Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 1:07 AM
350 online now:
Coyote, edge, Faith (3 members, 347 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,195 Year: 23,801/21,208 Month: 1,766/2,468 Week: 275/822 Day: 1/67 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1929 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 1 of 230 (653697)
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


A Plea in favor of “Purpose”
John S. Hardy, Jr. M.D., A.C.P., F.A.C.A.
2/20/2012

We “the people” badly need a clarification to understand the conflicts between adherents of faith and science.
The deepest philosophic division between the precepts of science and that of “Intelligent Design” are fundamentally based in the concepts of purpose and/or goals.
To complicate the division, it’s clear that the public is badly misinformed about I.D. and the concept’s own internal philosophical departures.
To emotionally load their case, atheists routinely blend I.D. with Creationism. The concept of Creationism is visualized by most people as “rather simplistic”, always dogmatic, substantially denying (or ignoring) the secular findings of scientific research emanating from the Geologic and biologic sciences down to Quantum Mechanics and extending to those of Cosmology.
It appears quite important to those who mock the concept of Intelligent Design to believe its adherents dismiss the latter and emphasize the former in refuting I.D.
Those of us who believe in “purpose” in the existence of the Universe and the evolution of life in the Universe,--- particularly sentient and especially sapient life forms, do not believe “chance” is an independent function of chaos nor do most of us believe that the findings of science should be dismissed as “untrue” or “entirely irrelevant”.
So, what are the defined general goals and purposes of followers of each of the two general disciplines? Understanding this division clearly is imperative to allowing both conceptualizations to coexist peacefully and with reason and communication.

The goals (and purpose) of followers of
Science

Fundamentally, Science views the Universe and all within as the result of a sequential process which most likely developed out of precursor states, in a more or less orderly manner.
Science, therefore, is concerned with process, and each component must be stated clearly (in part or in whole) in the form of a hypothesis or theory.
Each such component is then must be subjected to rigorous testing, and either verification or rejection is achieved. It is an analytical process which has served us well and itself has proven its value.
In science, “Purpose” per se is never the reason something ends up the way it does. It just “does” because, -- given the “needed” sequence of events, determined by a plethora of factors, it was the ONLY logical (or possible) conclusion and result.
Except with applied science (i.e., outcomes using scientific discoveries implemented by man’s will), the studies characteristic of science discount any immediacy of “purpose” at all. In fact, to imply there is “purpose” in the processes of the universe is, to many (if not most) scientists a strong indication of “deranged and simplistic thinking”.
In science, “purpose” is considered a peripheral phenomenon. Just a result with NO purpose unless guided by man, and his guidance is jealously guarded as his privilege alone. It is the ONE area in which he has power and control; over processes to which he is subject and otherwise has no control. I.e., he is otherwise powerless and many find that an intolerable position to accept. Man will always seek certitude.
To many scientists, there is NO purpose in processes analyzed by the scientific method, other than the advancement of knowledge and the only voiced goal of advancing the knowledge and welfare of society. Therefore, -- benefit or harm; gains or losses; release or hindrance; promotion or impairment; injury or healing; progress or obstruction (to a defined or observed improvement) are all peripheral phenomena, guided by probabilities (chance) within a matrix of fundamental chaos.
Therefore man spends a lot of time and effort to direct the processes derived through his analysis, and any suggestion that “some other intelligence could have or is playing a role” induces anger and even revulsion some.
Man prefers to define himself as his own self-determinator and guards that definition jealously.

The goals (and purpose) of followers of
Intelligent Design

In contrast, the concerns of the adherents to Intelligent Design (ID) are all about “purpose”. They are “purpose driven”, believing that existence has had a goal from the beginning; an “end game” or “bottom line” which each adherent has a degree of freedom to define in their own way. In addition, ID adherents clearly separate themselves from fundamentalist creationists. They don’t “demonize” Creationists. They just don’t “cleave” to fundamentalist doctrine because they consider denial of scientific discovery as “unnecessary” to validate their faith.
ID adherents premise begins with the assumption that there is purpose both to the universe and, ultimately to its contents; i.e., to the way things arrived to this point, and how processes under way play into that sequence. They spend their energies using science to define the sequence leading to what they perceive as the reason things occurred in the way they did. They implement both inductive and deductive reasoning and study scientific information carefully that might lead to clarification and open additional areas of ambiguity in the certitude sought by scientific inquiry.
Most adherents to Intelligent Design (ID) do not deny scientific “facts” nor “observations”, but leave the door wide open to inclusion of new and meaningful information providing the hope of clarity.
Thus, to adherents of ID:
Benefit or harm; gains or losses; release or hindrance; promotion or impairment; injury or healing; progress or obstruction (to a defined or observed improvement) are all phenomena of purpose, --- not chance.
They began with a faith (an optimism, if you will), that everything has a purpose or reason for being, and that nothing really was simply a “throw of the dice” in an ultimate vacuum of non-purpose.
In I.D., at the very least, they believe that God (or the “Designer”) Loaded the dice, probably from the very beginning.
They concede their fundamental lack of control of the process but take comfort in the wonder of it. ID adherents do not have a need to feel in control of anything. They only seek to understand the "how’s and why’s" insofar as they and science are capable of providing clarity.

