|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I could understand a person saying there may exist conditions for life arising somewhere else in the universe if it were based on the fact the life arose on earth due to conditions on earth. But that foundational fact hasn't been established.
No one can say what the probability is that life arose due to conditions on earth. What is needed to sustain life should not be confused with that which is necessary to cause it to arise. This is something about which we do not know. We don't even know if it is possible for life to arise. With no idea as to probability/possibility for here it is impossible to say there is a probability/possibility for anywhere else. Thus the SETI project is not science. It is based on an a priori belief in Naturalism. That makes it a Religion Yet you seem to think it is science. Why? Edited, typo and clarifying This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 03:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
1. have to accept that the ToE has been a very sucessful theory so far. I agree. Not just in terms of PR but evidentially etc.
2. have to accept that ID will have to rival the ToE in terms of evidence and predictive capacity. ID is only tackling a small aspect of ToE (some design + evolution) it should be remembered. But I agree (in so far as I understand what forms science). All that is being discussed here is how ID might be able to enter the game.
Now as I have said repeatedly if you want ID to become science then you'll have to identify a creator. Until you do that you are arguing from ignorance. Msg 106 is for you too. This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 04:04 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
With no idea as to probability/possibility for here it is impossible to say there is a probability/possibility for anywhere else. We know the possibility for here. It is 100%.
I could understand a person saying there may exist conditions for life arising somewhere else in the universe if it were based on the fact the life arose on earth due to conditions on earth. But that foundational fact hasn't been established. It doesn't matter why life arose here, it did.
No one can say what the probability is that life arose due to conditions on earth. What is needed to sustain life should not be confused with that which is necessary to cause it to arise. This is something about which we do not know. We don't even know if it is possible for life to arise. No one cares whether the conditions (which have constantly changed anyway) were the cause. It doesn't matter. Life did arise here and we have a sample to use as a basis. SETI only looks for life that is similar to what we KNOW happened once. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
It doesn't matter why life arose here, it did. If only it were so simple Jar. This little portion of the thread is dealing with whether SETI is science. Either life arose naturalistically (religious belief currently) or as a result of intelligence (also a religious belief), then the foundation for SETI is religious not scientific. It may be subsequently dressed up with lots of science but the skeleton is religious. If so and SETI is still considered scientific then there is no need to produce evidence of God in order to begin to investigate intelligent design on scientific grounds - such as comparing intelligent design markers. The religious undertow is irrelevant to the progression of the science. {AbE}It just occurred to me that Church of Abiogenesis Science is built on the same religious rock as SETI and ID. This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 04:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
As for randomness.. we are not in a deterministic universe. Quantum mechanics have proven this. We are in a universe that it is probablity oriented, not deterministic. A deterministic or non deterministic view has nothing to do with science. Science gives no absolutes. Anyone who arives at such a conclusion is simply stating how they feel. Since when is probability not deterministic? Being on the ignorant side of the equation may delude some to false conclusions. Anywho. Perhaps there would not be such a push to bring ID into existance in education if many following evo did not promote the assumption that selection is random. Natural selection does not say random. One cannot follow evo and promote design or non design and remain impartial as science must. In this aspect of evo there has been a point of view promoted that has no basis in fact.From my perspective there is no difference between claiming randomness and claiming design. However if one is to teach design it must be without naming the designer. In this way it must remain impartial.It should also completely avoid the search for intent. That would make it religion. Design or non design is a glass half empty/full kind of thing. In truth all ideas of that nature are non scientific animals/points of view and should never be confused with science. When we do, science ceases to be the wonderful tool it is and becomes a very dangerous and altogether different animal. It is no longer impartial and becomes someones tool for agenda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is that simple.
This little portion of the thread is dealing with whether SETI is science. Correct.
Either life arose naturalistically (religious belief currently) or as a result of intelligence (also a religious belief), then the foundation for SETI is religious not scientific. No, that statement is not correct. The question of how life arose is so far an unknown, and it is also totally immaterial. We know that life did arise. We know what the current conditions are. Those are not religious beliefs. They are facts. SETI is simply looking for what is familar and known to exist. It is science. There is no religious skeleton.
