Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 1:56 AM
429 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 427 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,960 Year: 6,566/21,208 Month: 2,327/2,634 Week: 515/572 Day: 1/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Utility and Explanation Power of ID
DampeS8N
Junior Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 1
From: Columbia
Joined: 11-25-2014


Message 1 of 6 (742928)
11-25-2014 2:13 PM


Evolution by Natural Selection offers predictive and explanatory power. In order for an idea to be considered scientific, and especially to be a theory, it must do this. From what I understand, ID does not do this.

Can someone explain to me what predictions and explanations ID offers?

For example, how does ID account for the barrier between supposed Macro and Micro evolution? If things change, and we know they change, what mechanism prevents those changes from resulting in new "kinds" over time? There must be some mechanism preventing these changes from stacking up to the point where an Ape becomes a Man.

What can I learn about the future from ID? Will it help me create new drugs because I understand the above limitation? Can I plan how to cycle antibiotics around the imposed limitations of different kinds of bacteria?

Where are the lines between kinds? At what objective boundary can we place the barrier between kinds?

These seem like fundamental questions for ID to answer if it makes the assertion that life can change as we observe but that it can't change on the macro scale. After all, changes on the small scale piling up to create larger scale changes would be the base assumption given that life changes at all.

Can someone more versed in ID theory speak to my points?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2014 4:40 PM DampeS8N has not yet responded
 Message 4 by herebedragons, posted 11-25-2014 10:02 PM DampeS8N has not yet responded
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 01-11-2015 11:35 PM DampeS8N has not yet responded
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 01-12-2015 11:33 AM DampeS8N has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2 of 6 (742930)
11-25-2014 2:26 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Scientific Utility and Explanation Power of ID thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3 of 6 (742948)
11-25-2014 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DampeS8N
11-25-2014 2:13 PM


welcome
Hi DampeS8N and welcome to the fray

Can someone explain to me what predictions and explanations ID offers?

As far as I know there are no testable predictions that offer an alternative to evolution.

Basically they say that IF we don't know how some process evolved that THEN we need to consider ID ... rather faulty logic.

For example, how does ID account for the barrier between supposed Macro and Micro evolution? If things change, and we know they change, what mechanism prevents those changes from resulting in new "kinds" over time? There must be some mechanism preventing these changes from stacking up to the point where an Ape becomes a Man.

Which is similar to saying that after "X" throws of a coin that it can no longer turn up heads.

What can I learn about the future from ID? Will it help me create new drugs because I understand the above limitation? Can I plan how to cycle antibiotics around the imposed limitations of different kinds of bacteria?

Where are the lines between kinds? At what objective boundary can we place the barrier between kinds?

These seem like fundamental questions for ID to answer if it makes the assertion that life can change as we observe but that it can't change on the macro scale. After all, changes on the small scale piling up to create larger scale changes would be the base assumption given that life changes at all.

Can someone more versed in ID theory speak to my points?

Well all I can offer is my take on the use and abuse of ID: Is ID properly pursued?

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DampeS8N, posted 11-25-2014 2:13 PM DampeS8N has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1251
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 4 of 6 (742967)
11-25-2014 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DampeS8N
11-25-2014 2:13 PM


Welcome

For example, how does ID account for the barrier between supposed Macro and Micro evolution?

ID doesn't necessarily assume such a barrier. For instance, an intelligent being could have designed and built the first protocell and planted it here on earth and the rest of life unfolded just as evolutionary theory suggests it did.

However, the big problem is that there is virtually no work being done to support Intelligent Design in the positive. Instead, it basically takes its strategy from creationism and tries to disprove evolution. What are the flagships of the ID movement? Irreducible complexity. The eye could not have evolved from simpler functional units, so therefore ... ID. etc, etc, you know the drill.

So the question becomes this, what criteria could we establish that could only be true of an intelligently designed universe? What could we know about the designer (assuming that this is indeed not a religious exercise that prescribes to know about a particular deity or creator) that we could confidently assert would be true about our universe that would be true if and only if it were designed by this unknown force?

I would say that on the surface ID has some appeal, but there is really no substance to it. It may as well be creationism, just with open ended parameters.

Can someone explain to me what predictions and explanations ID offers?

I think to some it offers a seemingly legitimate compromise between their religious belief and the overwhelming evidence produced by science. To me though, when it is presented as some unknown designer, it fails to provide any religious benefit and when it presents the science in such a way as to say "no point looking further than this because it was designed" it fails to provide any scientific benefit. So it just doesn't seem to provide any benefit.

Can someone more versed in ID theory speak to my points?

Again, ID doesn't necessarily have the barriers you indicate, but in general, it doesn't make useful predictions or provide useful explanations.

However, there was a member here who did a really good job of presenting some testable hypotheses related to intelligent design. You could read through them if you would like.

Revisiting the Type III secretion system
Towards a Hypothesis of Molecular Design
Nature's Engines and Engineering
Deep Homology and Front-loading

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DampeS8N, posted 11-25-2014 2:13 PM DampeS8N has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9320
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 5 of 6 (747067)
01-11-2015 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DampeS8N
11-25-2014 2:13 PM


For example, how does ID account for the barrier between supposed Macro and Micro evolution? If things change, and we know they change, what mechanism prevents those changes from resulting in new "kinds" over time? There must be some mechanism preventing these changes from stacking up to the point where an Ape becomes a Man.

ID does not propose any such barrier. Why do you insist that such a barrier must exist? Even if evolutionary theory is completely wrong, why must it be wrong in exactly this way?

These seem like fundamental questions for ID to answer if it makes the assertion that life can change as we observe but that it can't change on the macro scale.

Does ID make such an assertion?


Je Suis Charlie

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

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DampeS8N, posted 11-25-2014 2:13 PM DampeS8N has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 6 of 6 (747092)
01-12-2015 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DampeS8N
11-25-2014 2:13 PM


DampeS8N writes:

These seem like fundamental questions for ID to answer....


The fundamental questions for ID to answer are not the ones science would ask. They're the ones opponents of science would ask.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DampeS8N, posted 11-25-2014 2:13 PM DampeS8N has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017