Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(9)
Message 96 of 358 (645743)
12-29-2011 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 12:12 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Sigh....
Yeah I agree, but fortunately, ID is science and does not involve religion.
Not if it doesn't follow the scientific method it isn't. And ID is dead in the water at the starting gate. Intelligent Design ASSUMES an acting intelligence from the get go....therefore not science.
Scientific method:
1. Gather real world data (such as fossils, or DNA molecular markers).
2. Hypothesise re trends in said data (such as postulating the ToE)
3. Look for corroborating evidence in multi-buttressing fields (such as lake varves, dendrochronology, population distributions, plate tectonics)
4. Look for ways in which the hypothesis can be FALSIFIED. Hint Dawn - if you can't falsify a hypothesis you are NOT doing science - it is even more important to be able to say what a hypothesis CAN'T do than what it can.
5. Subject to repeated confirmation of positive evidence in favour of point 3 and complete lack of falsification evidence for point 4 - tentatively accept the hypothesis ....which then moves ever more confidently from 'hypothesis' to 'theory' - yes a scientific 'theory' is the most powerful and accepted model in science....despite moronic creationist bleats of "But it's only a theory!" Next time I hear that lament, I'll tell the fool to jump off the Sydney Harbour Bridge - after all the 'theory of gravity' can't kill - it's only a theory after all......duh !
So - to get your ID in the science class room you need to demonstrate ALL the scientific methodology has been followed.....so:
1. Gather real world data.....Care to tell me exactly what real world data has been collected? In the Dover trial (which Trixie rightly comments you clearly haven't followed), ID's flagship 'scientist' Michael Behe, was forced to admit under oath that he hadn't read the 58 plus peer-reviewed journals on the evolution of the immune system which he said didn't exist !!! When your flagship ID scientist can't even gather real world data at the outset of a claim then your case is done for!
2. What is the actual model of ID? What exactly does it postulate? Is it a simple moronic "God did it!" and nothing else...no moving parts to analyse?
3. What corroborating evidence backs up the cry of a designer?
4. The killer strike... how can ID be falsified? If you can't falsify ID then it doesn't get as far as the science classroom door....sorry! Science hypotheses HAVE to be falsifiable - it is an integral and definitive part of the scientific method. So come on Dawn - humour me - how can your ID be falsifiable?
5. We don't get this far with ID - as there is no real world data, no corroborating evidence from alternative sources, no ability to falsify....it means that there is nothing to work with other than a fairy-tale (I won't even dignify it with the respectable word 'hypothesis').
Don't you even feel slightly cheated by your creationist masters that they just overwrote the words 'creationism' with 'design proponents' (confirmed by their hilarious word-mix and forever enshrining their dishonesty)? Surely some small rational part of you must be thinking....this is just a con!
For that is what it is ...................

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:12 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 12:51 AM Drosophilla has replied
 Message 99 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 12:56 AM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 101 of 358 (645794)
12-30-2011 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2011 12:51 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
The data gathered by ID and that gathered by Evolution, is essentially the same.
How exactly does the real world data point to an intelligent guiding hand?
Even if the TOE were true, it still exhibits law and order
How does a natural 'law' necessarily lead to intelligence?
BTW, Mr Behe is responsible for his conclusions, concerning the things he asserts, not me
In this instance you misidentified the flag ship
If you are putting yourself forward as ID's 'flagship' then it is in even more trouble than I thought !!
Would you like to put forward any other 'scientist' as ID's flagship? We are talking about science here are we not?
It gathers data in an investigation of natural processes. By doing this over and over, with thousands and thousands of examples and species and properties, it identifies a definate pattern in the form of order and consistency
What would you offer to insist that our methods and conclusions are different in this instance
Falsifiability - as I've already stated. There are millions of fossils in hundreds of strata. The ToE makes a very precise prediction - if even one fossil is found in a strata not predicated by the ToE then the theory is utterly destroyed. For example (to quote the famous biologist J B S Haldane) fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, or trilobites in the Pilocene.
Or you could pick on adaptive features. The ToE makes another very precise prediction. No new features will suddenly spring up in a line where ancestors have no such precursers. A good example is the squid/octopus's correctly wired eyes (optic nerves entering from the back of the retina and not obscurring the photocells unlike all the vertebrate lines). If a lion or human was suddenly found to have an 'octopus' wired eye this would be shattering for the ToE.
Saddly for the creationists despite millions of real world animals and fossils, not a single falsification has ever been achieved....the theory passes with flying colours.
Care now to tell me how I can falsify your ID? You glibly passed over that request in your reply.....I wonder why? If you can't give me real world falsification (that I can go out and do today in the real world) then please have the grace to admit you are not doing science and ID should be kept where it belongs....in a religious class.
I can see both change and order, can you? I can see that our methods are exactly the same, can you?
