Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 110 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2017 7:36 PM
207 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, edge, Jayhawker Soule, JonF, Meddle (7 members, 200 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,006 Year: 9,612/21,208 Month: 2,699/2,674 Week: 123/961 Day: 123/98 Hour: 2/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   Is ID properly pursued?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 1 of 94 (92760)
03-16-2004 12:36 PM



Intelli
gent Design

An essay evaluating the concept:



Introduction

Stated simply Intelligent Design ("ID") is the concept that the universe is designed by an [active \ creative] agent and that there are, perhaps, observable traces, evidence of such design in the product of that work.

This assumes a fair degree of development, capability, education and intelligence on the part of the observer. A "Poison Dart" Frog cannot look at a watch and discern that it is a designed object, and neither could a native person unschooled in the concepts of manufacturing such products ... yet he is capable and intelligent enough to discern the cause and effect (and how to make use of) the frog's venom. There are, in fact, historical documents recording where explorers showed watches and the like to such unschooled natives and the natives thought that they were magical objects rather than manufactured things.

There are also natural formations, crystals and accretions and such, that appear to be the result of biological activity or to be the (fossils or similar) remains of life, when in fact they are naturally occurring formations. A kaleidoscope makes a random jumble of colored beads appear to be an intricate design when looked at in one particular way. An untrained "eye" or one that only looks in a particular manner, could easily mistake these as evidence of something they are not.

The search for the evidence of design must be done by those with the most capable trained "eyes" free of constrained perspectives - the most open and complete knowledge of the physical workings of the universe and all it contains ... matter, energy, life. Anything less will likely lead to mistakes or a lack of understanding to see the actual fingerprints of design.

Without as complete a base of knowledge as possible we could be looking at a watch with the mind of a frog, or we could be like a child, bemused by a kaleidoscope of pattern when there is none ... we could be unable to properly observe and evaluate the evidence before us.


What it should be

The concept of ID properly pursued to it's logical end, would use all the available evidence of all the available sciences in the search for evidence of the Designer. The concept of ID properly pursued, would include (but not be limited to) all the actual factual evidence for: physics (from sub-atomic particle, to cosmic inflation and string theories, to a 13.7+ billion year old universe, to the questions of the reality of dark matter and energy), geology (of a 4.55 billion year old earth formed from the stellar debris of previous cosmically generated materials, with layers of material organized by age and distribution by the forces of preceding tectonic, volcanic, sedimentary and other processes), paleontology (the organization of fossils found by the time and lineage relationships, the layered development that builds from single cells 3.5 million years ago to the vast complexity of modern life and finally to the many varied hominid lineages and relationships, to the array of branches of taxonomy and why they are branches and not a web of some kind), archaeology (the world wide variety and diversity of culture and artifact and development from the first humans to present day modern man and the complete absence of any evidence of hominid existence below the iridium layer that covers the earth from the impact event 65 million years ago ending the age of the dinosaurs, to say nothing of the lack of evidence of any "modern" humans before 10 million years ago), genetics (the study of genes, how they work and the genetic trees of life relationships they show), evolution (the documented changes of life with time from those first single cells to modern complexity, the phylogenic trees of life relationships, the process by which life changes, tries new features, adapts to new needs), xenobiology (considering the possibilities and possible variety of extraterrestrial life) ... as well as all the other disciplines of science, and including how all these sciences relate to and confirm one another even though they are based on different sets of data (the genetic tree matching the phylogenic one, the geological age matching the physics and cosmological age, etc.).

The concept of ID properly pursued to it's logical end, must not only look at what current theories are used in the various sciences, but what new ones are being developed. For not only must ID properly pursued use all available information and accumulation of facts, it must use the latest accepted theories that best explain them or develop better explanations (alternate theories) that can be tested against these current existing theories to properly judge their relative validity. It must be inclusive, rational, and willing to look in every corner and cranny of existence.

Denying the facts of any one science while embracing the facts in another would be hypocrisy, especially if done on a presupposition of any particular design, for the very element that is the evidence of actual design could well be the evidence denied.

