Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2017 7:23 PM
368 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Faith, jar, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes, Tangle (8 members, 360 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,870 Year: 21,476/21,208 Month: 1,909/2,326 Week: 364/881 Day: 82/107 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   Is ID properly pursued?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 61 of 94 (539487)
12-16-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Briterican
12-15-2009 4:04 PM


Re: Evolution through natural selection is a very satisfying explanation
Here we go with using Richard Dawkins again:

Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. ...There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface's ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight that improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favour slight, prototype wingflaps. When these small wingflaps become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings. There are animals alive today that beautifully illustrate every stage in the continuum.

First off, Richard Dawkins is a carnival shiller, who makes no effort to use real science to make his points. His whole existence is motivated towards trying to prove there is no God (which is of course an impossible feat-but that doesn't stop him from claiming that he has done so repeatedly). In fact I can't think of a non-fiction author today who is more full of shit than him.

As for this fairy tale, this is just more of his crap feed to people who never stop to think abut anything.

First off, excessive flaps of skin aren't going to make anyone jump further. Do you think you would jump further if you had flabby skin? Plenty of people do, how is their jumping falling ability you reckon?

A wing has to be perfect before it is any use at all. Before it is a perfect wing, it would be an un-aerdynamic blob. If anything, you would likely have more weight from this flabby skin, and you would be less aerodynamic than a creature with tight, smooth skin. Besides which would any creature that was suddenly born with this extra skin, where none had ever existed even know how to utilize this "advantage"? What they would suddenly be able to splay their arms out at precisely the right angles to create the perfect Bernoulli effect? And would this flabby skin be confined to only right under their arms, or would it also be on their belly, or the top of their head?

I swear, if the scientific community had any integrity at all, they would roast Dawkin's for insulting everyone's intelligence just so he can make more money selling his atheist propaganda to unthinking minds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Briterican, posted 12-15-2009 4:04 PM Briterican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Briterican, posted 12-16-2009 9:51 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 64 by bluescat48, posted 12-16-2009 11:19 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 62 of 94 (539488)
12-16-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
12-15-2009 11:26 PM


Re: traderdrew, traderdrew, paging traderdrew ...
This topic absolutely must deal with how well the ToE is able to prove its own points, before they should have the right to be making any criticism about what ID can and can not prove.

I specifically asked for your proof in my first thread, and you gave me finches with varying beak sizes, peppered moths that are sometime abundant and sometimes not, and a tribe in New Guinea that appeared to develop a drug resistance with a few short decades. if that is what your side calls proof, then you don't have much moral authority to criticize ID.

And I agree, there is no conflict in using science to pursue ID, but most evolutionists refuse to even grant this, to such an extent that even the mention of it would (and does) get even one of the most qualified scientists of their profession disallowed their tenure because of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2009 11:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2009 8:32 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 1450 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 63 of 94 (539503)
12-16-2009 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bolder-dash
12-16-2009 7:53 AM


Re: Evolution through natural selection is a very satisfying explanation
You are just ranting now, which is probably why you've been suspended. Each time you post, you further reveal your irrational, illogical approaches to these issues.

Enjoy your suspension.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 7:53 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1690 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 64 of 94 (539510)
12-16-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bolder-dash
12-16-2009 7:53 AM


Re: Evolution through natural selection is a very satisfying explanation
A wing has to be perfect before it is any use at all. Before it is a perfect wing, it would be an un-aerdynamic blob.

That would make sense only if wings were "designed" for flying which is not necessarily the case. As with many changes in structure, the change came before the use. The same can be said for lungs, legs, amniotic sacks, urea rather than ammonia excretion & eyes. The only way these so called irruducibly complex organs can be claimed is if they were what the change was for prior to the change, which does not appear to be the case.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 7:53 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 65 of 94 (539544)
12-16-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Bolder-dash
12-16-2009 8:01 AM


Stick to the topic and not your personal peeves.: Is ID being properly pursued or not
Hi Bolder-dash, having another tantrum? Getting banned for bad behavior again?

This topic absolutely must deal with how well the ToE is able to prove its own points, before they should have the right to be making any criticism about what ID can and can not prove.

Absolutely categorically undeniably false. If ID is valid, or done in a valid way, the theories of evolution in specific, and science in general, are irrelevant. ID, if done as science, lives or fails by how well it actually does testable repeatable science, no matter what other theories are around, no matter what other concepts are around.

There is no valid theory that depends on the failure of another theory for validation -- NOT ONE.