Human perceptions are not worth a damn - google 'gorilla and basketball' and get your friends to count the number of passes done by the white team. More than 90% will not even see the gorilla walk across the screen. Humans have a limited perception of the world they inhabit - that's why we used to think the world was flat and the sun went round the earth - that's what human perception and innate logic indicates....but as we know it is wrong.....and that is why we have..........drum roll please.......SCIENCE.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 12:51 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 4:56 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(8)
Message 126 of 358 (645947)
12-31-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 4:56 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Pay close attention to the next statment D. How does TOE point to the conclusion of Soley natural causes.
Suggest you try to pay even closer attention DB. The Universe is full of 'events' taking place. Nothing has ever been demonstrated to 'need' either a creator or intelligence. As Jar has frequently tried to drum through your thick skull - "There is evidence of natural events taking place - there is no evidence of a guiding hand behind them." To postulate that there is needs evidence for which there is none (except in the fairytale world known as "The World According To Dawn henceforth referred to as TWAT'D).
Why does the TOE get to qualify as science, in the form of an investigation, when it openly acknowledges that it does not investigate the question of Why? Who in thier right mind would think that after an examination and explanation of the present natural world, then getting to the question of its origins, exclaim, we are not concern with that aspect.
No science deals with that 'why' question you halfwit. By your reckoning gravity doesn't exist (as we don't know the why of gravity), quantum mechanics doesn't exist (there's so much 'why' missing in QM it doesn't even make sense except to cosmological mathematicians) and electromagnetism doesn't exist as the why of an electromagnetic field is another puzzler. So my friend if you dismiss the ToE on a 'why' basis then you need to dismiss virtually all science. TWAT'D must be a land of cave-dwelling morons!
It also makes the TOE unfalsifiable. If not why not?
Are you a complete moron or do you just work very hard at it - congrats if you do - you pull it off to great effect!!
You can falsify any premise that makes specific predications - which the ToE does - I've even graciously told you how - have you started chipping away at geological strata yet for those Precambrian rabbits?
What you can't falsify are vague nonsense dribbles about nothing specific....like ....ID.
You are aware that the ToE says nothing about the origins of the universe (that's cosmology) and nothing about the start of life on this planet (try organic chemistry). So you can't start burbling about the ToE until you look at progressive change in organisms that have lived on this planet - for that is what the ToE is about (and NOTHING else).
Forget your burbling rambling nonsense about 'the why of things'; you are going into the realm of philosophy not science with that. And remember - the subject here is why the ToE should be taught in a science classroom and ID thrown into a religious classes where it belongs.
Repeating that evolution is just a study of the natural world, does not explain why any thinking person would consider it an actual, complete rational explanation of anything, except how for example, a tree works
If you think that evolution explains how a tree works no wonder you are having trouble understanding the ToE. How a tree works is covered in the subject of plant physiology - a subject I studied for 3 years at Uni. Would you like to try again? In fact I'd like you to take a stab at providing some wording for what you think the ToE actually is about. - I'd love to know what the ToE has been morphed into in TWAT'D.
Now to your direct question. ID or the process of ID points to the conclusion of a Designer, because it tenets are just like those practiced by the SM, its a detailed investigation, like the SM, into the natural world.
If its not you should be able to point to something that the the SM discovers and that we cannot see in our same approach. In the same way. If my method of investgation, from a biological standpoint is not science, then you should be able to point out why I do not see order, law or pupose
Oh that is so easy Dawn. The ToE predicts the Linnaean tree of life - the taxonomic ordering that we see: Kingdom--->Phylum--->Class--->Order--->Genus--->Species. Across the whole plant, animal and bacterial gamut of species the arrangement is both predicted and born out by observation according to the ToE. But it's not predicted by ID - if fact the opposite should be true.
When General Motors first made airbags for cars in the 1970's, in a very short while all makes had them. When Toyota first designed steering locks - soon all cars had them. When antilock braking systems were developed in 1929 for aircraft - they didn't stay just on aircraft. An intelligent designer doesn't limit good inventions to limited lines - only a fool would do that (or maybe an engineer in TWAT'D).
However evolution can't do that. It can only adapt what goes before and cannot use great ideas from other lines (the octopus eye, remember?!). And that is what the Linnaean tree (from the real world not the TWAT'D one) shows. In other words - real evidence from the real world that you can really study....shows the ToE is correct and ID is.....shit !
Any serious investigation will be able to see two simple things on both sides harmony and order, change, adaptation and Natural Selection.
You really shouldn't use phrases like Natural Selection when it's obvious you have no working knowledge about it. Or what does NS mean in the TWAT'D?
Any serious investigation will be able to see two simple things on both sides harmony and order, change, adaptation and Natural Selection.
No it doesn't. I've already told you that science doesn't involve itself in the 'why' of things. That's philosophy....and we are doing science remember. It's a bit rich you asking people to pay close attention when you patently have no attention whatsoever.