The development of something complex, such as the human eye, may appear to an unschooled mind as such a miracle of interconnected parts that one would find it hard to understand how the development could occur without divine intervention. But to a mind schooled in biology and evolution, the development of the eye is clearly an easy step-by-step process from a light sensitive skin patch to a fully articulated eyeball with lens, iris, retina and portion of the brain dedicated to assembling the whole mass of signals into a coherent picture and interpreting the result.

To one astronomer the universe may appear a morass of chaos with no discernable order or purpose, while another may look at it as a maximizing of diversity, creating opportunities for the seeds of life to sprout in as many wondrous and myriad ways as possible. A universe where, on one small planet of such opportunity, the life we know started from the cosmic seeds of amino acids that were created by the giant nova death of the first superstars -- the chemical building blocks of life which are now known to pervade the depths of the universe with the potential to seed life wherever sufficient opportunity can be found. A universe, in short, primed and loaded for the multiple evolution first of life and then of the intelligence to understand it.

The task at hand would be to understand the universe to the most complete scientific degree possible and then look for what would be evidence for design.

The concept of ID properly pursued also should not be based on any set of preconceived notions of which or what god or flavor of creation may have been involved, but to incorporate all religious views, to look for common trends and experiences, for failing to do so is to bias the observer in the same way that leaving out any one of the sciences would limit the perceptions.


What it should not be

Not taking the concept of ID to its logical end would mean that leaps of faith would be needed to reach conclusions rather than logic, and as soon as that is required the scientific validity of the concept goes out the window and you get into the "god designed it that way to fool you" scenarios and ridiculous spirals of circular reasoning.

Not taking the concept of ID to its logical end would mean that whatever is discussed is imperfectly realized, that some vital clue may have been missed, that the discussion is no better than Ptolemy with epicycles on epicycles on circular orbits around the earth: an erroneous view based on a limited information and a wrong belief.

In this regard it appears that the concept of ID as it is commonly used is not being properly pursued - from Wikipedia.com: Intelligent Design (click):

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that life and living things show signs of having been designed. ID's primary argument is that life is too complex to have simply "happened."

Advocates of ID believe there is empirical evidence that an Intelligent Designer has been at work in the history of life, and that macroevolution of life, and particularly the evolution of humans, has been guided by that Designer. Members of the "intelligent design movement" are typically Christians (primarily Evangelicals, plus one prominent Unificationist), but ID itself does not specify the identity of the Designer.

(bold in the original)

The focus of ID as commonly used has obviously been limited to only some scientific and religious inputs, and this is clearly narrow-minded and headed in the wrong direction. There appears to be an a priori assumption in the popular usage, that life on this planet was the main purpose of the whole universe wide design process, when there is no valid reason to conclude such a [biosphere egocentric] thing. There also appears to be an a priori assumption that humans on this planet are the ultimate end result of that universe wide design process, when there is no valid reason to conclude such a [species egocentric] thing.

Advocates of ID can say that they don't specify who or what [the designer] is, however for it to accomplish what they claim, it must be able to act invisibly across interstellar distances or to periodically appear on earth, act, and then disappear at will without leaving any traces thereof, and be able to do either while violating time constraints for the speed of travel for all natural objects. That to me is supernatural behavior, and any being capable of supernatural action is de facto a god of some flavour. So whether you call the [active \ creative agent] a god or an supernatural alien is just a matter of semantic gamesmanship.

This is emblematic of the false positions one gets into with the a priori assumptions of earth life in general and human life in specific being of any great importance in the grand scheme of things. This is typical of ID as it is commonly used.

The focus of ID as commonly used is a very narrow and limited view: precisely what it should not be.


Is Intelligent Design a faith?

Yes. It assumes supernatural action by one (or more) designer(s), god(s) by definition (see particularly #2), of the universe. The actions of this designer are no different in concept than the supernatural actions attributed to the gods of various pantheons within the concept of many early religions. Which god(s) are involved and how active [it is\they are] in the day-to-day happenings of the universe or whether [it is\they are] even concerned with any of the life forms that evolve is not specified, but is open to be discovered. There is no dogma, no "Church of the Great Designer(s)" and no set of formalized ceremonies, offerings or suggested supplications, so it is not a formal religion, but it is still a statement of faith.

