:39 AM Vanessa has responded
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2012 10:42 AM Vanessa has responded
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 05-07-2012 12:10 PM Vanessa has not yet responded
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-07-2012 12:17 PM Vanessa has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 05-07-2012 12:21 PM Vanessa has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 05-07-2012 3:42 PM Vanessa has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2012 7:08 PM Vanessa has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Taz, posted 05-08-2012 4:57 PM Vanessa has responded
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2012 7:57 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12389
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2 of 146 (661512)
05-07-2012 9:06 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Nature belongs to ID thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(2)
Message 3 of 146 (661514)
05-07-2012 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


Hello Vanessa,

I attended a five day Intelligent Design conference to see if it really was 'religion masquerading as science'. I was impressed with the level of scientific evidence supporting ID.

It is something of a shame you couldn't give us more information on this or on the details of the conference you attended, especially since several things in the rest of your post seems to substantially support the idea that it is 'religion masquerading as science', e.g. "ID is a champion for God".

It is car crash evolution - a car goes through a bush, hits a tree and ends up in a lake - the bush, the tree and the lake are objects of Nature but the car crash is not a natural process.

I think you need to explain in greater detail what point you are trying to make here. What is the unnatural 'car crash' part of evolution? Is it mutation? In what way is it unnatural?

While were at it, in what way is a car crash not natural? You seem to be trying to conflate natural with some sort of purposive teleological concept. Why are random events and accidents not natural by your definition? Is a coin toss unnatural because I can't predict its outcome?

Science, medicine, engineering are only possible because of the intelligibility, predictability and logic of Nature.

So why do you not accept that it is this same intelligibility, predictability and logic that have led to the conclusions you seem to disapprove of, dismiss as naturalism and claim have nothing to do with nature? Volcanoes do erupt, meteors do rain down and mutations do occur; do you think they don't?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 05-07-2012 10:25 AM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 5:59 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 4 of 146 (661516)
05-07-2012 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
05-07-2012 9:39 AM


Wounded King writes:

It is car crash evolution - a car goes through a bush, hits a tree and ends up in a lake - the bush, the tree and the lake are objects of Nature but the car crash is not a natural process.

I think you need to explain in greater detail what point you are trying to make here. What is the unnatural 'car crash' part of evolution? Is it mutation? In what way is it unnatural?

When I was reading this part of Vanessa's post I assumed it was the old confusion of different meanings of the word natural. In one sense there's natural versus the supernatural (or the divine or any other synonymous label), while in another sense there's natural versus man-made or man-caused.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 05-07-2012 9:39 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9317
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 5 of 146 (661518)
05-07-2012 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


Evidence for ID?
I was impressed with the level of scientific evidence supporting ID.

I'd really like to hear more about this. I don't believe there is any such evidence, but I'm quite often wrong.

even the evolution of life is a arbitrary - mutations (accidents) in DNA provide the fuel by which natural selection steers the course of evolution.

I find the dichotomy you are expressing here to be a bit baffling. If Intelligent Design is in opposition to Naturalism as it is explained here, then there must be some guiding designer that steers the evolution or development of life. How is that not religious? Is it simply because the designer is unnamed? Surely that position cannot be considered credible?

If ID is to succeeds it must lay claim Nature

What would constitute a success for ID?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 6:18 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 6 of 146 (661519)
05-07-2012 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


Whoops!
...Nature is God's work and ID is a champion for God

You made a major error there.

ID is supposed to be science, it goes to great lengths to pretend to be science, so you're not supposed to admit that it is religiously-based.

Have to keep up the pretense, you know.

I was impressed with the level of scientific evidence supporting ID. The arguments were robust and compelling...

Could you share some of that evidence with us?

It might help though if you checked the following link first to see if that "evidence" has already been refuted.

Index to Creationist Claims


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28427
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 7 of 146 (661520)
05-07-2012 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


First, welcome to EvC
It's interesting that you seem to imply that Intelligent Design is science yet post material that refutes that very position.

You said:

Vanessa writes:

I was impressed with the level of scientific evidence supporting ID. The arguments were robust and compelling, but I believe it's all for naught.

yet arguments do not make anything scientific, only evidence does.

Then you go on to say:

Vanessa writes:

If ID is to succeeds it must lay claim Nature. Nature is God's work and ID is a champion for God.

which of course makes Intelligent Design nothing but Creationism in disguise as well as being a totally false assertion that just makes god into an incompetent bungler who is a total failure.

I'm not quite sure why you think the god you seem to be marketing is significant or of any value?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 8 of 146 (661521)
05-07-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


First of all, before I say anything, I would like to apologize ahead of time if I offended you or anyone else. There are some very important issues here that I'd like to point out, even at the cost of violating the almighty political correctness that I'm suppose to follow.

Vanessa writes:

I was impressed with the level of scientific evidence supporting ID.