Unless you are prepared to demonstrate why say for example, any valid, biological examination, should make me, not see the results of order, the same way you discover change, in the natural world
It's not about seeing order. Order is easy to achieve. Look at any snowflake for example. What is the bigger question is "Is there evidence of a guiding hand behind this?" And it keeps coming back to "No - there isn't". All natural phenomena can be explained by purely natural processes requiring no input from anything 'intelligent'. Just because you like the idea of a God, doesn't mean there's evidence for it ....my very simple friend.
Your mixing oranges with apples. Stick to the methodS first, then we can discuss conclusions later
Like you mixing philosophy with science you mean?
My simple friend. ID like the SM, is an approach to the natural world. Its flagship is reason, order, consistency, harmony, law and purpose. If I need someone like you do to back up my every word, then I dont have a leg to stand on do I
If ID is like SM it will make specific predictions. What are they please? And as for not having a leg to stand on - finally a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. If all your thoughts are just from Dawn then we really do live in TWAT'D don't we?
My simple friend you are still representing creationism as an opposition to evolution. They are not directly related. Your confusing, IDs process with its conclusions. Your comparing your process with my conclusion.
What you need to do, my nice, but simple friend is compare your SM, with IDs scientific approach initially, then the conclusions of each can be discussed at another point
You are comparing your method with my conclusion. Your conclusion of the TOE (Why),is the same as my conclusion in ID, we dont know absolutely. So if ID is not falsifiable, then neither is the TOE, because it must include why, to be a valid investigation. If it does not then it is neither falsifiable or science. Which horn of the delimma do you want
Both of our methods, which are scientific in approach, support our respective conclusions, even if they are not provable. Therefore ID and creationism have nothing to do with religion and both should be taught in the science classroom as plausible explanations of the Hown and Why
Long-winded way of saying "I haven't got a clue about how to give you something to falsify in ID therefore I'll do a bit of word salad (the usual DB default condition).
Man Im good
Only in TWAT'D.
If you can falsify the TOEs process or immediate conclusions, then it would follow you can falsify the immediate conclusions of the ID approach
You haven't given us any SPECIFIC predictions to falsify, remember. I've given you very specific ToE predictions....you can't even give me one....loser!
Here is a simple question. Does it appear that law and order exist in the universe and our world. Upon even closer scientific experimental examination in a biological approach it becomes even clearer doesnt it that those properties exist
For the umpteenth time....the question is not whether there are 'laws' or 'order' - but whether there is evidence of a guiding hand. Surely you are not so dumb as to think that just because scientists use the word 'laws' it must mean an intelligence because human 'laws' are obviously made by intelligent beings? The label 'laws' are used to describe processes following regimented processes that can be empirically assessed. It does not mean they must be 'under control of intelligence'. Please tell me you are not that dumb.
Confirming the immediate tenets of the TOE, is not the same as falsifyiing its far reaching and ultimate conclusions, which must be a part of the scientific investigation to make it valid as science to begin with.
I would LOVE you to lay down the tenets of the ToE for me please. I'd love to know what mishmash lies in that head of yours regarding the ToE.
Anyone can see change, natural selection and adaptation, who cares, I can do the samething with my scientific approach coming to your same conclusions
Scientists care - they care about the 'how' questions remember. That is science - that is what goes on in the science classrooms. ID doesn't care 'how' God did it.....it just happened....not science so ID can just fuck off and find some RE class to infest instead. If you want ID in science it has to answer the 'how' questions. Got any idea how it can do that?
What we need is the real results of the TOE,not only How but Why
Sorry - you are fucking about with philosophy with the 'why' question. Get to the philosophy class for that.
Your problems are immediatate and simple
Actually your problem is acute and critical. Jar said it perfectly - "There is evidence of naturally occurring phenomena. There is no evidence of a supernatural one."
And in addition I'm adding "And you can provide no SPECIFIC predictions for ID or any way of real world FALSIFIABILITY. In a nutshell you're TWAT'D.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 4:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 9:46 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 132 of 358 (646030)
01-02-2012 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2012 9:46 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Jar, like yourself understands very little about reasoning. Jar likes to play with words to indicate he has evidence that he does not. Let me demonstrate. If there is actual "evidence" of soley natural causes, then he would be able to not only explain but demonstrate the things which you describe below.
Since he cannot for example explain why sub-atomic particles come into existence, seemingly from nowhere, it follows logically that he does not understand how this process takes place. If he assumes/it they come from nowhere verses somewhere, then he needs to demostrate that to know its soley natural causes. Since he cannot, it should be obvious to even the simplest of minds, like you and Jar, he does not have and there are actually no evidences of natural causes. Is the light bulb, starting to come on?
It's obvious to anyone of intelligence that you don't even have a light bulb to 'come on' in the first place.