In fact, when you compare the two you will see that ID, especially when properly pursued, is a form of Deism, a religion that also has no dogma, no church and no set of formalized ceremonies, offerings or suggested supplications:

From Wikipedia.com: Deism (click):

Deism is the belief in a God based on natural religion only. It is concerned with those truths which humans can discover through a process of reasoning, independent of any divine revelation through scripture or personal revelation.

Some Deists hold the belief that the universe was created by a God who then made no further intervention in its affairs, often expressed by the metaphor of the "Divine Watchmaker" who created a mechanism so perfect as to be self-regulating. Others share the theistic outlook that God is still active today. Deists do not believe in miracles or revelations.

Deism was popular among thinkers of the Enlightenment such as Voltaire and the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.

Thomas Jefferson is perhaps the most well known and outspoken of the American founding deists. Thomas Paine was also a deist, The Age of Reason being one publication which particularly expressed this view. Benjamin Franklin seems also to have shared components of this view.

(bold in the original, see webpage for links to other pages)

Once you compare [what ID should be] and [what Deism is], you will see they are similar beliefs, and that the statements of Deism are more inclusive, complete, open and honest than what is commonly presented as ID. Deism can involve fewer assumptions about the level of supernatural activity of the "designer" than ID does, therefore ID (especially as commonly used) is a weak form of Deism (it relies more on "he did it" to explain things). It is very simple logic:


all A (Deism) = Religion
all B (ID) is a weak subset of A (or "all B < A" in normal logic symbology)
Therefore all B = Religion

This is not a matter of redefining religion but of recognizing it in the supernatural actions attributed to the design agent in ID.


Where it should be tau
ght in school

[Deism\ID] has no input to what science should cover other than to be as open and inclusive as possible. As such, it has nothing to add to any science class. Science is used in the proper pursuit of [Deism\ID], not the other way around: physics uses math in its study of the universe, but the theories of physics are not taught in math class. The statement "god did it" (or "god may have done it" to be fair to atheists and agnostics) does not help in understanding any of the scientific theories and facts.

Properly pursued [Deism\ID] is a religious philosophy. Thus the place for it in school would be in a religious philosophy class, an elective class. This class could also cover the history of deism and how it helped in the formation of the values embodied in the bill of rights and the constitution of this country, as well as covering the basic principles of logic and rational thought.

Properly done such a class would have to discuss how all religions relate to scientific knowledge (ie - comparative religion rather than any single faith) and a complete understanding of "life, the universe, and everything" (Douglas Adams).

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : new sig

Edited by RAZD, : updated format, signature

Edited by RAZD, : cleanup

Edited by RAZD, : deleted reference to tan text

Edited by RAZD, : use make make use


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-16-2004 2:25 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-16-2004 2:37 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 7:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2004 2:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2005 7:00 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 71 by Chuck77, posted 07-08-2011 2:05 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 79 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 10:59 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 81 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 12:49 AM RAZD has responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 94 (92777)
03-16-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


AbbyLeever

I agree with your conclusion, but not with your approach, which appears to me to be "improperly pursued." So, the question becomes, "How do we decide what is proper pursuit?"

As has been noted in the thread here on favorite quotations, it is Darwin's notion of science that it explains everything, before ideas become theories. But, in the study of the scientific method, successful prediction, not explanation, is the standard for assessing the value of ideas. Thus, since ID pretends to be a scientific idea, it ought to be pursuing it's claim to credibility by making predictions. Especially predictions that are contradicted by the non-designed universe idea. (Evolution, of course, predicts that it's results will have the appearence of intelligence, just not design.) The proper pursuit of ID, then, is to come up with predictions that, before they are tested, even those viewing evolution as most likely to be true will agree ought not occur, because they would only result if ID were true, and evolution not true.

Now, we know that bad people exist in the world, that is people from whom we can only expect bad behavior. Every definable group of people, including those affirming evolution, and those affirming ID, is expected (by inference, or experience. the theory of succession) to have such groups. A bad evolutionist, for example, would take every prediction from a well-meaning ID theorist, and would claim that this prediction might come from evolution as well. And vice versa. We have to either find a way to detect and ignore "bad" evolutionists and ID-ists from the discussion, or set things up so that they are prevented from doing their work of confusion.