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.
So long as each side adheres to its dogma, we will continue to see ID blended with fundamentalism and no dialog will be possible.

John S. Hardy, Jr. M.D., A.C.P., F.A.C.A.
Seabeck, WA 98380
area929@msn.com


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2012 4:34 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 5 by hooah212002, posted 02-23-2012 5:12 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 6 by jar, posted 02-23-2012 5:41 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 02-23-2012 5:45 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 8 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2012 6:00 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2012 6:36 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 10 by Panda, posted 02-23-2012 6:41 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 11 by frako, posted 02-23-2012 6:44 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 02-23-2012 7:12 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 02-24-2012 12:06 AM jchardy has responded
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 02-24-2012 4:54 AM jchardy has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 02-24-2012 11:30 AM jchardy has responded
 Message 19 by Tangle, posted 02-24-2012 12:30 PM jchardy has not yet responded
 Message 135 by SensibleBloke, posted 03-04-2012 7:39 AM jchardy has responded
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2012 4:12 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 891
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 2 of 230 (653699)
02-23-2012 4:20 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13113
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 3 of 230 (653700)
02-23-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


Real understanding must be based on a knowledge of the ID movement, it's history and purposes.

As revealed by the Wedge Document the purpose of the ID movement is to make the scientific curriculum more in line with theistic belief. The very fact of targeting education prior to actually doing the scientific research that would justify the teaching is a strong indication that ID is about promoting religious belief and not science.

The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists - but there are Young Earth Creationists among their ranks. They are NOT shunned by the ID movement at all, and to claim otherwise would be a lie.

Let us not forget that the ID text book "Of Panda's and People" was a creationist text book, rewritten to use "Intelligent Design" in place of "creation".

So let us be clear. ID is religious, and - even though not all ID supporters are creationists - creationism is an integral part of it.

ID is primarily about influencing education, seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution. A position that is mainly motivated by religious objections.

Anybody who ignores these points does not understand ID.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 8:09 PM PaulK has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5048
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 4 of 230 (653701)
02-23-2012 4:55 PM


Well that was a lot of words.

All science is interested in is establishing the truth by testing evidence.

There were a lot of words in your treatise, i didn't notice that one. Maybe I missed where you discussed it?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 433 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 5 of 230 (653703)
02-23-2012 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


My my Mr. Hardy, where to begin....

To emotionally load their case, atheists routinely blend I.D. with Creationism.

Nope. Those are just the facts as they stand. ID is creationism wearing a disguise in order to enter the public fora. Now, the ID folks may very well be trying to shy away from their creationist roots, but so far they haven't done so.

Those of us who believe in “purpose” in the existence of the Universe and the evolution of life in the Universe,--- particularly sentient and especially sapient life forms, do not believe “chance” is an independent function of chaos

To put it simply (and I will probably get hammered for this one): how's about you prove that chance is NOT sufficient? Real scientists have shown that chance + mutation IS sufficient, and you lot come round with your god goggles on and say "No no, we are special. Chance couldn't create all this wonder".

nor do most of us believe that the findings of science should be dismissed as “untrue” or “entirely irrelevant”.

Except that you guys DO dismiss most findings of science: especially when they disagree with your theology.

Understanding this division clearly is imperative to allowing both conceptualizations to coexist peacefully and with reason and communication.

If ID wants to be on the same level or in the same category as science, it ought to DO SCIENCE. Do some testing to validate it as an idea. run experiments. DO SOMETHING IN A LAB. Publish real papers. DO SCIENCE. If you want to cease the seperation between ID and actual science....you kinda have to drop the god shit and do science.