If so and SETI is still considered scientific then there is no need to produce evidence of God in order to begin to investigate intelligent design on scientific grounds - such as comparing intelligent design markers. The religious undertow is irrelevant to the progression of the science. Total nonsense. First, ID needs to show some sign that there are any such markers found in lifeforms. They have not done so. If and when ID can show such evidence, it will be considered. Until then, it will and should be ignored as just another crackpot religion. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
No, that statement is not correct. The question of how life arose is so far an unknown But the choices are known. And all are religious.
First, ID needs to show some sign that there are any such markers found in lifeforms. They have not done so. If and when ID can show such evidence, it will be considered. Until then, it will and should be ignored as just another crackpot religion. Something can be a scienfic pursuit before it finds any evidence of what it is pursuing. Abiogenesis and SETI spring to mind. Would you agree? This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 04:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Lets try to make it clearer so we can see what you mean.
Is it religious to beleive that the earthly life we can see and (in some cases) touch exists ? If so, why ? Is it religious to believe that something similar might exist - not does, but might - somewhere else in the universe ? If so, why ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Well, a 'creator' in the way you are using that term is 'supernatural'. Only by your perspective. These perspective have nothing to do with science.
There is no way to test for such a 'creator'. It does not fit into the methology for science. Correct. The question of a creator or lack ther of, is non scientific. Science must remain impartial. However we are human and very poor at that impartial thing. lol
As for randomness.. we are not in a deterministic universe. Quantum mechanics have proven this. We are in a universe that it is probablity oriented, not deterministic. A deterministic or non deterministic view has nothing to do with science. Science gives no absolutes. Anyone who arives at such a conclusion is simply stating how they feel. Since when is probability not deterministic? Being on the ignorant side of the equation may delude some to false conclusions. Anywho. Perhaps there would not be such a push to bring ID into existance in education if many following evo did not promote the assumption that selection is random and from there determine lack of design. Natural selection does not say random. One cannot follow evo and promote design or non design and remain impartial as science must. In this aspect of evo there has been a point of view promoted that has no basis in fact. From my perspective there is no difference between claiming randomnessand claiming design. However if one is to teach design it must be without naming a designer. In this way it must remain impartial. Simply the generic search for evidence of design. It should also completely avoid the search for intent. That would make it religion. Design or non design is a glass half empty/full kind of thing. In truth all ideas of that nature are non scientific animals/points of view and should never be confused with science. When we do, science ceases to be the wonderful tool it is and becomes a very dangerous and altogether different animal. It is no longer impartial and becomes someones tool for agenda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Before re-phrasing your questions ("Is it religious to believe..." seems to answer itself) you might like to read up on some of the motivation behind SETI.
You will see that the rational given in trying to extract funds etc talk much of probabilities for there being life elsewhere based upon there being x probability for life-arising conditions to exist elsewhere. "WATER ON MARS!!!" was a..er...splash for this self same reason. We can bat this back and forward but the scientists involved have already stood shouting their religion from the rooftop: "Life arose naturally due to conditions on Earth - so why not elsewhere" This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 05:02 PM This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 05:03 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
For what it's worth, I think I might agree with you (at least in some respect).
Looking at life to detect if it is intellgently designed can be a perfectly scientific endevour. It was basically this that lead us to the conclusion that life was designed, but there is no need to interject an intelligence behind the design given the evidence we have so far compiled. Hypothesizing that there might be evidence yet that would be indicative of some kind of intervention in the development of life, is also scientific. However, where ID gets into difficulty is in the details of the intervention. In order for it to succesfully create an explanatory framework (and find itself with a theory) it will need to explain how this entity interacts with life, and then seek evidence of that form of interaction. Without this kind of investigation, ID can continue hypothesizing about things for eternity, but saying 'The intelligent designer did it in some undetectable manner' is using the old theological wording of 'I don't know' and replacing God with intelligent designer. So here's the rub - the concept of seeking intelligent design can be a scientific endevour, but as it stands ID is a political movement, with a lot of 'God did its' (but without trying to use the word God). What science they have produced has been shown to be good looking but basically falsified. SETI is scientific because we know it is possible to employ the EM spectrum in a manner conducive to communication. Such communication might be undetectable to us, but it probably has significantly different characteristics from the rest of the noise out there, so we are more than likely going to be able to detect it if we receive it. Life poses an inherent difficulty to us. Since we don't have a massive sea of known undesigned life (noise) there is no way for us to compare it to life on earth to see if it has characteristics of known designed life (Which we unfortunately lack too). This is the big gap between SETI and ID, and ID suffers for it. Hearkening back to the topic for a moment (and I don't know if that has been included in the context of the SETI/ID discussion) but I think Macneil has an interesting point to make about the Cornell seminars:
Allen MacNeill writes:
...by studying what I believe to be a flawed attempt at identifying and quantifying design or purpose in nature, we may be able to do a better job of it. Clearly, there are purposeful entities capable of “intelligent design” in the universe: I am one and I infer that you are another. There are also objects and processes that clearly are not: the air we are both currently breathing clearly fall into this class. As a scientist committed to naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, it is clear to me that there must be some way of discerning between these two classes of objects and processes, as both of them are clearly “natural.” Therefore, we will use several approaches to the identification and explanation of design and purpose to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But the choices are known. And all are religious. Totally immaterial and only an incorrect assertion.