When we say there is no evidence of anything happening by supernatural means we mean exactly that. Only a halfwit would consider including a term for which there is no evidence (Laplace (mathematician) said this long ago to Napoleon.
It's like you saying to me "I've been on holiday to Africa. Look here is the evidence - my stamped passport, my holiday safari snaps, my African carved wooden animals". Then I say to you "Well I don't believe that you only went to Africa because you could have gone to the North Pole instead - but are hiding the evidence of that visit to me".
You would rightly think me an idiot - just like all on here think to your stance. There really is no need to make reference to that for which there is no evidence.
Really, thanks, I didnt know that. Your a swift one arent you son, cant slip anything by you can we? Ironically its you that is suggesting that science is not really science. If you suggest that science follows certain rules, then that same process cannot adhere to its own principles, it either has a faulty definition of science or it is not science. You might recognize this, its called simple reasoning, if you missed it
I know you didn't know that - which is why I kindly helped you out. Seems it is just a case of casting pearls before swine though.
Really - science does just deal with the 'why'. That is the essence of what science is about and if you'd taken even a simple low-brow intro to any science discipline it would have been one of the first things you learnt.
Hint: You don't get to make up shit about things just because it suits life in TWAT'D.
Its first mistake, it to assume that its investigative process, does not need to involve questions of origins. Instead of just repeating yourself on this point and reminding what you have decided the SM involves and should do, just show me in logical form why it shouldnt include origins or orgination processes
It's first mistake? ROTFLAMAO! Would you like to compare human knowledge and technical advancement two thousand years ago compared to now? Those ignorant bronze age shepherds would cower in terror at our jumbo jets, skyscrapers, computers and space shuttles. How the fuck do you think that came about? Try the powerful discipline of the scientific method.
I repeat...to live in TWAT'D would mean we'd still be fucking about in animal skins and herding goats for a living.
Either the SM excludes requirments for themself they require for someomne else or they dont understand why exluding this process in any valid investigation is not logical
For the umpteenth time....science ONLY deals with that which can be evidenced. By the way you are a fluent liar. I have never asked you to provide a type of evidence which science cannot. I have asked you to provide REAL WORLD evidence of your intelligent being - something that can be properly and PHYSICALLY investigated (you know....like geological strata and fossil distribution, or genetic markers). You repeatedly give me nothing but words.
Not a single piece of real world evidence. Like that imaginary visit to the north pole above....it doesn't exist except in that marvellous world of TWAT'D.
Where did I ever say the SM was not science? What I said and to this point you still have not given it anything but Lipservice. Is that you cannot dismiss the obligation from the SM, that suggests that when conducting an investigation that it has no obligation to understand why after, you discover How.
You do realise that your wish to rewrite the definition of the scientific method doesn't mean it should happen do you? The SM has done fine so far sunshine. I've still to see your stupid God put men on the moon. The issue here is what should be taught in science classes so that the next generation of youngsters continue to advance the condition of the human species. And ID would rapidly corrode science - it would teach that 'actually the great designer did all and science doesn't count for jack shit', when in fact science has made us dominant on our planet - and who knows where else in future. The SM doesn't need your stupid God hypothesis - it does just fine without it - and always has.
Ascribing, assigning or relegating it to the area of Philosophy does not help you
What do you think the discipline of philosophy is about? Its preserve is exactly that for which the answers to questions cannot be evidenced in the way that the SM uses evidence. The big 'why' of things is classic philosophy - seems you never took a philosophy class to add to the fact you clearly never took a science class.....one wonders what you did do at school!
And without even trying you demonstrate not only what I am saying, but with all the gaul you can muster Mr, you ignorantly claim that the TOE, which is an investigation and involes the SM, does not involve logical conclusions of its consequences, in the form of origins
This is like saying "I'm going to investigate how the latest Airbus has been developed, and you saying "Ah but you must first investigate hot air balloons because they flew first. And then you have to investigate birds because they flew before them....and then...."
Utterly irrelevant! The ToE is a theory ABOUT change in species. It is NOT about how life originated (abiogenesis - or the study of organic chemistry). Please please go read up about evolution before you try debating something for which you obviously know fuck all. A good into text for you would be Dawkings’ "The Greatest Show on Earth".
Philosophy in reality cannot be disassociated from any valid investigation of the natural world.
Oh yes it can my ignorant friend. The SM has successfully been 'disassociated' from philosophy for the past 2000 plus years - and look where we are now! Again, your assertions from the land of TWAT'D have absolutely no validity in the real world.
Here's a little test for you. How many books are out there describing the SM as it really is compared with how many describing it as DB thinks it is. (clue: the first way numbers books in the millions - the second? Cough, cough - care to submit the first draft of the first book describing your take on the SM - lets see how long it takes to publish - ah yes.....it's the great scientific conspiracy...Dawn's book wouldn't get published because they are all frightened of the work of this obvious maverick genius!!!
