ID as Science vs. ID as Creationism

thanks moose for clarity i believe that only through realization of what reality truly is, will God be understood. most people believe that reality is subject to the viewer, and as long as that is believed, then what can the truth be?there is an objective reality (reality as it truly is) and when it is scrutinized, will the truth be known to those who look.but peoples lives are busy, to busy sometimes, and a person who holds on to a narrow view of the world, will not readily look past the comfort zone.all of true science has come from one source. who can dispute this? to find the truth, the beginning must be looked at, and possibilities exhausted. by this reasoning and the unwillingness of the human brain to walk outside comfort zones, must the realization be by individual.science is the how, and the biblical creation account is pretty broad in my opinion. but science of today scrutinizes what could not be seen in those times. so as God is, and always was, he still is, and will be. because outside the start, nothing can be. with no foundation, no building stands.i apologize up front if i have lead your discussion off the course you would like to see, and pray you forgive me for any unintentional sway.God be with you always,
-Tim Brown

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I guess you didn't actually say "evidence," did you? I should probably be more liberal in my interpretations of some things.Still, I think the evidence has to be there. I don't think you get science without legitimate evidence. Granted, there are as many different interpretations of any bit of evidence as there are people who read it. But, when the evidence is based on numbers and observations, as it should be, and not tainted by personal opinions or beliefs, it is hard to dispute.For me, that's the only thing they can do now. I've seen many misapplications of the scientific method, and non-exclusive interpretations of data. They need legitimate evidence.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

quote:

---

As it currently is, the Discovery Institute is running ID like a political campaign. Be vague on how things fit into the big picture - Don't alienate your support base, which currently includes much of the YEC movement. In general, a lot of smoke and mirror obscuring what little substance they have.

---

Although Wiki is not the most reliable source, this is what it has to say about the Discovery Institute's funding (footnotes omitted):

quote:

---

The institute does not provide details about its backers, out of "harassment" fears according to Chapman. A review of tax documents on GuideStar nonprofit reports and Forms 990 for donors, grantmakers, and businesses, a Web site that collects data on foundations, showed grants and gifts totaling $4.1 million in 2003, the most recent year available. This is in contrast to $1.4 million in 1997, the oldest year available. The records show financial support from 22 foundations, at least two-thirds of which state explicitly religious missions. The Discovery Institute's CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, has reported much of the institute's money comes from such wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservatives like Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," as well as the MacLellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." Ahmanson, who now sits on the Discovery Institute board, had pledged in 2001 $2.8 million to the institute through 2003. Most Discovery Institute donors have also contributed significantly to the Bush campaign. The Discovery Institute denies allegations that its intelligent design agenda is religious, and downplays the religious source of much of its funding. In an interview of Stephen C. Meyer when ABC News' asked about the Discovery Institute's many evangelical Christian donors the institute's public relations representative stopped the interview saying "I don't think we want to go down that path." Source

---

Pretty strange funding for a scientific organization. Not surprisingly, they have made no discoveries beyond that which P.T. Barnum is widely, but erroneously, credited with well over a century ago.The goals seem to fit with those of EvC poster Cold Foreign Object as espoused in this thread.

There are some tests as I understand the term test. Perhaps you're looking for more, but again, less testing would be needed for the Biblical models such as the BH hypothesises than for conventional science models.1. The BH (Buzsaw Hypothesis) ID model factors in some scientific tests such as compatibility to 1, 2, and 3LoT. IMO I've debated quite sucessfully in the EvC archives that my hypothesis does pass these tests.2. The BH ID model contends that conventional dating methodology as not being applicable to the BH model in that the properties of a Biblical pre-flood earth and atmosphere would be significantly different than a more uniformatarian model.3. The BH ID model would factor such tests as historical data, mathmatical probabilities, corroborative evidence, archeological research, etc supportive to the Biblical ID model, most of which are deemed not applicable to conventional secularist models.To go into these in depth would be off topic to this thread. If anyone wishes to be apprised on these one can click on the Buzsaw name for the index file of where the above were discussed in the archives. {This, and probably the messages that led to this, are certainly off-topic. The topic theme is "make ID scientific and not religious", or something like that. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc. Also changed subtitle to "OFF-TOPIC, don't reply to"

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.The Discovery Institute does get into other things outside of ID. Note the various links at the top left of their homepage.

quote:

---

Technology and Democracy
Science and Culture
Cascadia
Bioethics
Russia
etc.

---

The "Science and Culture" is the ID division. I've mucked around other areas there a bit. There's probably no arguing that they're generally right wing. But those other areas are off-topic here.I think that it's conceivable that the Discovery Institute (DI) could have a legitimate scientific function despite their funding sources. Probably not likely though. In message 30 I said: A variation on that could be: Or something like that.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

quote:

---

(From a previous post) For example the Buzsaw Hypothesis has all of the animals and mankind being intelligently designed suddenly in one 24 hour period by an omniscient and omnipotent designer.

---

quote:

---

1. The BH (Buzsaw Hypothesis) ID model factors in some scientific tests such as compatibility to 1, 2, and 3LoT. IMO I've debated quite sucessfully in the EvC archives that my hypothesis does pass these tests.

​

2. The BH ID model contends that conventional dating methodology as not being applicable to the BH model in that the properties of a Biblical pre-flood earth and atmosphere would be significantly different than a more uniformatarian model.