If you don't understand this, then you do not understand what science is, and what ID needs to be if it wants to be science.

If it wants to be philosophy, then it does not matter what science is, it only matters what is true. This of course means what science says is true as well.

These things need to be understood and accepted in order for ID to be pursued in a valid and proper manner.

I specifically asked for your proof in my first thread, and you gave me finches with varying beak sizes, peppered moths that are sometime abundant and sometimes not, and a tribe in New Guinea that appeared to develop a drug resistance with a few short decades.

You specifically asked for examples of natural selection being tested. When you got answers to that, you then complained that it was not what you were looking for, and the rest of the thread was cluttered up with you (a) making complaints that people were not providing what you wanted, and (b) not defining what you wanted. You talk about moral authority but all you demonstrated was a complete unwillingness or inability to be honest about what you really wanted to discuss. You also never cited your source so that we could understand where you came from.

if that is what your side calls proof, then you don't have much moral authority to criticize ID.

Again, my side is the Deist side, the side that originally started the whole vast argument from design. YOU, and your creationist friends, are the interloper/s in this area, adopting bits and pieces, and using only half vast arguments, ones with wings clipped to fit your creationist preconceptions, to make a screen to hide behind, a straw man version, rather than the real thing, so when you talk about moral authority you do not have a leg to stand on.

Deism has been around for centuries, "ID" has only been around since 1998 when Phillip Johnson and his charlatan cohorts formed a covert group to: overturn the methodological naturalism of the scientific method ...through what they later called the "wedge strategy": the stated objective of this group is not to do science, but to undo science.

In other words, ID is an upstart false idol, run by creationists pretending to be something else, when instead it is a charade, a false facade, a scam. Don't talk to me about moral authority.

And I agree, there is no conflict in using science to pursue ID,...

Evolution is science.

... but most evolutionists refuse to even grant this, to such an extent that even the mention of it would (and does) get even one of the most qualified scientists of their profession disallowed their tenure because of it.

Please start another thread to discuss this issue of suppression, it does not belong here.

When I tell you to read the first post, Message 1, then you need to read the first post before responding further on what YOU want to talk about.

When I tell you that problems with evolution have nothing to do with whether ID is properly pursued or not, then you will not talk about the problems of evolution on this thread, but about the issue of whether ID is properly pursued or not, OR you will be in violation of forum guidelines and I will let the moderators know.

This thread is about whether ID is properly pursued or not. My position is that the current use of ID in the US is not the proper approach to the question of whether or not evidence of design can be discerned and clarified as evidence of a designer, because it is far too cluttered up with false preconceptions.

My position is that there is an opportunity to take this concept away from the charlatans and open it up to proper pursuit of the question of design -- with a skeptical but open mind, discarding religious preconceptions in the process, and focusing on what science can determine, and what science cannot determine.

Care to tackle that issue? Care to discard your preconceptions?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 8:01 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 2:25 PM RAZD has responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 1450 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 66 of 94 (539600)
12-17-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by RAZD
12-16-2009 8:32 PM


Explanations are being pursued - if they point to ID, great, but they don't
RAZD writes:

There is no valid theory that depends on the failure of another theory for validation -- NOT ONE.

Thank you.

And thanks for the link about the "wedge strategy". All the more reason to be wary of ID.

Despite the disagreements we may have on some topics, I always find your posts useful, relevant and content rich.

As to the topic: Is ID properly pursued?

My problem with this is that "pursuing ID" is like coming to a conclusion (things were designed by some intelligent agent) without evidence first, and then looking for evidence that might support that conclusion. Now that may not always be a bad strategy, but when the evidence doesn't point to the idea you started with, you need to be prepared to rethink that idea.

In the case of ID, I have not yet heard of any research that even in the slightest way points to an intelligent agent having designed things. As we have seen many times before in many threads, "irreducible complexity" is hogwash. Meanwhile there is a theory that provides for slow gradual change (ToE) which can explain the things that creationists call "intelligently designed".

RAZD writes:

My position is that there is an opportunity to take this concept away from the charlatans and open it up to proper pursuit of the question of design -- with a skeptical but open mind, discarding religious preconceptions in the process, and focusing on what science can determine, and what science cannot determine.

If only more deists/theists took such a reasonable approach and used words like "skeptical but open mind" and "discarding religious preconceptions". My only qualm with this relates to my comment above, in that in order to have a "proper pursuit of the question of design", you have to first accept that things were designed, lest there is nothing to pursue. So in a way, this is still holding onto a preconceived notion (a creator).