I believe this is called an investigation, correct? Its also an investigation thats stops short of all it should include
Only in your uniformed opinion. Does it not worry you that millions of scientists throughout the world completely disagree with TWAT'D? There are a couple of words applicable to people who think their view is correct when the vast bulk of the world think otherwise....paranoid delusionists.
Thats easy. Please describe the TOE in other words that do not mean Investigation
Areshole! I asked YOU to describe YOUR understanding of the ToE not for YOU to ask ME to do it (and asking me to do it to YOUR specifications for fuck's sake!).
I'll take this as another task you can't do.
As I have already demonstrated, he is not even rational on that point. We will call it the Jar syndrome, that is obth illogical and irrational, as I have demonstrated with stinging accuracy
Well the 'Jar syndrome' as you put it happens to be in accord with the SM - you DON'T invent terms for which there is NO evidence. The God term has NO evidence therefore completely not needed by the SM.
And despite protestations from those who inhabit TWAT'D, science has made us the species we now are..... only those paranoid delusionists like you think otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 9:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-03-2012 1:53 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 147 of 358 (646104)
01-03-2012 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
01-03-2012 1:53 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
To get your ID in the science classrooms it all comes down to one thing:
What REAL WORLD processes for ID can be studied for ID to qualify as a scientific subject qualifying for the scientific method?
I have given you examples of processes studied under the ToE - such as fossil sequencing, DNA markers, animal population distributions.
What are you giving back from ID SPECIFICALLY that can be studied. Until you do that ID is nothing but useless words that do not belong in a science class.
It really is that simple !!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-03-2012 1:53 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 12:59 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 185 of 358 (646308)
01-04-2012 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
OK then let's picture the following scene:
A science classroom with the ToE and ID both on the agenda.
The teacher looks at his watch and says:
"OK students. We have 2 hours and we are going to look at the ToE and ID today. During the first hour we are going to look at the fossil record and the geological strata and refer this to the Linnaean Tree of Life. I would then like you to make some conclusions from this data. Then in the second hour we are going to ************"
The first hour will undoubtedly lead to a conclusion of the ToE from the evidence studied....so what is the teacher doing in the second hour where ID 'fight's back'? Specifically, what are the words the teacher is going to say to the class?
If you want ID in a science class you have to go the whole hog - you can't just dream up your ideal world here on this forum - you need now to instruct the teachers on what they actually have to do with the pupils? What are they going to study? It can't be the material above - because that will inevitably lead to a conclusion that the ToE is correct - you need to provide more evidence to the contrary and this has to be done in a REAL classroom with a REAL teacher.
What is that teacher going to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 12:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 12:34 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(7)
Message 217 of 358 (646639)
01-05-2012 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot
01-05-2012 12:34 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
So your goal here is to compare your Process with my Conclusion, not compare your Process with my Process.
So right off the bat we have etablished a prejudice in the kids minds that shouldnt eixst.
So the first 15 minutes should be spent explaining to the class the difference between a process and a conclusion. That if we want to be exact. You do want to be exact as a science teacher, correct Droso?
Might have known I wouldn't have got a straight answer from you - just your usual word salad - so I'm going to back up and do a 'Janet and John' idiot's guide to classroom teaching (yes, I used to be a school science teacher in the mid 1980s).
Teacher: Ok pupils - today in our science class we are going to look at two competing hypotheses for how life on Earth has got to where it is.
Note that I’ve demoted the theory of evolution here - not the ToE now but the HoE - hypothesis of evolution along with HoID - hypothesis of intelligent design. (because students new to a hypothesis must see it as a hypothesis and not a conclusion - I'm sure you knew this is what is done in science classes).
The next thing is to identify the two hypotheses and point out they are mutually incompatible - which they are. Either life has developed under blind non-intelligent means or it is the result of intelligent guidance. There is no third alternative and the two hypotheses are mutually exclusive.
The teacher would then stimulate the pupils by asking them what sort of things you could expect as predictions by the two hypotheses concerning the organisation of life on the planet. The two hypotheses make very different predications.
For example, blind evolution predicts that no new features should be able to 'jump' lines. If it did that would be strong evidence against the HoE. On the other hand there is no reason that this should be so with the HoID. In fact the reverse should be true. If an intelligent designer discovers a new feature of worth, there should be no good reason to limit it to a single line (humans are defined as intelligent designers and we certainly don't do that)
Another prediction of the HoE would be that species would be graded in geological strata according to when blind evolution forms them. If a species came about by evolution in say the Carboniferous era then it could not be found in the earlier Devonian period for example. To find otherwise would blow the hypothesis out of the water.
The teacher would then explain that the process of validifying the hypotheses must (because this is a science class remember) be based purely on real world evidence and not the random thoughts of what could be possible. The pupils are taught in science that only real world evidence has any bearing on turning a hypothesis to the more powerful theory.