This is really tricky. Let's say that an ID scientist wants to make a prediction about two measurable variables, X and Y. He predicts that if ID is true, X will increase with Y. By his understanding of evolution, he would predict that, if evolution were true, X will decrease with Y. So, he asks some evolutionists what they expect. If they are "good" evolutionists, they will take their theory and make deductions from it pertaining to X and Y, and will stand by these predictions. In this example, let's suppose that they also predict, given evolution is true, X decreases with Y. The "bad" evolutionists will take ID, will deduce the same prediction made by the ID scientist, and will then force their theory of evolution to predict the same thing. Evolution has the political edge. As a theory, it can only stand to lose in a face-off test against ID theorizing. So, the bad evolutionists make a forced prediction, so that the test will be unpersuasive.

Velikovsky successfully pulled off a proper strong inference test, with his theory of planetary collisions and the formation of Venus. He got most astronomers to predict that Venus when visited, would be found to be a "cold" planet, in contradiction to his theoretical prediction that it would be hot. It was only after Venus was discovered to be hot, as Velikovsky predicted, that the "bad" astromers ad hoc explained it from their traditional cosmology. In the end, their ad hoc theory may well be more plausible, but their proceedure was not as proper as was Velikovsky's.

Here is another example of improper pursuit. That ID depends on the existence and involvement of some intelligent designer does not make it a priori a "faith" or unscientific hypothesis. This is like someone finding a watch, but when the owner or maker shows up asking that the watch be returned to him, the finder claims that it was "naturally" produced, belonging to no one. The owner-maker tries to present evidence that he made the watch, but the finder asks that the court dismiss the claim. The dismissal is asked on the grounds that the evidence for ownership is coming from a weird person, and there is no scientific way we can test the validity of such a person's claims. All of psychological science is thrown out. Character witnesses, handwriting, lie-detector tests, finger-prints, inside knowledge....no, we cannot scientifically accept this evidence because it is from this super-human person.

I agree that, if the ID believers were honest, or "good" they would bring their Designer into the court-room, would in fact base their claim on verifiable prophecy, if prophecy is defined to include depositions from God, the deistic designer. Some persons supporting the idea of a Creator do this, counting on ELS's or other "theomatic" evidence that these depositions are signed and notarized. But none that are defending ID are taking this stand. That's improper proceedure. But, excluding the possibility of such evidence is also improper. It's a political stand, truly defending the theory of evolution, not defending the truth, per se. Such debate is from lawyers, not scientists.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 03-16-2004 3:12 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 03-16-2004 3:49 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 4:27 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 1:05 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3762
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 3 of 94 (92778)
03-16-2004 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


Administrative side comment
Message 1 is a reproduction of one of AbbyLeever's webpages. It was originally commented on, and linked to in another topic. It was my non-admin counterpart that suggested that the material deserved a topic of it's own.

I think there is the potential of controversy, on such webpage reproductions as messages, even if the page is the member's own production. I am inclined to think that parts of message 1 would have been best left out, when posted in the context of . In other words, administratively, I approve of the content, but not of the webpage type structure.

The bottom line, is that I encourage anyone that has any objections to the manner in which this material was presented, to do such in a "Suggestions and Questions" topic, and not in this topic.

Here is the place to debate/discuss the content of message 1, and not the manner in which it was presented.

Adminnemooseus

PS: It seems that some things have been edited in message 1, while I was preparing this message. Therefore, some of my above comments may be less/non-relevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 3:27 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2412 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 94 (92782)
03-16-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-16-2004 2:25 PM


If change is "physically constrained"(for instance the new ice beyond pluto might cause one to read OUT the wordSSSSS "remittance and immitance" in Newton should a probe find a different kind of bacteria on the thing than here OR Mars et etc) the future logical moves of an evolutionist can not extend to regions that only the logic of the extension extends/display especially if GOD DID IT after taXES. The use of statstics itself may not be able to provide the interchage of tree/data vs data/tree probabilites on such recovery if God intends it. There may also me nonsupernatural explanations but we need the research FIRST.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-16-2004 2:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-16-2004 11:40 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 5 of 94 (92788)
03-16-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
03-16-2004 2:37 PM


Re: Administrative side comment
my apologies for stepping on any toes through inexperience with this forum and it's own protocols.

the editing that I did on this presentation was to remove elements of html coding that did not work (bookmarks back and forth between sections), removal of links to my other sites (which was accidental), and to change colors so that they would be readable. the content is unchanged.

peace?

