Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(3)
Message 17 of 230 (653809)
02-24-2012 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


The goals (and purpose) of followers of Science . . .
ID supporters can't seem to control themselves. They claim that "true debate" is not about [religion]*, and yet they can not help but describe their opponents in religious terms. "Followers of Science"? How is this anything but an attempt to try and make scientists look like religious followers?
The goal of scientists is to figure out how nature works. That's it. That is not the goal of ID supporters. The goal of ID supporters is to have religion taught in science class. They have said so themselves:
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
--"Wedge Strategy", Discovery Institute.
This isn't some lone ID group on the fringe of the movement. It is the central organization of the entire movement. Its founders are the central figures in the ID movement. They have stated outright that they want to replace evolution with their religious beliefs in the science classroom.
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.
ID supporters are not trying to get ID into Belief class. They are trying to get ID into Science class. In science, you need this thing called evidence and testable hypotheses. Yes, people can believe what they want to believe. No one is arguing otherwise. However, people can not teach whatever they want as science in public school classrooms. Multiple court decisions have emphatically stated that teaching creationism in public schools as science is unconstitutional. Even more recently, the court found that ID is creationism and it too is unconstitutional.
As others have noted, there is a simple cure for this. Stop using propoganda and get into the laboratory. Do the science. The other strategy is just to admit that ID is a religious belief and teach it as such outside of the public school science classroom.
*edit
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jchardy, posted 02-23-2012 2:44 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-24-2012 1:59 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 40 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:07 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 99 of 230 (654170)
02-27-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jchardy
02-25-2012 12:07 AM


So, we can change the word "followers" to "adherents".
Why not just "scientists". That is what we call people who do science. "Adherents" is just as loaded as "Followers". Your usage of terms reveals your true intent, to turn this into an argument about religion by trying to make science look like a religion.
As I have already said, there is no place in our society to anyone who attempts to coerce involving legal entities in promoting their particular point of view, be it secular or religious -- to the exclusion of others. JCH
The law requires that legistlation have a secular purpose. This was decided in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). So you are out and out wrong on this matter. The Constitution requires that:
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
The purpose of teaching ID is clearly religious, not secular. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to force ID/creationism into public school science classes. Churches are free to teach ID/creationism all they like, but teachers at public schools are not allowed to teach it as part of science class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:07 AM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 107 of 230 (654247)
02-28-2012 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM


Re: I'M NOT SO SURE!
Then --- another "Why not." At which point the instructor simply ignores the question, moving on and puts the curious kid on his "list" of the troublesome.
The teacher adds that kid to the list of students who would make good scientists.
The kids who will not make good scientists are those who say "Well, God must have done it" and never feel a need to truly find out what really happened.
The problem with ID is that it discourages people from finding answers. How did the flagellum come about? God did it. No reason to do anymore scientific research at that point, right? Behe has certainly never felt the need to do any scientific research to figure out how the flagellum, or any IC system, came about. That is bad science.
Yes, there are many things that science has not figured out. THAT IS THE EXCITING PART. THAT IS THE BEST PART OF SCIENCE!!! ID wants to insert a designer into those gaps in our knowledge which stops all further inquiry. That is the worst kind of science possible, and really, really bad theology.
But what if he persists? What do we do then? Not allow discussion of what might have been? Or why? Or, why not? Or was their purpose to this?
If the student persists then you encourage them to learn more about science and become the scientist who figures it out. These are the best students possible.
In not allowing a free range of discussion and analysis, who are we protecting?
ID is not analysis. It is indoctrination of religious beliefs. By not allowing religious beliefs into science class we are protecting the constitutional rights of the students. Again, this is Science Class. This isn't Discussion Class. Teachers should teach Science, not religious beliefs. If there is currently no scientific explanation for a phenomenon then the teacher can simply tell students that it has not been figured out yet. That is a perfectly fine answer to a scientific question.