Something can be a scienfic pursuit before it finds any evidence of what it is pursuing. Abiogenesis and SETI spring to mind. Would you agree? No I would not. SETI KNOWS that what it is searching for exists. We can look around and see it here on earth. SETI is looking for a known. Abiogenesis is somewhat different. But it too is looking for a known, the FACTs are that life exists and that when we look at the EVIDENCE early life was simpler than current life. We also know that the earth is younger than the Universe, so that there was a time when there was no life on earth. Based on the EVIDENCE it is a reasonable assumption that there was some beginning to life here on earth. What is missing from ID is any idea of what should be looked for. In addition, it starts with a totally unsupported assertion, one where there is NO evidence, that there is a designer. Until ID can provide some evidence to support the assertion that there is a Designer it's just another crackpot religion. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I don't think that my questions need rephrasing - they accurately express the issues I want you to address.
The backbone of SETI is the idea that there may be other life, like us, somewhere lese in the universe. You have claimed that this is religious on grounds that would appear to apply equally well to earthly life (you claim that all possible origins for life are religious in nature and therefore the only non-religious position is that there is no other life elsewhere). Hence the request for clarification, and the form of that request.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If the foundation of your science is not scientific and this is immaterial then ID can have a slice of the cake too. Why do you say assertion? The only two shows in town that I know of for how life arose are naturalistic and creator originated. Both are religious.
SETI KNOWS that what it is searching for exists. We can look around and see it here on earth. SETI is looking for a known. SETI is looking for ETI and it doesn't know it exists. It has no reason suppose it exists other than on one or other religious ground. You are attempting to suspend the science in mid-air when the scientists themselves have already told us of their religious reasons for doing as they do.
Abiogenesis is somewhat different. But it too is looking for a known, the FACTs are that life exists and that when we look at the EVIDENCE early life was simpler than current life. We also know that the earth is younger than the Universe, so that there was a time when there was no life on earth. Based on the EVIDENCE it is a reasonable assumption that there was some beginning to life here on earth. Abiogenesis is looking for a naturalistic explanation for life arising. This is religion and the very title of doctrine tells us to what religion it belongs.
What is missing from ID is any idea of what should be looked for. In addition, it starts with a totally unsupported assertion, one where there is NO evidence, that there is a designer. What is being looked for is evidence of intelligent design. Design markers would be one area which would give some (even if only partial, theory building) evidence of intelligence at work. This wouldn't demolish ToE, it would just advance ID a notch My argument that SETI and Abi sail in the same vessel as ID is given above
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
iano writes: ...if it were based on the fact the life arose on earth due to conditions on earth. But that foundational fact hasn't been established. Yes it has. We are here aren't we? However it happened, life arose on Earth and here we are. Are you seriously arguing that we can't assume that other life might exist because, in fact, WE don't exist?
iano writes: Now as I have said repeatedly if you want ID to become science then you'll have to identify a creator. Until you do that you are arguing from ignorance. Msg 106 is for you too. Msg 106 contains no answers, just more dodges. Can you show me a creator, or at least postulate a manner in which we can try to find him? -------------------------------------- Oh and seeing you missed my post No 104 I thought I'd repost it here..
iano writes: Before you can begin a search for ETI you must show it can exist. It can! WE (humanity) are a living demonstration of that fact!! In this solar system a planet has been able to support life to the extent that its civilisations have developed communication systems based on electromagnetic radiation. It might have happened elsewhere. This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 12:37 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024