{Adminnemooseus says: Looks good to me. I think you cleaned things up pretty well, while I was preparing message 3. I think I mostly posted message 3 because I hated to have prepared it, only to not posted it.}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-16-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-16-2004 2:37 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 94 (92795)
03-16-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-16-2004 2:25 PM


quote:
Thus, since ID pretends to be a scientific idea, it ought to be pursuing it's claim to credibility by making predictions. Especially predictions that are contradicted by the non-designed universe idea.

Indeed. Simply stating "it looks designed" does not work, especially with reproductive biological organisms.

quote:
(Evolution, of course, predicts that it's results will have the appearence of intelligence, just not design.)

Evolution uses the same intelligence that a river uses to find the path of least resistance. Evolution is a consequence of natural selection (ignoring your argument for artifical evolution for now), which causes populations to follow certain paths towards environmental adaptation. Design does not automatically demand intelligence, as the river's path does not demand intelligence.

quote:
The proper pursuit of ID, then, is to come up with predictions that, before they are tested, even those viewing evolution as most likely to be true will agree ought not occur, because they would only result if ID were true, and evolution not true.

I wish more young earth creationists understood this point. Instead, they try and attack evolution when they should be finding positive evidence for a young earth.

quote:
A bad evolutionist, for example, would take every prediction from a well-meaning ID theorist, and would claim that this prediction might come from evolution as well.

I will have to politely disagree with this statement. ID theorists have put the burden of evidence on the evolutionist to show how ToE can result in the design they claim can only come from intelligence. The possible evolutionary pathways that have been theorized are a result of a challenge that should instead be put on the ID theorists. They seem to take the position that any gap of knowledge with respect to biological structures is open for ID theory. Designer of the Gaps seems to be the rule instead of the exception.

quote:
The "bad" evolutionists will take ID, will deduce the same prediction made by the ID scientist, and will then force their theory of evolution to predict the same thing.

Could you cite an example of this. I am not saying it hasn't happened, but an example might help clarify this a bit.

quote:
That ID depends on the existence and involvement of some intelligent designer does not make it a priori a "faith" or unscientific hypothesis. This is like someone finding a watch, but when the owner or maker shows up asking that the watch be returned to him, the finder claims that it was "naturally" produced, belonging to no one.

This fallacious argument seems to make the rounds quite a bit. First of all, watches do not reproduce and are therefore excluded as direct comparisons to reproductive biological organisms. Imperfect replication and selection can result in design. Secondly, we can observe a watch being made by watchmakers. Has anyone observed a supernatural diety designing an organism? No. This argument for ID fails at every level.

quote:
I agree that, if the ID believers were honest, or "good" they would bring their Designer into the court-room, would in fact base their claim on verifiable prophecy, if prophecy is defined to include depositions from God, the deistic designer.

Even if there were indisputable evidence that a diety exists, it still does not exclude evolution as being the mechanism that the diety used to create diverse life on earth. You must show how evolution is guided, and how mutations are caused without preferrence towards their benefit, neutrality, or detriment. ID theorists have yet to show this. If there were a strong preferrence towards beneficial mutations then I might lean towards ID. However, mutations are blind towards effect while selection is a direct result of environmental interaction.

quote:
But, excluding the possibility of such evidence is also improper.

Totally agree. I think science, while sometimes harsh towards the ID movement, have nonetheless taken their challenge under consideration. However, it is the massive amounts of data already in hand that seems to stop the ID movement in its tracks, not the lack of ongoing research.

quote:
It's a political stand, truly defending the theory of evolution, not defending the truth, per se. Such debate is from lawyers, not scientists.

It is strange that one of the proponents of the ID movement is a lawyer. The ID movement is trying to use it's theories as a wedge for introducing creationism in public schools. It is a pseudoscience that will never be tested, only used for political gain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-16-2004 2:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 4:34 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-19-2004 4:45 AM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 7 of 94 (92805)
03-16-2004 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-16-2004 2:25 PM


I have some problems here. First off I agree that "since ID pretends to be a scientific idea, it ought to be pursuing it's claim to credibility by making predictions. Especially predictions that are contradicted by the non-designed universe idea. " - but I would say it needs to provide predictions that differ from predictions based on evolution.