A lot of the rest of your OP is spent preaching and you wonder why ID and creationism are conflated......

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:30 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 6 of 230 (653705)
02-23-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
Intelligent Design should only be laughed at and mocked by everyone; theist, agnostic, atheist and in the US, by every honest Christian.

Intelligent Design is absolutely nothing but another dishonest attempt by the US Christian Creationist Cult to destroy science and totally redefine education.

There is no conflict between adherents of faith and science, since there is no such thing as an adherent of science. To claim that 'We “the people” badly need a clarification to understand the conflicts between adherents of faith and science.' is to state a falsehood and try to sneak in that falsehood as a given assumption. We don't need to understand the Creationist/Intelligent Design marketers, we do understand them.

Until and unless those who are trying to market the con job absurdity called "Intelligent Design" actually present first the designer critter for examination and testing and second, the method/model used by that critter, Intelligent Design should be simply relegated to the same wastebasket as other absurdities like Ouija Boards, astrology, magic crystals, homeopathic medicines and prayer hankies.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:33 PM jar has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 7 of 230 (653706)
02-23-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


Hi, John.

You have apparently been on this site almost as long as I have, but I don't believe I've had the privilege of debating with you. So, welcome to EvC!

You assert that you want to promote understanding and peaceful dialogue. But, then, your opening statement in this dialogue consists of a rather unflattering indictment on us (the "followers of science"), emphasizing our alleged anger, revulsion and jealousy toward you (the "followers of Intelligent Design") and your philosophy.

Many of "us" would characterize the behavior of IDists in a similar light. So, if you wish a civil dialogue between us, please avoid condemning us; and show us that you are willing to accommodate us in the same way that you wish us to accommodate you. This is the common practice of those who genuinely wish to build bridges.

So, where shall we start our dialogue?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:35 PM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 31 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:39 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(1)
Message 8 of 230 (653707)
02-23-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


To emotionally load their case, atheists routinely blend I.D. with Creationism.

So anyone that doesn't follow ID or Creationism is an atheist? The Catholic Church and millions of Protestants and Jews would disagree with you.

Enough said.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:41 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 9 of 230 (653708)
02-23-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


To emotionally load their case, atheists routinely blend I.D. with Creationism.

In the first place, the opponents of ID are not all atheists.

In the second place, they're right. With very few exceptions, ID is creationism dressed up in a white lab coat and a T-shirt saying: "THIS IS NOT CREATIONISM, TRUST ME ON THIS".

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.

Well, you know, one side is right and the other is wrong. Yes, you "deserve" to believe whatever you like. If you wish, you can believe that you're a giant purple anteater called Gerald. Fine. But then you want me not to disagree. Well I "deserve" to do that too.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 10 of 230 (653709)
02-23-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


ID is creationism in disguise,,,
FYI:
Wedge Strategy
quote:
Intelligent design is the religious belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted (see Theistic science). Wedge strategy proponents are opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal. The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.

quote:
The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers. According to critics, the wedge document, more than any other Discovery Institute project, demonstrates the Institute's and intelligent design's political rather than scientific purpose.

People object to Intelligent Design being taught in science lessons because it is a religious belief and not science.
When IDists stop pushing ID into schools, I expect most people will go back to ignoring Intelligent Design.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:59 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 11 of 230 (653710)
02-23-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


To emotionally load their case, atheists routinely blend I.D. with Creationism.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

The judge said it so it must be true

Actually ID is Creationism when they compared 1978 draft from the court that ruled it is unconstitutional to teach creationism it stated

"Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly trough the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings etc."

In the pandas and people draft it said
"
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly trough the agency of an intelligent designer with their distinctive features already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings etc."

And also it was seen it was re edited in haste because u found words like cdesgin proponentsists u know the missing link the transitional fossil from creationism to Intelligent design


better explained in the video


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:45 PM frako has not yet responded
 Message 41 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:16 AM frako has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


(15)
Message 12 of 230 (653712)
02-23-2012 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


jchardy,
You have made the classic error of confusing ID with teleology.

quote:
A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature.

Intelligent Design is a specific teleological movement that was constructed so as to propose the important parts of Creationism (namely, that evolution is false) without mentioning the parts of Creationism that lead to legal troubles in the context of education (namely, that god is true). It is not a movement that I think you are a member of.