They discussed everything and anything the kids wanted to bring up who were bright enough to bring them up.
But not any longer. Too dangerous. Too uncomfortable. Too unsettling.
I guess you are unaware that creationists are trying to get evolution out of the science curriculum? You are projecting a bit on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 114 of 230 (654424)
03-01-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by jchardy
03-01-2012 12:13 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
Teleologic adherents of Intelligent Design test their concepts by their compatibility with current scientific knowledge.
For this to be true, ID would need to be falsifiable. So the question to you, or ID supporters in general, is what observation, if made, would be incompatible with ID? Until the question is answered no one can claim that ID is compatible with current scientific knowledge.
Many have developed their conviction that the universe -- improbable as it is without an incredible amount of fine tuning in the pathway to evolving human intelligence — SEEMS to be TOO fine-tuned not to have had some rather incredible engineering to realize what SEEMS to be an outcome that most of us would deem as pretty phenomenal.
Yes, just like every lottery is fine tuned so that a specific person will win. This is known as confirmation bias.
It’s as if BARRIERS or WALLS have been built into the universe from the very beginning making it impossible to actually SEE what actually took place, or HOW matter is really constructed --- so WE CAN NEVER KNOW!
One should not base arguments on impossibilities. Negative arguments make for poor logic. Theoretical physicists are working on theories right now (e.g. M Theory) that may very well be testable and allow us to determine what happened on the other side of those barriers and walls. As the old saying goes, never say never. Just look at the amazing advancements that we have made in the last 100 years, from the Hubble Space Telescope to the LHC.
GRADUALISM (The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes) is a major tenant of Darwinian evolution . . .
Not really. Darwin's opinion was that evolution probably advanced at a gradual pace, but he was more than willing to admit that evolution was not forced to follow a set tempo. Gradualism was never a major tenant of the theory. The modern theory of evolution accepts both gradualism and punctuated equilibria as evidenced and supported mechanisms.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'
"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species."[Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
That problem has been solved for quite some time now.
IF there is a creator or designer somehow initiating and then viewing events from afar . . .
Perhaps you could start here and supply evidence for the existence of this creator and/or designer?
MY Teleologic ID point is: Too much about the evolution of our universe and too much of the evolution of life and then intelligence on this planet (and perhaps others) SEEMS too well directed and too well organized to be by chance, and much of scientific study seems to support that concept.
Which scientific studies are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 12:13 AM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 4:50 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 142 of 230 (654998)
03-06-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by jchardy
03-01-2012 4:50 PM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
I don’t really disagree, though testability will be the key and the word determine what happened on the other side of those barriers and walls is a really problematic word. That implies certitude, and certitude is a really difficult concept to affirm in Quantum physics (as you must know). JCH
It is a hell of lot better than "it was magical poofing, and I have no evidence for it".
species."[Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
THAT PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW.
Please reference this assertion. JCH
I did. Darwin wrote that in "Origin of Species". That is the reference. He figured out how new species could "suddenly appear" in the geologic record. We have had a solution for this problem for 150 years.
Everyone will have their own favorite way of quantifying such unnaturalness, but the calculation here gives some idea of the fine-tuning involved; it is substantial, but not completely ridiculous.
Yes, just like the lottery has to fine tuned each week so that a specific person wins. Do you understand the mistake you are making?
We could start off by asking how many universes there are. Do you know? I certainly don't. We can then ask if the laws for a universe CAN BE any different. We still don't know that answer either. Both of these rather simple questions need to be answered before you can make any fine tuning arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 4:50 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by jchardy, posted 03-07-2012 12:48 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 143 of 230 (655036)
03-06-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jchardy
03-02-2012 8:23 PM


Re: KEY POINTS EARLY IN THIS DEBATE
This should be a discourse between educated and well meaning intellects and neither side has any proof that their point of view is absolute.
Evolution does have evidence. Science also has a strong track record of producing usable knowledge.