They would be stimulated for suggestions about what real world evidence can validify the two competing hypotheses - remembering we are trying to work out how the life on earth has progressed from the past to the present.
If they are an imaginative lot they will realise that evidence that gives a handle on life processes on this planet will be key. They could come up with (for example)
The fossil record
DNA analysis in living species
Species population distribution
Then the pupils would go on to study these and would be encouraged to formulate their response to the two hypotheses on offer - giving reasons for their findings.
By the way - this method of teaching science (i.e. by personal discovery rather than by rote memorisation of facts given by teachers) is known in the UK as the Nuffield Foundation method of science teaching. It places emphasis on the process of learning the scientific method rather than rote memorisation that many of the examining boards were doing prior to the early 1970s.
My university dissertation was an investigation in 1982 into biological science teaching and examination across the 'O' levels offered by the major examination boards and the Nuffield Foundation - to see if Nuffield was living up to its promise that at least 50% of the marks in exams would be gained by deductive scientific reasoning rather than rote memory (it indeed was - and the other boards without exception were 90% plus rote memory type questions). Interesting stuff! I checked 5 years worth and by the end the other exam boards were beginning to emulate Nuffield - but still well behind them. My dissertation is in the Department of Education in the University of Hull if you are interested enough to check it out. You would probably remark that this is a ‘snooze fest’ which seems to be your stock answer for anything that is scientifically involved or technical — which I guess goes a long way to explain why you have no working knowledge of what constitutes science in the first place.
Discussion and evaluation of the findings and a final conclusion will lead to one hypothesis being tentatively accepted based on the evidence discussed and the other rejected - because they are mutually exclusive remember.
I'll leave it to you to work out which would 'fail'.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 12:34 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-06-2012 9:14 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 231 of 358 (646973)
01-07-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Dawn Bertot
01-06-2012 9:14 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Droso, show that the tenetsof the processes are mutually exclusive, not the finnding of the methods, or the conclusions. Then you will have started on a process that demonstrates IDs process as invalid and non-scientific
You can start this by dismissing this obsession you have that the positions are mutually exclusive. After all, processes are just processes, correct? First things first
Indeed - first things first. The whole business about ID and the ToE has come about because creationists want ID taught as an alternative 'theory/hypotheses' to evolution by mutation and natural selection. That is why the Wedge Strategy was formulated when creationists failed legally to get straight 'creationism' taught in science classes. They 'invented' ID to try and get a respectable scientific 'face' on creationism so it could go head to head in science classes.
Despite your protestations to the contrary, the theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection is the antithesis of Intelligent Design - they couldn't be more different if you tried.
I am going to unpick your word salad as best I can (not easy when you refuse to use the ABC of the English language - Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity). I want to ask you in simple statements if I have got your take on this issue correct - because it's pointless me trying to debate you when I really have little idea of what you are saying - because so much of your writing is obscure to say the least.
My position is:
There are two mutually incompatible positions regarding progression of life on Earth:
1. Life has progressed by blind unguided processes not under any intelligent control at all
2. Life has been guided by an intelligent designer.
Do you agree that even if the ToE were true, it would not mean that it was not designed or created to exist and thrive in the environment you are witnessing? Or at least from a logical format show why that does not follow, concerning the two propositions
Are you saying here that you entertain a third and/or fourth possibility? Such as:
3. Even if the process is unguided - there could be an intelligent designer who might have just decided not to get involved and let blind unguided processes take precedence
4. The Intelligent Designer may have guided the processes of life on earth in such a way as to emulate a blind unguided process.
Are you subscribing to either or both of points 3 and 4 above - or do you wish to make another of your own? If you wish to make one of your own it should easily be stated in less than two lines of text as I have done above.
Please use the ABC principle of language communication as I have done above. There are 4 possibilities stated - each no more than a line long -each easily understood by anyone of (say) early teenage years (those we are teaching remember).
I need to clarify EXACTLY what you mean before this debate can progress in a meaningful way for either of us. There is little point in me having to guess all the time what you mean.
I would far rather have short sentences and shortish posts than a dozen paragraphs of exuberant verbosity!
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-06-2012 9:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-08-2012 8:14 AM Drosophilla has replied
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2012 10:38 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(3)
Message 251 of 358 (647530)
01-10-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dawn Bertot
01-08-2012 8:14 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Drosophilla: I would far rather have short sentences and shortish posts than a dozen paragraphs of exuberant verbosity!
DB: Ill give it a shot, its not always easy
No shit Sherlock!
When long-winded posts become your norm one is led to suspect that smoke and mirrors are being used to disguise the actual content of your posts.
So to your roots:
You go on and on about Law and Purpose in the observable universe' as that is some crowning definitive point. Actually human observation (without detailed examination) is worth diddly squat:
The world 'looks' on observation to be flat - detailed study shows this is nonsense
The sun looks on observation to go round the Earth - detailed study shows this to be nonsense.