I think we should pursue the evidence and let it take us where it may. On first glance many things may appear designed, but we have learned that a remarkable appearance of design can come about in things that were nonetheless a result of naturalistic processes which did not rely on the direction of an intelligent agent.

So to answer the question posed in the original post - "Is ID being properly pursued?" - I would say that the possibilty of intelligent design is being pursued every day in every bit of work that biologists do, whether they realise it or not: In other words, they are looking for evidence that will provide explanations of how things came to be the way they are - and they are finding evidence of naturalistic origins and a complete lack of evidence of any divine intervention.

Edited by Briterican, : Changed "non-atheists" to "deists/theists".

Edited by Briterican, : Message subtitle change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2009 8:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2009 1:29 PM Briterican has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 67 of 94 (540577)
12-26-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Briterican
12-17-2009 2:25 PM


Re: Explanations are being pursued - if they point to ID, great, but they don't
Hi Briterican, sorry to take so long, but the chemo sessions wear me out.

My problem with this is that "pursuing ID" is like coming to a conclusion (things were designed by some intelligent agent) without evidence first, and then looking for evidence that might support that conclusion. Now that may not always be a bad strategy, but when the evidence doesn't point to the idea you started with, you need to be prepared to rethink that idea.

Yes, this is what I consider the kaleidoscope problem - look in one end and see a pretty pattern, look in the other and see jumbled bits and pieces - where there seems to be a pattern in certain evidence, but that it is the result of a natural process.

In the case of ID, I have not yet heard of any research that even in the slightest way points to an intelligent agent having designed things. As we have seen many times before in many threads, "irreducible complexity" is hogwash. Meanwhile there is a theory that provides for slow gradual change (ToE) which can explain the things that creationists call "intelligently designed"

Indeed, IC is a falsified concept as far as demonstrating that intelligence must be involved. Of course most the average IDologists don't appear to understand the concept of falsification, and cling to their preconceptions.

I think we should pursue the evidence and let it take us where it may. On first glance many things may appear designed, but we have learned that a remarkable appearance of design can come about in things that were nonetheless a result of naturalistic processes which did not rely on the direction of an intelligent agent.

One of my other threads may put some balance on this aspect: if we assume a designer then what can we deduce from the designs - see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

So to answer the question posed in the original post - "Is ID being properly pursued?" - I would say that the possibilty of intelligent design is being pursued every day in every bit of work that biologists do, whether they realise it or not: In other words, they are looking for evidence that will provide explanations of how things came to be the way they are - and they are finding evidence of naturalistic origins and a complete lack of evidence of any divine intervention.

Which brings me back around to the opening post on this thread, where all science is used to investigate the universe as it is, including evolution, where science explains how things happen, but leaves open the question of why they are the way they are.

Certainly we see that the use of evolutionary algorithms in computer models demonstrate the power of a simple system of variation plus selection to accomplish designs that we are not capable of by our own intellect, and that it would be easy to create a universe in which this process is used to develop intelligent sentient beings - whether they are people or some other form.

For ID to be properly pursued, in my opinion, means that one must discard all preconceptions of what can and what cannot occur, how things can occur and what we can know from science and what we cannot know.

This is where I think philosophy takes over from science, because answers for why things occur are not able to be answered by science, and this leaves us with logic and reason, perhaps with the differences in personal opinions to spice the discussions up.

Enjoy.


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 2:25 PM Briterican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 8:12 AM RAZD has responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 1450 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 68 of 94 (540658)
12-27-2009 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
12-26-2009 1:29 PM


Re: Explanations are being pursued - if they point to ID, great, but they don't
RAZD writes:

Hi Briterican, sorry to take so long, but the chemo sessions wear me out.

Sorry to hear that, and I wish you the best.

RAZD writes:

One of my other threads may put some balance on this aspect: if we assume a designer then what can we deduce from the designs - see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

I've seen this thread in bits and pieces. Perhaps it's time for me to review the entire thing.

RAZD writes:

This is where I think philosophy takes over from science, because answers for why things occur are not able to be answered by science, and this leaves us with logic and reason, perhaps with the differences in personal opinions to spice the discussions up.

I like the way you've phrased this statement. I would add that because philosophy brings with it logic and reason, it is better equipped to pick up where science leaves off than is religion.

