Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 106 of 168 (307007)
04-27-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
04-27-2006 9:31 AM


Ready, SETI, Stop.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 04-27-2006 9:31 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 04-27-2006 11:11 AM iano has replied
 Message 120 by RickJB, posted 04-27-2006 12:23 PM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 107 of 168 (307009)
04-27-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by RickJB
04-27-2006 9:38 AM


Ready, SETI, Stop.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RickJB, posted 04-27-2006 9:38 AM RickJB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by nator, posted 04-27-2006 4:50 PM iano has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 108 of 168 (307013)
04-27-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by iano
04-27-2006 10:43 AM


Re: Ready, SETI, Stop.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 10:43 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 11:27 AM jar has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 109 of 168 (307019)
04-27-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by jar
04-27-2006 11:11 AM


Pulling rabbits from hats
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 04-27-2006 11:11 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 04-27-2006 11:39 AM iano has replied
 Message 116 by Modulous, posted 04-27-2006 12:02 PM iano has not replied
 Message 125 by RickJB, posted 04-27-2006 12:50 PM iano has replied
 Message 156 by nator, posted 04-27-2006 4:55 PM iano has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 110 of 168 (307021)
04-27-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ramoss
04-26-2006 8:17 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ramoss, posted 04-26-2006 8:17 PM ramoss has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 111 of 168 (307025)
04-27-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by iano
04-27-2006 11:27 AM


Re: Pulling rabbits from hats
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 11:27 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 11:45 AM jar has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 112 of 168 (307027)
04-27-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
04-27-2006 11:39 AM


Re: Pulling rabbits from hats
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 04-27-2006 11:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2006 11:53 AM iano has replied
 Message 117 by jar, posted 04-27-2006 12:03 PM iano has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 113 of 168 (307029)
04-27-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by iano
04-27-2006 11:45 AM


Re: Pulling rabbits from hats
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 11:45 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 12:01 PM PaulK has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 114 of 168 (307031)
04-27-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ramoss
04-26-2006 8:17 PM


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 randomness
and 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ramoss, posted 04-26-2006 8:17 PM ramoss has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 115 of 168 (307032)
04-27-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by PaulK
04-27-2006 11:53 AM


Making things clearer?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2006 11:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2006 12:11 PM iano has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 116 of 168 (307034)
04-27-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by iano
04-27-2006 11:27 AM


Re: Pulling rabbits from hats
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 11:27 AM iano has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 117 of 168 (307035)
04-27-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by iano
04-27-2006 11:45 AM


Re: Pulling rabbits from hats
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 11:45 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 12:23 PM jar has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 118 of 168 (307036)
04-27-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by iano
04-27-2006 12:01 PM


Re: Making things clearer?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 12:01 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 12:44 PM PaulK has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 119 of 168 (307039)
04-27-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jar
04-27-2006 12:03 PM


Is science suspended on thin air actually science?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 04-27-2006 12:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Chronos, posted 04-27-2006 12:33 PM iano has replied
 Message 122 by jar, posted 04-27-2006 12:42 PM iano has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4991 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 120 of 168 (307040)
04-27-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by iano
04-27-2006 10:43 AM


Re: Ready, SETI, Stop.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 10:43 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 12:48 PM RickJB 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