The stars in the sky look on observation to be uniformly at the same distance (the ancients thought the night sky had 'holes' in it and the firmament was shining through the holes') - detailed study shows this is nonsense.
Matter looks on observation to be solid and can only be in one place at once - detailed study shows this to be nonsense....
had enough yet?
You CANNOT declare by fiat that things are as they are because they are observed to be so. That was the position of the Church in times gone by - and partly explains why we had the Dark Ages.
So your whole idea of the Tol.O.P is fundamentally flawed from the get go - because you are using an observation not backed up by experimental evidence.
Now onto the subject of Intelligent Design. Anyone with even a small understanding of biological systems knows that 'life on Earth' is the epitome of non-intelligent design. Life-forms abound with jury-rigged sub-optimal (even dangerous adaptions - why have one pipe for both eating and breathing so allowing a choking option).
This isn't the thread to start examples of non-intelligent design in Life on Earth - there are such threads on here (e.g. Recurrent Laryngeal nerve), but any biologist will tell you that if Life on Earth had been designed by an intelligence then that intelligence should have his licence revoked for engineering stupidity.
The point is that life on earth points to a non-intelligent design view NOT one of intelligence - and THAT is what any student studying biology would be FORCED to come to (forced by the weight of REAL WORLD evidence that is.
All you could say about ID in the science classroom would be a short paragraph as follows:
"Dear pupils - although there LOOKS to be order and purpose in the life forms of this planet, detailed science studies in many fields from cosmology to geology, shows that in fact this viewpoint should be taken with extreme caution.
If there is an intelligent designer that will be apparent in the way in which life is arranged on this planet. We will now look at REAL WORLD evidence to see in fact whether there is evidence for a designer or of blind processes. It can only be one or the other....what predictions do you make pupils?"
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-08-2012 8:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:20 AM Drosophilla has replied
 Message 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:23 AM Drosophilla has not replied
 Message 262 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2012 2:11 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 269 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:41 AM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(3)
Message 264 of 358 (647651)
01-10-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 8:20 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Wow - a short post - you are to be congratulated!!
Since this is not what men like francis Collins do, it would follow that your contention is nonsense
I'll let you read GM's post to see how you got this one wrong!
To repeat - your 'hypothesis' is based solely upon your 'armchair observations' that you 'think' there is law, order and purpose in this world/universe.
But I've already easily demonstrated that casual observation is worthless...here's another one. People in the northern hemisphere usually assume that the earth is closest to the sun in June....by the casual observation that it is warm and the days are long in June.....but detailed investigation shows this is nonsense. The sun is at perihelion (closest approach to the sun) is (in our modern times) around 3rd January.
You CAN'T declare by fiat that something you THINK you have observed MUST be so. You HAVE to use multi-buttressing observational and experimental lines of enquiry.
We still have flat-earthers today believe it or not. Stupid really, since they obviously have never travelled. If the sun really did go around the flat earth - how do they explain the 6 months dark and light seasons at the poles? This is an example of investigative lines of enquiry. The flat earth is removed by a series of multi-buttressing observations such as:
1. Seasons at poles and successively lower latitudes not matching a 'sun going round earth' scenario.
2. Precession of planets - observed by sudden retrograde motions of the outer planets - this causes huge celestial orbital problems if earth really is at the centre of the system - but not if the sun is!!
3. Ships coming from the horizon look is if they are coming up out of the sea - masts first etc - if the world was flat they should just appear whole and intact - this is evidence of earth curvature.
4. Lunar eclipses. As the moon moves through earth's shadow, every time a shadow is seen - it is round.
See how all these different disciplines multi-buttress and confirm the correct answer - we didn't even need to launch into space for the answer!
So those who argued for a 'flat earth' because the 'observation' seemed to call for it were way off the mark.
You do realise that human senses and our 'common sense' attitude is fitted out to make sense to us in 'middle world'? By that I mean we don't inhabit the world of the very small (atoms and smaller) or the very large (galaxies and larger). It is tempting to think that what you think of as common sense due to human observation can be applied across the full range of existence......well it can't.
The very large gives way to relativity - the warping of space-time and such and is very counter intuitive to common sense. And the very small is even worse. Where photons can be both a particle and a wave - at the same time, where you can measure either position or speed (but never both together) of electrons, where particles can tunnel through solid material and where virtual particles pop up from nothing......you really want to demand that your 'view' of the world has to be correct???
You're on a delusion trip DB - what makes study into the likes of the ToE special is the multi-buttressing of disciplines like that above for the flat earth scenario. You have provided no such multi-buttressing of your ‘ideas’ and if you did you'd find it would lead to the obvious conclusion of a lack of intelligent design - just like the lack of a flat earth.