Take care!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2009 1:29 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 12-27-2009 8:44 PM Briterican has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 69 of 94 (540700)
12-27-2009 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Briterican
12-27-2009 8:12 AM


The proper pursuit of ID == the proper pursuit of knowledge, unhindered by biases
Thanks Briterican,

Sorry to hear that, and I wish you the best.

It's year four so far. See Cancer Survivors for more details, and ...

quote:
If you want to help, you can sign up to http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/index.jsp and let your computer work on solving cancer among other problems confronting human life on this planet.

See HIV Cancer Diabetes MDA and more - Solve on your computer for details:

quote:
More info (if you need it) at:
../projects_showcase/viewResearch.do
To join go to
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/index.jsp
After you join as a member, join our team by selecting "join a team" and then go to {T section page 3} to pick "Team EvC" to join ("Team" is part of the team name, so we are the Team EvC Team).
To download the BOINC agent go to
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ms/viewDownload.do?plat...

I recommend the BOINC agent over the standard UD agent, as that one can cause jerky mouse action unless throttled down, and the throttle mechanism is not that good.

We could use some new members.

I've seen this thread in bits and pieces. Perhaps it's time for me to review the entire thing.

I'm looking for contributions.

I like the way you've phrased this statement. I would add that because philosophy brings with it logic and reason, it is better equipped to pick up where science leaves off than is religion.

And this has been one of my continued interests - what can we know or posit about reality once the resources are science are exhausted, or where they cannot apply?

For me, it has to involve the pursuit of knowledge for it's own purpose, unhindered by any bias or precoception -- it is the love of knowledge at it's purest. Of course, this means being an open minded skeptic.

Enjoy.


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 8:12 AM Briterican has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 70 of 94 (600605)
01-15-2011 2:14 PM


bump for Aaron
See Message 8 of Animals with bad design.

For Aaron or anyone else interested.

Enjoy.


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)

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 71 of 94 (623081)
07-08-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


Well, I understand your post is what you think it should and shouldn't be, but ID classifies itself a little different and is trying to distance itself from being classified as "religion" or philosophy.

Philosophy is not evidence or the Scientific method, but having an already established faith(for some) can lead one to be a proponent of ID. Maybe it should be classified differently. Faith can "take" you there atleast, and by looking at life ( i.e. the perfect circle of the sun, our anatomy, etc) make the conclusion it/we was/were designed, without using the Scientific method to get there. A designers fingerprints can be left on Creation while looking thru the glassses of ID, just not the blueprints.

I suppose using all the evidence for existing theorys as evidence for a desinger is just not going to happen. It's an alternative, competing theory (kind of). If those other theorys all went thru the Scientific method to get to where they are now, ID will just have to stand on it's own, maybe in a philosophy class as you suggested.

Maybe ID will be able to develop itself in the future more so, according to the process Science demands. It's already pegged as a religious concept and will need to start over (if it wants to be recognized in the same light as the BB for example). Once you mention God in a theory it's lights out( they don't in the strict definition of the term- but the cats already out of the bag-so to speak). The BB didn't, and is accepted. Some choose to think God/gods is responbible for the BB, but not till AFTER it was established. Well, maybe ID can go thru the Scientific process eventually(not in it's current state) THEN people can aasociate God with it. Which I suppose we already have in the BB or TOE (theistic evolutionist).

Like I said, ID needs to start over. Pos

***NOTE*** Im adding this *NOTE* AFTER Taq made His comment. I just noticed the "Pos" on the end of my post, as I was going to say "Possibly" and start a new sentance(when I was originally writing the comment above) but decided against adding anything else. Well obviously I didn't erase it all and it left "Pos". I just want to clearify that it's not the phrase that sometimes accompanies "Pos" when referenced. I'll leave it so it doesn't look like im making any changes after Taq responded. This is probably unnecessary but just wanted to make sure no one takes it the wrong way, mainly RAZD. Nothing else was changed.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


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 72 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 2:23 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2011 7:38 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7043
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 72 of 94 (623083)
07-08-2011 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Chuck77
07-08-2011 2:05 AM


If those other theorys all went thru the Scientific method to get to where they are now, ID will just have to stand on it's own, maybe in a philosophy class as you suggested.

As someone who vehemently opposes the idea of ID in the science classroom, I do agree that ID would be appropriate for the philosophy classroom. However, I have a strong suspicion that the same parents who are against evolution in public schools would be even more stridently opposed to a philosophy course if they read the textbooks and curriculum.

Maybe ID will be able to develop itself in the future more so, according to the process Science demands.

