Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 12 of 168 (306326)
04-24-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
04-24-2006 5:40 PM


Re: IDEA club junk
About junk DNA, recent research over the past few years has revealed that it isn't as non-functional as first thought.
Although I can't provide the historic details off-hand, it is my understanding that the "first thought" of geneticists in the face of "junk DNA" was that it must have some function in order to have been maintained during evolution. That was the initial prediction based on evolution.
Later, the evolutionary detritus/"junk" hypothesis was used as an explanation for why scientists couldn't immediately find function amidst the "junk".
After geneticists did find function in the "junk", and only after, did the ID folks claim that purpose in the "junk" DNA was a prediction of ID theory (that somehow the evolution folks got wrong). In reality, the theory of evolution immediately predicted some function in the "junk" DNA, while the "theory of ID" only "predicted" such after it was found.
It irks me quite a bit to see the usual claim that Intelligent Design "predicts, for example, that there are purposes for "junk-DNA", as usual with no explanation for how the theory leads to that prediction, and as if the Theory of Evolution somehow did not make such a prediction.
The attempt at experimental design, quite frankly, cracks me up:
To quantify it one would determine the amount of "junk" expected from a natural process and contrast that with the amount expected from an intelligent process (and yes, we have intelligent processes available to us to examine). Our prediction would be that the amount should be found closer to that of a designed object than one which was undesigned.
Doesn't Hannah see the horrible contradiction in her experimental design? In order to demonstrate that everything is designed, she proposes experiments to compare natural (non-designed) objects to designed ones in order to establish trends.
Where the hell are we going to find a non-designed object for comparison if all objects are designed?
Perhaps rather than trying to teach the ID-proponents biology or geology, we should be teaching them simple logic...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 04-24-2006 5:40 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2006 8:55 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 14 of 168 (306329)
04-24-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by iano
04-24-2006 6:37 PM


Re: IDEA club
If there was no such thing as ToE then ID would have enough circumstantial evidence to warrant further enquiry.
In order to have "further enquiry", ID would have to present testable hypotheses/predictions. Because ID fails to do so, it fails as science, regardless of whether or not it is in "competition" with the Theory of Evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 04-24-2006 6:37 PM iano has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 33 of 168 (306473)
04-25-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by iano
04-25-2006 4:23 AM


neutrally objective
I see almost fanatical putting down of it by a camp that sees it as creationism in another guise but who also happens to be significantly athiestic - so can't really take the views presented as being neutrally objective. It took (a) Catholic Scientist to point out a simple flaw in Percys argument a few posts ago to highlight the bias.
Catholic Scientist was actually suggesting a flaw in my argument; thus you are calling me biased, thus I'll respond.
My original argument was as neutrally objective as one can get:
Hannah (and/or her IDEA center literature) started out (essentially) with the claim that the universe is designed, using references to astronomy. Hannah then suggested that a good experimental design to examine ID theory would be to compare designed and non-designed objects. In other words:
#1. Everything is designed (there are no non-designed objects).
#2. Both designed and non-designed objects will be used to demonstrate #1.
Hopefully you see that Hannah's experiment breaks down at a basic, logical level - there is simply no way to carry out such an experiment, because by Hannah's definition the control group does not exist. There is no room for personal bias in pointing out such a basic flaw.
Please explain to me where the bias is in my argument, or take back the statement that I am some sort of subjective fanatic.
I find it irksome that you call the arguments of myself (and others) biased because you assume that we are atheistic, without actually having knowledge of our spiritual leanings, and more importantly, without examining the arguments at hand. It seems that you are the one carrying a lot of bias in your arguments...
As a side-note, Catholic Scientist was both right and wrong. He was right in the sense that some pro-ID people believe that design is only present in complex objects; however, my response was specific to Hannah's arguments which started with claims that the universe was designed, and thus was not flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 4:23 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 12:38 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2006 1:29 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 35 of 168 (306506)
04-25-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
04-25-2006 12:38 PM


Re: neutrally objective
If fact both of us were wrong. It wasn't a flaw in Percys argument I referred to. CS was responding to Omnivorous. Sorry Percy.
Nope. Just you were wrong in this case. The only post CS made in this thread was a response to me, not Omnivorous.
Setting in motion a series of events that would mean the universe came into existance doesn't mean that everything in it was designed.
Even if we take this statement to be Hannah's intent, her experiment is still fatally flawed, because there is no way of knowing what parts of the universe are designed and non-designed.
In other words, Hannah would thus be arguing that (currently unknown) design exists in some things, and in order to detect that design we need to compare designed things to non-designed things. Since there is no way to separate "non-designed things" and "things with unknown design", there is still no way to set up a control group.
Still flawed at a basic level.
Hopefully you will see that I wasn't calling you biased. I even said earlier that some folk put together reasoned arguements against ID...
But you absolutely did. You said my flawed argument was a result of me being biased. You made no attempt to counter my reasoned argument, you just pointed out bias and insinuated that I lacked spirituality. Again, that cries bias on your part to me.
Considering that this whole thread is on the topic of a scientist against intelligent design creating a valid academic forum for the consideration of intelligent design, I think the complaining that ID science is lacking merely due to status quo bias needs to stop.
This brings to mind the research grant that was created (I think by the Discovery Institute) specifically to fund scientific research into intelligent design. They got zero applications, because ID has zero hypotheses to test, and thus zero grant proposals to write.
ID theory is so scientifically lacking that a funding agency can't even give away money for ID research projects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 12:38 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 7:16 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 37 of 168 (306512)
04-25-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2006 1:29 PM


Re: neutrally objective
This is not the basic position of ID.
I never said it was, so I'm not sure why you are arguing as if I did. In fact, the lines I wrote both before and after the bit you quoted specify that I was criticizing Hannah's experimental design.
I still don't see her as claiming that everything is designed.
Not directly, no. But by suggesting that the solar systems are designed, and that the basic laws of physics are essentially the result of intelligent design theory, she's making a very strong implication.
I think she is saying that Kepler thought everything was designed, but I don't read it as her, nor ID, claiming that everything was designed.
Then she makes a very poor choice of references, if she believes them to be wrong.
your argument (of pointing out the logical break-down) doesn't hold up against the actual position of ID, just her twisted ID position
Which, of course, is why I specified that I was criticizing Hannah's experimental design at every step of the way.
I'm not even criticizing her "ID position", I'm criticizing her experimental design. Get it?
Yes, if she did mean that everything is designed, then you are correct that we would not be able to find anything that is non-designed to compare it with.
Her experimental design is still fatally flawed even if she believes that there are some non-designed objects, because there is no way to distinguish between non-designed objects and objects of unknown design, and thus no way to establish a control group.
Doesn't matter what she meant - her experimental design is still flawed.
But, that still cannot be used as an argument against ID, in general.
How many times are you going to state this? Find somewhere in the thread where I used Hannah's experimental flaw as an argument against ID in a general sense, otherwise shut up about it already...
Personally, I don't think you were being biased. I do think you misunderstood her position though.
Thanks. But with either reading of her position, her experiment has serious problems at a basic level.
Now, though that is not an argument against ID theory in general, I do think Hannah's sort of experimental thinking is representative of what the ID folks have put forward thus far in terms of hypotheses/experiments. They usually have glaring flaws - false analogies, circular reasoning, begging the question...
...unless you can point out an ID hypothesis or experiment that is solid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2006 1:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024