All the whining and whinging from you otherwise changes not a dime. And as the scientists, educators, politicians and lawyers (e.g. the Dover trial) are all saying is "Nope ID is not science and doesn't belong in a science class"
The fact that only you and a band of creationists think otherwise against that great body of people should tell you something.
Children's education is our passport to the advances of the next generation and is far too an important issue to surrender to ill informed creationist panderings!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 1:17 AM Drosophilla has not replied
 Message 280 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 7:51 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 265 of 358 (647662)
01-10-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by RAZD
01-08-2012 10:38 AM


Re: other possibilities
Hi ZD
That you have proposed 4 possibilities means that your initial claim of there being only two is false, yes?
There is also an additional 5th possibility: that the (deist) designer created the universe with all the laws and mechanisms in place to result in the world and universe we see today, that these are the tools used to achieve the results without any need for constant tampering or involvement.
Well that's not my position actually. I got involved in this thread at the point DB wanted to bring ID into the science classes and I maintain that, based on the evidence available, there can only be two positions to debate in a science class on this issue - namely my positions 1 and 2 (either life has been guided by intelligence or it hasn't).
Points 3 and 4 were me simply asking DB if he thought they were feasible (as I have tried very hard to follow his line of thought and points 3 and 4 seemed to be possibles in his wording...no mean feat trying to follow Dawn’s word salad as I'm sure you agree).
But in reality as point 3 is indistinguishable from point 1 (in terms of the real world evidence at our fingertips, and point 4 is indistinguishable from point 2 (and your point 5 is also indistinguishable from point 2) then it all boils back down to the two options that life is either evidenced as being an unguided non-intelligent process or there is evidence of intelligence in the process.
And the students then concentrate on real evidence to see which of these it is.
Or does this get into the how vs why aspect. How and why are different questions with different answers.
I think for science classes it's a much more fundamental question of 'does the arrangement of life on this planet look guided by intelligence or not’ rather than a how or why.
An excellent idea. This is done by paraphrasing Dawn Bertot (for example) and having him agree with it -- this is an excellent way to show you understand the opposing position in any debate.
If you have got the measure of Dawn in understanding him and his thought processes then you are definitely a better man than I !!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2012 10:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2012 5:30 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 267 of 358 (647698)
01-10-2012 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
01-10-2012 5:30 PM


Re: other possibilities
Hi ZD
And it is easy to say that we do not know the answer, but lets see what we can determine with the scientific method. Then proceed to teach how science is done and what we can know as a result.
If students want to pursue concepts of ultimate cause, then they could be guided to a philosophy class.
I think the philosophy class is the perfect arena for ID. Same as the other old chestnuts such as "Do you see the colour red as I see it?"
What specifically did you have in mind for applying the scientific method to the hypothesis of ID?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2012 5:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2012 6:41 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 308 of 358 (647951)
01-12-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 7:51 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
When I can by very specific investigation identify, an already complicated in itself, single cell, dividing and then mutiplying countless millions of times to form ordered structures of life, we consider this very specific detailed and mutiplied order and law, as just that Law and detailed order, consistent over and over
When I can by very specific repeated and predicted measurements study the same process over and over and over and over, since the beginning of time. It points out the finest constant and harmonious order of life
When I can only explain the process and can provide no absolute answer as to its intiation in by existnce itself, it falls to the logical proposition and best evidence against such realites.
The method of investigation is science, its observations and data are accurate. Its conclusion are consistant with any rational argumet as to the explanation of life
If you think that Soley natural causes are the explanation for such magnificent and detailed order, then like Jar you will have to provide exact evidence for the existence of life to make your theory the absolutely accurate one.
And NONE of this leads to a conclusion of intelligent design being involved merely that it LOOKS like an intelligent designer COULD have done so - but NO EVIDENCE to quantify it either way.
Each night little pixies could make my lawn grow that little bit higher. After all my lawn does grow! So I now have a 'pixie in my garden' theory. You can't disprove it (I'd love to see you try) and there is certainly evidence that my grass grows! That's the sort of nonsense you get when you declare something by fiat.
That's exactly what you are doing with law, order and purpose. You are inferring these conditions and then further inferring there must be an intelligent cause to provide it all. Really? And the evidence is? Ah — circular — there is order therefore there must be a designer to make the order that I see. Then my pixies are as good as your Intelligent Designer. I must need pixies to grow my grass because it grows.
Don't you wonder why you are pissing alone on this one? Not just on here but in the real world. Why do the great educated countries not agree? Why don't science curricula abound with ID on every science course?
In fact outside of creationist diploma-mill 'universities' (cough cough) why is ID not seen on science courses? Are all our country's great educators, scientists, politicians and lawyers so blind to the world of Dawn Bertot?.....or as far more likely....you are talking complete bollocks as usual?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 7:51 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 8:42 AM Drosophilla 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