|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
DB writes:
'Presuppositions' is not a synonym for 'Scientific Methods', so to answer your question: no - not correct.
His evaluations had to involve presuppositions (SMs)and then conclusions, correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Coyote writes: What you will be looking at, if you want any credibility at all, is a rule or set of rules to distinguish design from non-design. Wrong, this is not the topic at present. I will demonstrate this down below, in response to another post From IntellligentDesign.org: What is intelligent design? Design "theory" has been shown to be wrong in those four examples given. Spectacularly wrong in the case of Behe and irreducible complexity! So let me repeat, and try not to duck this time: What is your set of rules for distinguishing design from non-design? You see from the definition of intelligent design given by IntelligentDesign.org that design "theorists" are able to do this, and that this is a critical part of their "scientific" method. As such it is not off topic. I think you just can't answer the question. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Conclusions about what, could you explain Nature.
You seem to be a very emotional character, simply try and stay focused on one point at a time You are apparently trying to patronize me. This is amusing.
What general methods does the SM use that are not employed by the IDer, to come to thier conclusions Scientists compare the predictions of a theory (neo-Darwinism) with observations of the natural world, and find that they match perfectly. Creationists run like frightened little bunny-rabbits when invited to produce a hypothesis having predictive power; and since observing nature does nothing to support their fantasies, they find that it better suits their purpose to lie about nature --- a practice which would, if anything, be impeded by actually studying it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
What general methods does the SM use that are not employed by the IDer, to come to thier conclusions Question everything. If someone has a theory, try to disprove it. Challenge it in every way possible. Don't accept anything as given or as a necessary truth. Anything could be wrong, even the ToE. IDers, by contrast, start with the inerrant truth of the bible and try to fit observations about the natural world within that framework. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two approaches. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Dawn Bertot writes: I assume that Mr Darwin observed things long before he went to the next step correct? Well, he spent a lot of years thinking about his observations, trying to figure out what they meant. During those years he collected many more observations and cataloged everything meticulously.
His evaluations had to involve presuppositions (SMs)and then conclusions, correct? As others have pointed out presuppositions and the Scientific Method are not synonyms. If I remember correctly Darwin's presupposition, when he start on his journey on the Beagle, was that the god of the Bible had created everything like it says in Genesis. The evidence he found did not confirm his presuppositions.
You see thats the problem. Most evolutionist, atleast the hard core ones, assume that thier position involves neither presuppositions or conclusions, but happily and logically they do. Really? Could you give me some examples? What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Furthermore, she can no longer try to take refuge in philosophical double-talk, because she now claims that ID uses the scientific method. Therefore, this methodology for detecting and determining design must comply with the scientific method. For all his shortcomings, I respect Michael Behe in that he came out as accepting the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth and that humans and the other great apes have a common heritage. I call it "Behe is 99+% mainstream evolutionist". The Discovery Institute (IMO) would make a quantum leap in respectability if they clearly came out saying no more than "The intelligent design hypothesis is not compatible with young Earth creationism". That would disconnect ID from the bulk of the creationists that try to grasp onto ID in support of their ideology. Part of doing science is fitting your contribution into the bigger picture, not ignoring or denying the bigger picture. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn has made 11+ posts and so far has not even attempted to expand upon his opening post. I suggest locking this thread as it will probably just become a place for DB to dig rabbit holes.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. Edited by Panda, : Hidden as deemed to be off-topic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Sure there is, the methods we both employ will be exacally the same correct? Hypos are derived from those general methods correct? NO the hypothesis comes first. That is what one is trying to evaluate to find if the evidence supports it, that is a trial solution to the premise. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi Coyote.
Coyote writes: What is your set of rules for distinguishing design from non-design? Since you work in a field that specializes in scientifically differentiating designed things (i.e. artifacts) from non-designed things (i.e. rocks), you're probably in a unique position to explain how actual scientists do distinguish design from non-design. What sorts of criteria do archaeologists and anthropologists use to determine if a given piece of rock is, e.g., an arrowhead, rather than just a broken rock? This would give us a way to establish what ID should be doing in order to find design in nature. Maybe then we could easily determine whether that is what they're doing. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. I have no doubt that this is what IDists believe and it makes sense. It is however to involved for this thread. What is under discussion here is the basic method and mehodology of both positions, to see if they are the same and are science. Wer are not discussing conclusions as of yet Why is that so hard for you to understand. It has been alleged in the following posts that I have no stated my position, this is wrong. I will state it again and see if perhaps you will attempt to answer it What besides the categories of Observation, experimentation, evaluation, and prediction does the SM use that we do not? Secondly if we use the same methods why is ours considered NOT science Perhaps you could attempt an answer at such basic questions. Ill wait your response
So let me repeat, and try not to duck this time: What is your set of rules for distinguishing design from non-design? I was not ducking anything my simple friend, it is not the subject at hand, because it is a conclusion Watch Ill demonstrate What is your rule of evidence for distinquishing something as being designed verses something that is simply a naturalistic cause? At what point will your answer be provable? We are dealing with methods and whether they are scientific in approach, not conclusions design is the conclusion of a scientific approach, not provable in the same way a view that only natural causes are the cause this is why I said earlier science minds make bad philosophers, logicians and debaters. Im sorry but that is true because you cannot distinguish between these two simple items Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You see from the definition of intelligent design given by IntelligentDesign.org that design "theorists" are able to do this, and that this is a critical part of their "scientific" method. As such it is not off topic. I think you just can't answer the question. Again its not a part of thier method, its part of thier conclusions from thier methods Give me an example of you SM process you would employ that we would not, to determine some conclusion of events no longer available directly. What would that be and perhaps you could give an example of ours that is not Science, excluding conclusions, that is not scientific in application Ill get you where you need to be C, in a logical fashion, just hang on Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