ID does not have evidence. It is a faith based belief that has produced no usable knowledge.
You want to pretend that these are on equal footing. They are not.
Thus, the logical approach is to allow open discourse and debate based on verifiable data (either historic, scientific or mathematic in foundation) without restriction.
That would require ID supporters to do actual scientific research which they have refused to do. Until such research is done there is nothing to discuss or debate.
What scientific research has Behe done to support his contention that IC systems were intelligently designed? None. He attacks evolution, and that's it. He has never tried to marshal positive evidence to support ID. Never.
ID, at it's very foundation, is nothing more than an attack on science. ID sees scientific knowledge as a threat to theistic beliefs, so it attacks knowledge. This is why there is conflict. Some people view knowledge as a good thing. Go figure. They frown on those who would censor knowledge in an attempt to bolster faith.
As it stands now, the theory of evolution is being used by scientists right now to further our knowledge of nature. No one is using ID to increase our knowledge of nature. No one. They don't even try. The goal of ID is not knowledge. It is indoctrination at the expense of knowledge. This should be opposed at every turn.
Similarly, Scientists and mathematicians should endeavor to develop some insight into the tenants of faith. NOT to become faith-based necessarily, but endeavor to understand WHY those who are convinced of the validity of their faith.
There are already plenty of psychological studies on this.
For that reason, it is my opinion that the best science is done by those who just don’t care what the outcome might be.
Can you point to a single ID scientific study where this occurs?
What has been most valuable to the faith-based is the FAILURE of certain experiments or observations to affirm or reconcile conflicts between well-established (by previous peer reviewed testing) scientific hypotheses or theories.
I think that sums it up best. This is why ID wants all science to stop. Surely you can understand why there is conflict between ID supporters and scientists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 8:23 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(7)
Message 154 of 230 (655106)
03-07-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
I said no absolute proof. There is obviously evidence strongly in favor, especially in regard to natural selection. I find the lack of gradualism (graded evolutionary change sequentially in continuum) a problem with classical Darwinian evolution. I certainly agree science has a very strong track record of producing usable knowledge. I have said this time and time again!
Ahh, yes, the old favorites from the ID playbook. Downplay evidence by claiming it is not absolute proof. Second tactic, completely misrepresent the theory of evolution. This is why ID supporters lose respect. You do realize that the theory has changed since Darwin's time, right? You do realize that gradualism is not a requirement of the modern theory, right? You do realize that only math and distillation deals in proof, right?
Respect is earned. ID supporters have not earned that respect. They have done nothing that deserves respect. I do believe that people have the right to believe as they want, but I do not feel compelled to respect beliefs that are wrong. I do not feel compelled to respect beliefs that cause people to attack evidenced based scientific theories, or to distort those theories in the fashion you do above. I do not feel compelled to respect beliefs that lead the leading ID institute to state that their guiding principle is . . .
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" --Wedge Strategy, Discovery Institute
You think respect should be given because something merely exists. THAT IS WRONG. Respect is earned.
You may not realize this, but there are some ID supporters who do real scientific research.
Notice how misleading this sentence is. I keep asking for ID research. Stating that some ID supporters do scientific research does not address this shortcoming. You are trying to cover up a serious problem with the ID community. No scientist is doing scientific research ON ID. None. You claim that ID supporters love science, and yet they don't do ANY scientific research on ID. They even feel the need to attack any paper on proposed evolutionary pathways or any new transitional fossil that is presented in the scientific journals. If they love science so much, then why do they feel the need to replace it with religious beliefs and attack it at every turn?
We have seen the ID gameplan. It is quite simple. Step 1: take down scientific theories that contradict religious beliefs. Step 2: attach sciency sounding words to your religious beliefs and offer them up as a scientific replacement. It is as anti-science as it gets.
NOT on PROOVING intelligent design (even teleologic ID) — since ID can never be proven --- obviously!
Please learn the difference between proof and the scientific method.