Now:

"it is Darwin's notion of science that it explains everything" - where does Darwin (the man) enter into the science of genetics? Sub-atomic physics? Darwin is not the definer of science anymore than he is the definer of the science of evolution (which would exist today without his book and theories).

"Evolution, of course, predicts that it's results will have the appearance of intelligence" - where does evolution predict the appearance of intelligence? It predicts that change will happen, but makes no prediction about the direction of the changes.

"A bad evolutionist, for example, would take every prediction from a well-meaning ID theorist ..." - would be corrected by "good" evolutionists when the papers were peer reviewed. Having the same predicted results would mean that the "test" would not differentiate between the two and it would be useless as a paper while the ID version would be, once presented then the peer review process would uncover whether it was the true mechanism or not. This is a straw man argument btw, requiring a bad evolutionist to make it work.

"Velikovsky successfully pulled off a proper strong inference test ... proceedure was not as proper as was Velikovsky's." - we can also talk about Ptolemy in the same vein, but it does not contradict that good science gets the results in the end. There were other problems with Velikovsky's theories, such as not matching the real evidence of the ice cores, but that is a different matter. Bad science is continuously being found and corrected. The record for corrections on the other side of the argument (ID, creationism, etc) is much poorer (I think the most I have seen on this kind of thing is AIG saying "we don't recommend using this argument anymore" or something similar). I do not recall the predictions for temperatures on Venus from my youth, only that it was the big unknown because of the cloud cover.

" Here is another example of improper pursuit. That ID depends on the existence and involvement of some intelligent designer does not make it a priori a "faith" or unscientific hypothesis. " - on the contrary, you make no argument here, and nothing that contradicts the points I made. Deism is a faith, it asks less of its "divine watchmaker" than the ID concept does, seeing as ID (as commonly used) requires participation of the designer in the process of life on earth and Deism does not. Not only that, as noted in the post above, the "design action" by the designer is across interstellar distances and is instantaneous or nearly so, or it is by invisible undetectable agents -- action that qualifies as supernatural, and supernatural is all that is needed for the belief to be a faith (also see definition of god noted above). There are no atheistic ID people as far as I know.

Your last paragraph makes little sense to me. Science is not decided in court, but in the field, it is not decided by lawyers, but by validation of predictions based on theories grounded on observations. If ID people want to be taken credibly they need to provide some science to go along with their claims.

As a deist I have no problem with the concept that god got the whole ball rolling at the beginning point of the universe with the words "surprise me" ...

Enjoy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-16-2004 2:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-19-2004 5:10 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 8 of 94 (92808)
03-16-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Loudmouth
03-16-2004 3:49 PM


ahaahahaaa

looks like you covered the same points I did.

I would only say that until ID provides some real science - theories, predictions, tests - it will remain a pseudoscience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 03-16-2004 3:49 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 94 (92852)
03-16-2004 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brad McFall
03-16-2004 3:12 PM


Hey, Brad,

Yeh, good point, if I understand what you are saying. Let's say that a new life form is found elsewhere in the universe. Now, does evolution theory predict it will be DNA based? What might ID theory predict?

Of course, one of the problems with biblically based creation thinking, is that life, in the bible, does not refer to DNA, but something spiritual. DNA would be "flesh" in the bible, which is closely tied to death, not life. So, a biblically based creationist might predict that "life" (what they would really call, flesh) forms, having a common creator might well all be DNA based. I think that one evolutionist, at least, Dr. Crick, believes that DNA based life or flesh forms got started somewhere in the universe, and like carbon itself, has got around.

A head scratcher, as you indicate.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 03-16-2004 3:12 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2004 12:29 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 03-17-2004 11:13 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 10 of 94 (92859)
03-17-2004 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-16-2004 11:40 PM


xenobiology
Evolution makes no prediction about what life on other planets or in other solar systems would be based on, but I would bet that DNA as we know it would be highly improbable yet not ruled out ... if the life is carbon based.