Perhaps. This will probably have to wait for the next generation of ID thinkers. The current crop have made it abundantly clear that they will not be doing ID research. I can't say that I blame them. ID, in its current form, does not lend itself to scientific experimentation.

Once you mention God in a theory it's lights out( they don't in the strict definition of the term- but the cats already out of the bag-so to speak). The BB didn't, and is accepted.

Actually, you might want to do some research into the beginnings of the Big Bang theory. The main man behind the theory was George Lemaitre. He was a Jesuit priest and fully believed that the BB was a creative act. It could also be argued that the BB theory did garner some skepticism based solely on Lemaitre's beliefs, but at the end of the day the evidence was overwhelming and the theory was accepted by a consensus of scientists from every stripe of belief and non-belief.

Some choose to think God/gods is responbible for the BB, but not till AFTER it was established.

You may want to rethink that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Chuck77, posted 07-08-2011 2:05 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Wounded King, posted 07-09-2011 4:41 AM Taq has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 73 of 94 (623236)
07-08-2011 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Chuck77
07-08-2011 2:05 AM


yes, ID needs to start over
Hi Chuck77, thanks.

Like I said, ID needs to start over. Pos

That's basically what I am arguing, that it needs to start over on a stand-alone basis, rather than rely on (carry the baggage of) "creation science" -- and take the concept to the logical conclusion. To embrace ID fully, one needs to discard all preconceptions of who\what the designer is, and pursue it as an hypothesis: if god/s created the universe, then what should we see that shows this creation process?

To pursue this question properly, imho, all sciences would be brought to bear on the question, we can't pick and choose which sciences we like and which we don't like, as science is tested by reality (or what we perceive as reality).

Science is a tool for pursuing the philosophical question, and it is a philosophical (hypothetical) question until there is some objective empirical evidence that god/s {do\do-not} exist.

The problem is that we only have one universe to use as evidence -- is this what a designed universe should look like or is this what a non-designed universe should look like?

... but having an already established faith(for some) can lead one to be a proponent of ID. Maybe it should be classified differently. Faith can "take" you there atleast, ...

If you rely on faith, or on assuming that the premise "god/s exist" is true, then it cannot be science, though science can be used to pursue the questions raised. To do this, though, one needs to be prepared to discard preconceptions based on faith and belief, or the science does not work.

Maybe ID will be able to develop itself in the future more so, according to the process Science demands. ...

My personal opinion, is that an open-minded skeptical approach to science used to investigate questions raised by the ID hypothesis (above) will lead people of faith to a better understanding and appreciation of what science does.

Science is a tool to help us understand reality (or what we perceive as reality) and it allows us to test our beliefs\hypothesis against the objective empirical evidence of that reality so that false ideas\concepts can be identified and discarded.

Each falsified concept brings us to a closer approximation of reality by eliminating false beliefs.

Enjoy.


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Chuck77, posted 07-08-2011 2:05 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1596 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 74 of 94 (623287)
07-09-2011 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taq
07-08-2011 2:23 AM


The current crop have made it abundantly clear that they will not be doing ID research. I can't say that I blame them. ID, in its current form, does not lend itself to scientific experimentation.

I think this is rather unfair, there are maybe a handful of researchers who are doing proper experimental work. The problem as I see it is more that they don't have a really coherent framework or ID theory to build hypotheses on.

People like Doug Axe and Ann Gauger are at least performing proper lab experimentation. I don't think that any of their work makes a coherent argument either for ID or against traditional darwinian evolutionary trajectories, but again I'd put this down to the lack of a sufficient theoretical framework for ID. I assume that they themselves believe they do.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 2:23 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 07-11-2011 2:47 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7043
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 75 of 94 (623505)
07-11-2011 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Wounded King
07-09-2011 4:41 AM


People like Doug Axe and Ann Gauger are at least performing proper lab experimentation.

I'm not familiar with Gauger, but what I have seen of Axe's work it is completely in the vein of "evolution can't do it, therefore ID". Even then, Axe makes a poor case. That isn't ID research. It is research on evolution. I have yet to attend a scientific conference where someone stands in front of the crowd and states, "No one has shown how an intelligent designer could do this, therefore it must have evolved". If someone did do that they would be booed off the stage.

I don't think that any of their work makes a coherent argument either for ID or against traditional darwinian evolutionary trajectories, but again I'd put this down to the lack of a sufficient theoretical framework for ID.

I agree. All they have is a dislike of evolution and nothing scientific to really pursue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Wounded King, posted 07-09-2011 4:41 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017