. . . because should they discuss their interpretations openly, they would be maligned and ostracized and their work ignored or denied publication no matter how valid because there is such an incredibly strong bias against such scientists.
Those who play the persecution card in this fashion deserve no respect. You asked why their is conflict? It is because of statements like the one above. Stop with the feigned persecution. It gets old really fast. Time after time we have seen ID supporters drum up some incident where there was supposedly some sort of persecution on the part of scientists. When we look at what really happened we find that the ID supporters have completely misrepresented what happened. ID supporters have shown themselves to be dishonest time after time after time.
For example, a lot of ID supporters were claiming that Guillermo Gonalez was being persecuted because he didn't get tenure at Iowa State University. What was the real truth of the matter? Gonzalez had stopped doing research. In 4 years he had only graduated 1 student. He had no active research grants. This is why he was not given tenure. Did that matter to ID supporters? Nope. They kept crying and crying, claiming that it was Gonzalez's ID beliefs that kept him from getting the tenured position. Bullshit. It is episodes like this that show why ID supporters do not deserve respect, and it is one of many.
Again, WRONG! The goal of ID is to PROMOTE A SPIRITUAL CONNECTION to the universe; its evolution and to life and intelligence as it evolves in that universe. Perhaps there is an important meaning to some of us if we attempt to associate a spiritual connection or purpose to knowledge of nature. Does everything have to be cut and dried to make it relevant? Isn’t sensitivity to the miraculous fine tuning of the universe something to hold in wonder? Isn’t spirituality a need for humans as well as knowledge?
Why do people need to attack science in order to find spirituality?
Those who claim no need for a spiritual connection with the universe are simply deluding themselves. I.e., they are in a sense of denial.
So much for respecting other people's beliefs.
Certainly teleologic IDers WANT all science to continue to every possible logical and testable hypothesis, seeking every possible conclusion.
Is Behe looking for possible evolutionary pathways that can produce IC systems? Is Dembski looking for evolutionary mechanisms that can produce complex specified complexity? Is Stephen Meyers looking for transitional fossils in Cambrian strata? The answer to all of these is no. All they do is attack science without doing any scientific research to support their own claims. That is what ID is. That is what it as always been.
We want to see EVERY obstruction overcome to see if science CAN do what it aims to do
Then why do we see ID supporters lying about science? They claim that there are "problems with evolution", but when we investigate these supposed problems they just turn out to be lies on the part of the ID supporters. Why is that? Why should we respect this?
I can sum this up very succintly for you. The actions on the part of ID supporters has shown that ID deserves no respect. When and if ID supporters get into the lab and try to support their ideas then we can talk again about whether or not ID deserves respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jchardy, posted 03-07-2012 12:48 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(3)
Message 168 of 230 (655314)
03-09-2012 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by jchardy
03-09-2012 2:07 AM


Re: purpose in science
My point is, complete confidence in our knowledge base such that we are assured there are no possible outside influences we cannot detect or track down. I think this is virtually impossible. We seek certitude in all things. There is no possible certitude I can imagine right now.
If you are arguing for a God-of-the-Gaps then you are arguing from an extremely weak position. If ID is nothing more than "God exists in our ignorance" then it is not a position that deserves respect. It is both bad science and bad theology. Every time we discover something new about Nature your God-of-the-Gaps gets smaller and weaker.
The mistake IDers make is to even try to prove the concept of ID by attempting to disprove natural selection;
If this is removed, what is left other than religious beliefs that predated ID by thousands of years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 2:07 AM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 4:17 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 177 of 230 (655348)
03-09-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by jchardy
03-09-2012 4:17 PM


Re: purpose in science
This is a peculiar concept: God-of-the-Gaps is it not? I certainly don’t respect the concept at all.
Then I am confused as to why you would keep saying things like this:
"My point is, complete confidence in our knowledge base such that we are assured there are no possible outside influences we cannot detect or track down. I think this is virtually impossible. We seek certitude in all things. There is no possible certitude I can imagine right now."