The Discovery Institute (IMO) would make a quantum leap in respectability if they clearly came out saying no more than "The intelligent design hypothesis is not compatible with young Earth creationism". That would disconnect ID from the bulk of the creationists that try to grasp onto ID in support of their ideology. Yes, if they were actually trying to do science. But as their actions and the Wedge Document clearly show, the DI's agenda is not scientific, but rather political and social. Their opposition to evolution is for mistaken philosophical reasons (couching it as fighting materialism, though failing to understand the distinction between philosophical materialism, what they do oppose, and methodological materialism, which is what science practices out of necessity since science and the scientific method have no means to deal with the supernatural). Their political and social agenda requires them to build the broadest support they can in the general population. They will not alienate a sizable voting block, young-earth creationists, nor can they afford to. The truth does not matter, intellectual honesty does not matter, their agenda is all that matters. Just like with YECs. Though actually, I do seem to recall that the IDists do try to have it both ways. To the general public they will disassociate themselves from young-earth creationism, whereas to YECs they will play to that crowd. Same as the "creation-scientists" would do, disclaiming any connections to the Bible when speaking to the general public, but then being full-bore biblical when preaching to the choir. ID has separate origins from "creation science", but they have become the exact same kind of beast, practicing the exact same kinds of deceptions. So, back to their conflating methodological materialism with philosophical materialism. Science does not include the supernatural because the scientific method cannot deal with supernaturalistically-based hypotheses. ID wants science to deal with supernaturalistically-based hypotheses. OK, so just how the frak is science supposed to do that? I had a thread, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), asking that very same question. 225 posts later, no answer -- admittedly, the last few were bumps for Dawn to join in with her own special knowledge, but no dice. Now after persistently avoiding the question of ID's methodology or even whether one even exists, Dawn claims that it does indeed exist. And that it is identical to the scientific method! Fine! Great! So then finally please tell us, Dawn, just how is the scientific method supposed to deal with supernaturalistic hypotheses? That is, after all, what ID wants to force science to do (not through scientific channels, but rather by appealing to the general public which is largely scientifically illiterate. So just how is that supposed to happen? Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design? Dawn, both that question and my much more difficult question are fundamentally basic to incorporating ID into science. If you cannot answer those questions, then you have absolutely no case whatsoever. What is your answer? My prediction about this topic. Dawn will continue to refuse to answer these fundamentally basic questions, or else will use bullshit responses and claim that they are the answers. And she will do her utmost to obfuscate (AKA, "muddy the waters", "baffle us with her bullshit"). Nothing will come of this topic, except to expose Dawn for having absolutely no case at all. But then we all knew that already, didn't we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
The primary ID methodology is to control public opinion and through that to force the science curriculum into promoting a "science" that is more congenial to their religious beliefs.
This is why they focus more on popular works and high school texts than on actual scientific research. Do not forget that ID started with a high school text - even though ID does not have a real theory even now. This is why they lie about being "persecuted". Despite his claims Dembski has never even come close to being fired for believing in ID - but he would be fired from his current job if he were not a creationist and was nearly fired for doubting the global extent of Noah's Flood. This is why the OECs who make up the bulk of the ID leadership will not denounce young-earthism. They need YEC support for their ambitions of success through political action. This is why the religious aspect of ID is both emphasised and denied. It is good for convincing the religious masses - but poison when it comes to forcing their way into the U.S. education system. If ID were even a nascent fringe science it would not be like this. There would be more scientific research, and many more publications. They would have started with at least the outline of a theory and should have firmed it up considerably by now. If all that had been done there might, maybe, be a popular book or two, but the public profile would be far lower - and of course there would be no YEC alliance. As it is, it is clear that what little science there is in ID is a largely unsuccessful sideline maintained only because it has apologetic value to have SOME scientific effort however poor it might be. So no, ID does not really use the scientific method. The conclusion of design is - for virtually all ID supporters - a religious conclusion with no real scientific basis. What matters to ID is the promotion of this conclusion - above and beyond such small considerations as truth and morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You are apparently trying to patronize me. This is amusing. Ill ignore this comment, but it does speak volumes about you personality. But that is beside the point so we wont discuss it here
Scientists compare the predictions of a theory (neo-Darwinism) with observations of the natural world, and find that they match perfectly. Creationists run like frightened little bunny-rabbits when invited to produce a hypothesis having predictive power; and since observing nature does nothing to support their fantasies, they find that it better suits their purpose to lie about nature --- a practice which would, if anything, be impeded by actually studying it. All you did here is restate the basics of the SM and the IDM, without demonstrating exacally why and how we dont follow the same rules of science in the beginning process Secondly once into the process, how do we lie about there being order and law, which is a process of scientific evalustion and atleast a clear indication of design, like anyother Conclusion drawn form the SM You really should leave you demeaning asssertions at the stoop, unless you can provide evidence as to what we lie about Your goal is to simply demonstrate what you use that we do not and then show why ours is not science, or a scientific approach that should serve as no problem for such an intellectual as yourself, correct? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Question everything. If someone has a theory, try to disprove it. Challenge it in every way possible. Don't accept anything as given or as a necessary truth. Anything could be wrong, even the ToE. IDers, by contrast, start with the inerrant truth of the bible and try to fit observations about the natural world within that framework. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two approaches. could you fellas please stick to logic and logical approaches to things The Bible has nothing to do with your and my approaches to Nature, if I am using simple evaluation processes correct. Is the guy that is a Christian and a detective in the police force, wrong in his approach to a crime because he believes in the Bible Please demonstrate why my observations of nature, my experiments, my evaluations and my predictions of what nature will reveal, are not science Why wont anyone try and answer that question Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024