What evolution would predict is that when life is found on other worlds that it will be subject to the same rules of change over time, natural and sexual (or similar?) selection, and accumulated change resulting in different life forms evolving from common ancestors.

Creationism might predict a life format similar to earths if it wasn't so earth centric in regards to life. Are there biblical passages that everyone would agree refer to life on other worlds? (tall order I know, people so like to interpret to their needs). I know one person who claims heaven is on Uranus ("ABSOLUTELY I believe that THAT PLANET is where we all may very well end up If WE ARE REDEEMED ...") and another that claims the geocentric model of the universe is correct and all modern astronomy is a bunch of lies (both have high "nonsense quotient" worldviews).

ID on the other hand claims to allow an "alien" designer, so and alien life format would not be excluded. I would have to bet that ID would let "anything goes" be the rule on this issue.

The branch of science you are refering to is Xenobiology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenobiology

"Xenobiology (or exobiology, or astrobiology) is the term for a speculative field within biology which considers the possible variety of extraterrestrial life.

Although this is currently a speculative field, the absence of life in the rest of the Universe is a falsifiable hypothesis (though it is yet to be proven false), making Xenobiology a valid field for scientific enquiry.

Pursuing what ID might predict for life on other planets may also refer back to what it would predict for life on earth ... and where those predictions differ from what xenobiology would predict may give us a test of ID.

Does xenobiology predict that all life on a planet must necessarily come from one ancient common ancestor? Does ID? Does ID predict intelligent life? Does xenobiology?

Enjoy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-16-2004 11:40 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 03-17-2004 11:01 AM RAZD has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2412 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 94 (92910)
03-17-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
03-17-2004 12:29 AM


Re: xenobology
it may not, no indeed, evos might NOT predict DNA basedL but there is a current linguistic "preference" for RNA "fossils" which my guess may indeed get up set apple carted as Jesus is alleged to have once already done. Will Provine used THAT and a vialaild reference to Amy McCune's fish from the buliding blocks of rich people's homes on the NJ Hudson (brownstones) instead of thinking that maybe Johnson DID NOT NEED to answer Will as Eldridge also sat thinking or sits...OK "rules of change over time" -- Sir, with your head back IN this window I know indeed that I, BSM, HAD indicated that such will not be "rule based algorthims" as Dennet thinks he can skyhook Penrose with- WRONG- but for too detailed reply assume insteadthat xenobionts are FIRST to be discussed here on Earth in Lichens etc. I would...Logics was there please advise... SO YOU MUST- if you say that say what THE TIME is. I say this might come from haptic research in HUMAN COMPUTATION prosthesies that simultaneously feedforward info on the different places and hence over this time, TIME of changes in feeling of temperature. Instead you think the terminator with RNA is a old alien from california or you sought to polarize or you simply didnt need similarly to rail on "c"ism.

Plus you were wrong absolutely in terms of BIOLOGY if I am correct about the next-(no one has ever (did I say I have cornered the "flab"never market?) shown my biological"" visualization to be incorrect, approximate, or even with age and error (which I wish my older views had been waylaid to).- by BmCFll-"Time in 4D pointset might be "extractable" via revolutions around points by thermal contact molecularly. Nanotech might indeed provide the tools to show this up to point the modeling I am working on by reading the book I so far sighted in this thread. This will END c/e plolarization as we know it today if accomplished (and hopefully stop instead of references to athority not the author as here interalia instead such things as Crashfrog TRIED to say about me in other weave...). The idea is that repetitive DNA might indicate algorthimic repetition of rotary process NOTttttt PROCESS OF PRIOR 'turne"d"' ALGORTHIMIC SINGS. Physicality may clock/time without any so-called "molecular clock"." Also you failed to indicated how the PHENTYOPE of any XENOS would NOT depend on such proposed clocks which if not a part of the synthesis havEEEEvos concieved AFTER the period of organacist emergence (sic!). Dont forget TIME, not time to find such xenos if they exist TIME in terms of the "rule" YOU not me wrote.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now for the remainder of my OWN thought-- "else(I had to cut my sentence to accomodate your post-trial attempted closing...)the experimental means of accessing the symbols currently I think will need revision. If biologically closed electric circuits exist one means is immediately suggestable else than (not "then") I am clamping onto the notion that movement of the above is possible by concurrent application of water pressure and voltage"pressure".