"I am a scientist who believes teleological principles MIGHT have led to and through the processes ending in where we are today. In my 50 years of searching, I have not found any evidence to absolutely rule out a "Designer" implicit in our existence."--message 29
"Unless you can prove to me that --- in this case --- one side is right and the other is wrong; I am entitled to my belief, and you to yours."--message 32
"IF there is a creator or designer somehow initiating and then viewing events from afar (i.e., behind a curtain of His own design as well), He might direct evolution this way or that by minor nudges of our molecular DNA — once it came into being; OR, He may have implanted it early on. We would never really know."--message 111
"There is none, obviously other than the probability/improbability argument. Faith is the belief in something. It is not evidence except in personal experiences which convince some that such a power exists. On the other hand, the impossibility of certitude in certain areas of science is also a big problem for science --- especially quantum mechanics. It all has value, but some small part is still based on faith in the validity of our tests and testing of concepts."--message 116
Overall, your position seems to be that God is acting in areas that we can not currently verify. How is that anything other than a God-of-the-Gaps?
These are primitive concepts. Teleologic IDers do NOT attempt to disprove NS.
Obviously, you have not read much ID literature. Many IDers argue vehemently that NS can not produce an increase in fitness over long time periods. Sanford and "Genetic Entropy" come to mind, and Sanford was a speaker at an ID convention not too long ago.
They look for end-points which seem to lead to new questions to answer which should be pursued by science.
So what are these questions, and what experiments can be run to answer them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 4:17 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 7:58 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 181 of 230 (655358)
03-09-2012 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jchardy
03-09-2012 5:15 PM


Re: purpose in science
There is none other than the mysterious dark matter and dark energy we are embedded in but cannot see, feel or detect except by gravitational effects.
Dark matter and energy are both physical things as much as gravity and electromagnetis are physical things.
There is none. I’ve said it before, there can never be such verification! None is needed since there is no competition with science. We interpret what we see based on our knowledge base. Our knowledge base IS science.
It just appears that certain occurrences within our universe are too improbable to be by mere chance. That’s all. If you need a list of those improbabilities, get back to me.
It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it too. You claim that ID can not be verified, and yet you claim ID is an interpretation from evidence and is verifed by probabilities. You want to claim that ID can not be evidenced, and yet you offer improbabilities as evidence. Which is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 5:15 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 8:57 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 222 of 230 (655699)
03-12-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by jchardy
03-10-2012 7:58 PM


Re: purpose in science
I confess, I may be applying that logic. I just disdain the label. God-of-the-gaps is such a manufactured concept and obviously prejudicial. I think that’s why I reject the term.
But you don't reject the logical fallacy. That is the problem.
If there are gaps, God already filled them . . .
Based on what evidence? Oh, that's right. You have none. All you have is a lack of any other explanation. That is a God-of-the-Gaps.
But the evidence from astrophysics and quantum mechanics strongly suggests a sequential requirement of absolute necessity to get to where we are.
Me getting up from this chair and walking to the sink also has a "sequential requirement of absolute necessity". However, none of it involves a supernatural deity.
If ID would stick with fundamental real science as argument, they would find themselves less ostracized and more included in conversation.
I would strongly encourage you to follow your own advice and stay away from the woo you are pushing here.
The experiments are being run as we common folk dither on. New information is coming forth every day.
Such a statement is usually followed by examples of those experiments. What are they? Or is this just more empty words?
None-the-less, there will always be those who believe we are simply the result of chaos, entropy and probability and those who believe that, at some layer, our creation and evolution were planned from the beginning by God. Others will sort of mix the two concepts.
Sorry, but this wishy-washy "let me believe what I want" just doesn't cut it. In the real world, beliefs matter. If your beliefs can not stand the rigors of reason and evidence then they are not worth holding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 7:58 PM jchardy 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