​

3. The BH ID model would factor such tests as historical data, mathmatical probabilities, corroborative evidence, archeological research, etc supportive to the Biblical ID model, most of which are deemed not applicable to conventional secularist models.

---

It would seem that the question of ID as Science vs. ID as Creationism is answered--for you ID is creationism.It seems like you are just seeking the trappings of science, without the rigors of the scientific method, to bolster your beliefs.

The theme is "doing ID as science".Adminnemooseus (yes, the admin mode - I'm under the Minnemooseus thumb)

and as moose has asked, how do you search for the evidence?with no scientific definition, how do you know what to look for? you can be staring at it, and not realize what your looking at. unless you know what to look for.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I have added a link to Teleological Science to the top of message 1 of this topic.I have also just POTMed a series of messages from that topic (starting with this message). In the POTM topic I said: That content MIGHT be significant in this topic, but please make any replies at Q's topic.Moose{Added by edit on 2/10/08: GDR and Quetzal have a couple of other (IMO) significant messages at the referenced in subtitle topic. See (and respond to) here. Again, please pursue any discussion of the above quoted at Q's topic. - Moose - end add by edit}Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

This makes me wonder. How come the DI doesn't try harder to tell their followers to stop referring to ID as religion? They've been trying very hard to convince the rest of the country that ID is not religion. Why aren't they asserting the same kind of effort on their supporters?They don't have to convince their supporters that ID is not religion. All they have to do is quietly pass a note around saying "shhhh... don't let the evil atheists know ID is religion."In fact, I also question the DI's general approach to seeking out supporters. Everytime there are creationists who want to bring god into the science classroom, the DI would show up and present their "theory" of ID. If ID is truly a legitimate scientific "theory" with no religion involved, how come they always seek out the most religious and hardcore creationists of the religious and hardcore creationists? Wouldn't this defeat their stated goal, which is to pass ID as a legit scientific theory?

tesla:

quote:

---

what ID advocates want, is the official announcement by science as a whole and to be taught in the classroom, that because no proof either way is evident in science, that it does not endorse either aspect "at this time" but that the "potential" is there.

---

Bertvan: That's right. We object to science endorsing materialism. Science need not declare that materialism has been abandoned. Both materialism and volition/freewill are possibilities. In my opinion materialism precludes the possibility of theism. Volition/freewill as a non-supernatural force of nature allows (but does not demand) the possibility of a personal god.If science endorses materialism, and the universe is actually not a deterministic, materialist device, then science would merely be a fantasy about a imaginary reality.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

bertvan: If the latter is the case I would say that the creator is quite benevolent.I am really not following your point. Science is not a religion, or a philosophy, it does not give one answers to finding ones own Nirvana. (Although listening to Carl Sagan spell out science in the Cosmos can be very spiritual:cool Science is at it's very nature materialistic in it's study. The scientific method is based on gathering information based on empirical, measurable evidence, and (key word) observable natural phenomena.bertvan: Science says there is no proof of a Supernatural all powerful force welding his/her/it's power throughout the universe. Science never "precludes" anything it only works on predictions, inferences and conclusions of observable data. It can make a prediction that there is no all powerful being inflicting it's/his/her/ will on us because there is no proof; no evidence. Besides how do you use science to test this?

The purpose of this thread is to determine what would make intelligent design a legitimate, scientific theory.I would disagree with you. Materialism only states that physical things tend to obey physical laws, and, so far, we've been pretty good at isolating the patterns of behavior in physical things (we call these patterns "laws"). Therefore, there hasn't yet been a reason to invoke a magical explanation.So, it would have to be shown conclusively that some phenomenon can not be (not merely has not been) explained by materialism before another method would be permitted into science. Furthermore, for materialism to be refuted completely, you'd have to show that no physical phenomenon is completely explanable with physical theories.I don't think this is going to happen, so I don't think ID will ever be truly accepted into mainstream science. If this is the intent of the ID movement, I would say they'd have to come up with a legitimate way to study teleology without invoking a "we can't understand God's ways" clause, because it doesn't count as science if they can't.The biggest danger with the teleological argument is that, upon finding no immediate answer, one could simply say "the reason it is this way is because God made it this way, and that's all there is to it." I've seen this line of reasoning in the work of all ID proponents I've read so far. It's called "argument from ignorance," and goes hand-in-hand with its cousin, "argument from incredulity", and it is the biggest barrier to progress and learning that I have personally ever seen. If IDists want me to believe they're real scientists, they have to prove to me that they're going to keep looking for elusive answers, not just shrug and say "God just wanted it that way, I guess" when the answer doesn't jump out at them.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

quote:

---

"God just wanted it that way, I guess" when the answer doesn't jump out at them.

---

True. I've never seen a ID person refute or even address someone defining ID as "Don't know/too complicated = Godiddit." Once someone brings that up in a discussion, the ID people leave almost instantly never to return.

I think this is a great point to the original argument, on whether ID can be science. This target "God did it" is completely arbitrary in my opinion and keeps moving. What's wrong with saying "I don't know, lets ask more questions." Science never claims to have all the answers, nor should it, if it did then curiosity stops and the questions cease, and then what are we left with.So to use this type of thinking in a scientific format influences your conclusions and clouds your predictions with a preconceived result. So ID could never, in my opinion, be science simply based on it's premise of a designer.