May I ask what your qualifications are? The reason I ask this is because if "scientific evidence" were that easy to understand or be evaluated by laymen in just five days, everyone would be a scientist, everyone would be an engineer, everyone would be a professional, etc.

I'm an engineer who has in the past worked as a cop, computer programmer, and lab researcher. And I still don't think I'm qualified to say if evolution is scientific or not. I leave that to real hard working scientists. I can only share with you what my experiences tell me about these things.

Also, I highly recommend you read as much as possible on the dunning-kruger effect.

My experiences tell me that ID advocates rhetorics emphasis heavily on stroking the egos of uneducated people. Again, I really don't mean to offend anyone, but I think it's important to point this out.

Having worked i research for a number of years, I can tell you that scientific evidence isn't as simple as giving a five day conference and stroking people's egos. It takes years of research on a level that most people don't even know about. The data are then analysed by honest to god real live scientists.

Their results are then published and be criticized by honest to god other scientists.

ID proponents have published zero papers. They have made absolutely no progress in their "research". What they do really well is hold conferences and tell non-scientists to vote for them.

Nature is where we see the glory of God.

This is exactly why we think ID is religion masquerading as science.

Why couldn't nature tell us the glory of zeus? Why does it have to be the judeo-christian god?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 9 of 146 (661534)
05-07-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


I attended a five day Intelligent Design conference to see if it really was 'religion masquerading as science'. I was impressed with the level of scientific evidence supporting ID.

It took 5 days?! Seriously?

I can debunk everything you learned in just a few lines of text.

#1) If life on Earth was "intelligently designed", it must have been designed by SOMETHING. That thing is either naturally evolved/abiogenesis life _or_ is magic. Those are the only two options. If naturally evolved/abiogenesis life can and does exist, then claiming that life on Earth isn't that but was instead created by it gets you no where in your argument. If it doesn't exist, then you are just preaching Creationism with one additional step in between.

Neither argument is valid.

#2) "cdesign proponentists". If you can cut and paste a term out of an entire textbook and replace it in all instances with a different term, yet the concepts, meanings and implications of the text are not altered in any way, then those two terms are equivalent. Cutting and pasting "creationists" out and putting "design proponents" in didn't change any part of the Dover textbook. Therefore the two terms mean the same thing.

Total time to type this: 2.5 minutes.

Five days of debunking down the drain. Laughable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 05-07-2012 4:01 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 05-09-2012 6:31 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 146 (661536)
05-07-2012 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Nuggin
05-07-2012 3:42 PM


Nuggin writes:

#2) "cdesign proponentists". If you can cut and paste a term out of an entire textbook and replace it in all instances with a different term, yet the concepts, meanings and implications of the text are not altered in any way, then those two terms are equivalent. Cutting and pasting "creationists" out and putting "design proponents" in didn't change any part of the Dover textbook. Therefore the two terms mean the same thing.


I find it laughable that the people who did the edit didn't even know how to use office correctly. Just go to edit, find/replace all, and presto. Instead, they actually went through and replaced each word at a time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 05-07-2012 3:42 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 1587 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 11 of 146 (661546)
05-07-2012 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
05-07-2012 9:39 AM


Hello Wounded King

First I apologise for not knowing how to copy and paste quotes in those very useful boxes - I hope to figure it out soon.

In response to your questions:
The conference was held in the UK in July last year. There were 3 lectures per day over 5 days, including lectures from 2 molecular biologists, a philosopher of science, a lawyer, an astronomer and a professor of thermodynamics. There was only one lecture on religion - 'Religious implications of ID'. The attendees were of different faiths and those of no decided religion, but all were curious about ID.

Without doubt religious people flow to ID like a duck to water, because it holds up evidence for God (intelligence). But water and ID exist on their own. However if you ask a duck about the qualities of water don't be surprised if he shows you his webbed feet. To know about ID ask a molecular biologist, not a Scientologist and you'll hear no mention of God.

In answer to your next comments:
Evolution as explained by Naturalism claims to show how 'Nature did it' . And this is where I take exception. Nature does not develop life by arbitrary events but through systems and processes, whether it is seed to sapling to mighty oak, caterpillar to pupal to butterfly, egg to chick to eagle. We live within profoundly complex and layered systems of life, yet we choose to explain this incredible tapestry as the result of accident - cosmic or chromosomal. It simply doesn't make sense and I refer to Galileo's argument in my earlier post. Maybe evolution is a system of development and we can't see it because we're in it - can't see the forest for the trees.

The birth of a child, from conception through gestation until the baby's first cry demonstrates the wondrous hand of God for the faithful, and the intelligibility of Nature for the sceptical - both sides are satisfied. I believe the true explanation for life on Earth will not require a leap of faith for the faithful nor a loss of reason for the rational.