YOu could hone your understanding of creationism accordingly. Please do.

I said my own things you tried to refer to authority.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2004 12:29 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2004 5:15 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2412 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 94 (92911)
03-17-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-16-2004 11:40 PM


Yes S,
I have thought that DNA and flesh are comparable. I am at the issue of sequence alignment and simultaneity( not an older thought of speices distribution and trajectory simulations bound by c speed of light) but let me put that in abeyance for now.

By finding that there appears to be a fulcrum or twist in topobiology at the single cell level it appeared possible that DEATH (not life) could influence shape and form-making if there is any correlation of this to the physically known rotations and revolutions of the EARTH as a frame of reference (for older than 1900 physics this might rather be a discussion in the same scientific reality of the existence of not of an aether but just because there were no motion relative to earth for physical processes as to said aether might not xenobionts from some were else be able to move (in the alignements calculations derive???)relatively differently and not discount Michelson Morely--any way that doesnt really matter as per flesh as you indicate. What seems to be missed by evos(perhaps by confusing self-reference in immunology with atomic identity) is that no one has said how the placing of carbon patterns REPLACES form-making vs shape making and instead they simply tout the materiality of nanotech without seeing it only as a tool to the life-death issue. Mayr simply said BIOLOGISTS dont (even) talk about life and death anymore and yet he (Mayr) actually spoke with both my Grandfather AND ME!

And so even taking Crick's position they have to come from somewhere and yet there is as yet no way to find out how slight shifts in the relations of carbon bonds PREDICT where life may be. If we find it elsewhere this may be possible but still we have ideas about physics that are TOO standard and make even this reductionism appear as HOLISM to such a rigorous thinker as Dick Lewontin. If one mulls over Wolfram in this content then one can be disabused of his coupled differential equations but still we must have time in some way and I have not figured out mathematically or physically how time from 4dspace/time&lukewarmplacmats is to be recieved or conceived. I do percieve it however. Thanks- you got my drift. The standard evo response also came however.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-16-2004 11:40 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-19-2004 5:52 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 13 of 94 (92972)
03-17-2004 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brad McFall
03-17-2004 11:01 AM


Re: xenobology
Sorry, but I have to ask - is english your first language? I have trouble understanding your points, or even determining if you have any -- this seems to be stream-of-consciousness type writing that rambles all around an issue without addressing it.

I will try to muddle through it ...

First paragraph pretty hopeless imho, your conclusion "Instead you think the terminator with RNA is a old alien from california or you sought to polarize or you simply didnt need similarly to rail on "c"ism." does not follow from the paragraph or any preceding information. C'ism is earth centric, adamantly so whenever the issue of genesis is raised. Agreed, the people mentioned are extreme examples, but valid. You have not shown otherwise. I suggest you try that again: show how C'ism can account for life on other planets.

Second paragraph a lot of tech \ intelligent sounding sturm und drang but little content when parsed. "Also you failed to indicated how the PHENTYOPE of any XENOS would NOT depend on such proposed clocks which if not a part of the synthesis havEEEEvos concieved AFTER the period of organacist emergence (sic!)" ... phenotype? clocks? emergence of what? If the assumption of xeno life is made does it need to be complicated by assuming a mimicking of earth life in any way? Occams razor says no: it is that simple.

Third paragraph - total nonsense, congratulations.

Why should I "hone my understanding" of an unsubstantiated and probably mistaken hypothesis? Let it put forth some science and I will look at it. Else it is of no more interest than Ptolemy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 03-17-2004 11:01 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brad McFall, posted 03-19-2004 11:05 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 14 of 94 (93060)
03-18-2004 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-16-2004 2:25 PM


no response to my response - message 7?

Given your statement "I agree with your conclusion, but not with your approach, which appears to me to be 'improperly pursued.' So, the question becomes, 'How do we decide what is proper pursuit?' "

could you suggest what you consider "properly pursued" ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-16-2004 2:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 15 of 94 (93233)
03-18-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


no takers?
Are there no ID people about?

(are they all in ohio?)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017