I look forward to continuing this conversation, but I'm going on holiday tomorrow. Hopefully we'll talk again soon.

Kind regards
Vanessa


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 05-07-2012 9:39 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 05-07-2012 6:16 PM Vanessa has responded
 Message 16 by frako, posted 05-07-2012 6:36 PM Vanessa has not yet responded
 Message 35 by sfs, posted 05-08-2012 5:31 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 535 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(3)
Message 12 of 146 (661547)
05-07-2012 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Vanessa
05-07-2012 5:59 PM


It simply doesn't make sense

Your entire argument seems to boil down to just this one comment. Your find the idea that life naturally develops to be incredulous.

Yet your personal incredulity doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Your argument is called the Argument from Incredulity, and it's a logical fallacy. Whether an individual personally finds an argument to be personally convincing has nothing to do with the accuracy of that argument; you can find it "ridiculous" that adding two and two gives four, but it's still so.

Nature does not develop life by arbitrary events but through systems and processes, whether it is seed to sapling to mighty oak, caterpillar to pupal to butterfly, egg to chick to eagle.

Who told you that anyone thinks that nature develops life through arbitrary events?

The fact that chemistry is not at all random or arbitrary does not mean that it is intelligently guided. Mutation and natural selection are also not arbitrary...and do not require the interference or guidance of an intelligent agent.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 5:59 PM Vanessa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 6:48 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 05-08-2012 7:22 AM Rahvin has responded

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 1587 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 13 of 146 (661548)
05-07-2012 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NoNukes
05-07-2012 10:42 AM


Re: Evidence for ID?
Hello NoNukes

I don't know whether you are being serious when you say you don't believe there is any evidence supporting ID. Do you mean you are not persuaded by the evidence you've researched or simply that you've never looked? I believe you're being facetious, forgive me if I am wrong.

I explained in my reply to Wounded King that ID is an argument that supports a notion of God, but not religion. Religion is a way of worship, which varies widely between cultures - like language. ID calls itself a theory, but I don't think it is, because it doesn't offer an alternative story of evolution. This is why I think most people call it Creationism. Maybe some ID supporters do believe in the 7 days of creation (or other religious creation stories) but ID has nothing to say on the subject. ID devotes itself to usurping the notion that life is the result of accident. On that I agree.

What would constitute a success for ID? An alternative explanation of evolution that was not a leap of faith for the faithful nor a loss of reason for the rational - wouldn't that make us all happy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2012 10:42 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 05-07-2012 6:23 PM Vanessa has responded
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 05-07-2012 6:30 PM Vanessa has not yet responded
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2012 10:04 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28427
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 14 of 146 (661549)
05-07-2012 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Vanessa
05-07-2012 6:18 PM


Re: Evidence for ID?
Sorry but belief in a god is a religion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 6:18 PM Vanessa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 6:55 PM jar has responded
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 05-08-2012 7:25 AM jar has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 535 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 15 of 146 (661550)
05-07-2012 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Vanessa
05-07-2012 6:18 PM


Re: Evidence for ID?
I don't know whether you are being serious when you say you don't believe there is any evidence supporting ID. Do you mean you are not persuaded by the evidence you've researched or simply that you've never looked? I believe you're being facetious, forgive me if I am wrong.

"Evidence" is defined as a fact or observation that directly adjusts the probability that a given hypothesis is accurate relative to competing hypotheses.

In the case of ID, the evidence given to support that hypothesis usually falls into just a few categories:

1) Facts or observations which do fit the predictions of ID, but which also fit just as well with the predictions of purely naturalistic evolution as well, and therefore is not really evidence in favor of ID over naturalism. In nearly all cases, these arguments also violate the principle of parsimony, and differenciate themselves from their naturalistic counterparts by simply adding "...and God did it" to the end without providing evidence necessitating the inclusion of the additional term.

2) Falsehoods - we see plenty of claimed evidence that simply isn't true; claims of observations or facts that are false due to the incompetence of the claimant, and occasionally attempts at outright deception.

3) Incredulity masquerading as evidence. This is usually an argument rather than actual evidence, and typically boils down to some combination of an emotional sense of wonder and curiosity at one's own ignorance of the natural world (Lord Kelvin once said that the mechanisms that drive a plant to grow from a seed or which allow the mind to cause a muscle to move are "infinitely beyond" human understanding), and a sense that alternatives "just don't sound right."

I've participated in many debates concerning Intelligent Design, and I have not once seen an accurate depiction of facts or observations that actually supported the hypothesis of Intelligent Design beyond competing hypotheses. In other words, I've never seen any real evidence that would suggest Intelligent Design is in fact an accurate model of reality.

Do you perhaps have some facts or observations you can share that would make Intelligent Design more likely to accurately represent reality than competing hypotheses, specifically the hypothesis that life processes including evolution are purely natural and do not require the interference of external intelligent actors?


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 6:18 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017