The main problem with teleological accounts is that they assert the existence of a purpose-giver, but do not provide any evidence for the existence of said purpose-giver, or indeed what purpose they are even giving. It is, as you mention, an article of 'faith'. And faith is just indefensible. I challenge you to try it.

What is the purpose of a hammer? It is to drive nails into things.
What is the purpose of a human? What end is achieved by the existence of rabbits? What is the function of mountains? And to whose ends?

In science, “Purpose” per se is never the reason something ends up the way it does.

I disagree. Human artifacts can be studied by science, and science can conclude that the artifacts were created for a purpose and may even infer what that purpose was

Except with applied science (i.e., outcomes using scientific discoveries implemented by man’s will), the studies characteristic of science discount any immediacy of “purpose” at all.

Again, I disagree. Evolutionary biology is all about purpose. What is the purpose of the rabbit's tail? What is the purpose for the appendix? What is the purpose of flagella? If there is no purpose for something that we can detect: it might called a quandary for evolution. How can you work out how something evolved, if you don't know what purpose it serves?

And we can examine tool use in other animals, and infer what the purpose of those tools is. That is: we can study those things that are implemented at the will of animals besides humans.

In fact, to imply there is “purpose” in the processes of the universe is, to many (if not most) scientists a strong indication of “deranged and simplistic thinking”.

The modern scientific position on this would be that it was a strong indication of 'normal human thinking'. We are, after all, pretty good agency detectors. We don't need deep thinking to do it, and we will even infer agency where there is none. False positives in this regard are favoured by evolutionary mechanisms - it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to inferring agency...agents are potential rivals/predators after all.

Children frequently think in terms of purpose without prompting. That rock over there is there so the sheep can scratch their back. Flowers are there to look pretty for us.

Getting out of the habit of purpose oriented thinking is something that requires some considerable training, I believe.

Of course, if we have too many false positives we might end up being called 'paranoid' or 'conspiracy theorists', or perhaps 'teleologists'

In addition, ID adherents clearly separate themselves from fundamentalist creationists.

Not clearly enough. Indeed, at the Dover trial one of the people who were pushing the ID agenda, Bill Buckingham famously got mixed up:

quote:
It's OK to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else - such as Creationism.

Or Dembski, who angered YECs with what seemed like a denial of their doctrine later said:

quote:
In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.

and
quote:
Yet, in a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.

source

Most adherents to Intelligent Design (ID) do not deny scientific “facts” nor “observations”, but leave the door wide open to inclusion of new and meaningful information providing the hope of clarity.

In my personal experience, most ID adherents that have graced this board have wound up denying some scientific facts at one stage or another.

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.

The scientists are already at that position. But the IDists are calling the scientists unprofessional liars and conspiracists, accusing them of ostracizing the IDists and other unpleasantries. And not only that but the IDists have decided to circumvent normal channels. Instead of trying to win scientific consensus through the force of their argument and the weight of their evidence - they try to gain scientific consensus through the education of school children. That is, ID has famously engaged in propaganda to further their cause - and have regularly aimed that at parents and children.

You should distance yourself from ID. It is not a political movement you want to be involved in any way with. I suggest you embrace the more neutral philosophical position of teleology.

The vitriol from scientists is at the unfairness, misinformation, lies and outright unpleasant tactics employed by the main ID protagonists over the years. I believe it is fully justified. If a teleologist from a different branch such as yourself were to come along without those tactics, then I'm sure we can all have a fantastic discussion without anger or vitriol of any sort.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:04 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 16 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-24-2012 11:01 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 35 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:48 PM Modulous has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5533
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 13 of 230 (653734)
02-24-2012 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


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.

You talk a lot about purpose. But this is all about one particular purpose. And that's the purpose of fundamentalist religious groups to force the teaching of their religion into the science class room against the opposition of scientists and in violation of the first amendment of the US constitutions.

If religion gives up on that dishonest and despicable purpose, then most of the animosity will go away.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:02 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15912
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


(6)
Message 14 of 230 (653759)
02-24-2012 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


Hi Jchardy,

Your thread title kind of says it all: Science versus ID. An ID at odds with science is clearly not part of science. If ID were science then its goal would be to *do* science, but it's not.

The animosity of scientists and science minded folks isn't directed toward the science of ID, because there's no such thing, but toward the efforts of religious fundamentalists to bypass the scientific process and leap right into the classroom. The stark paucity of ID research effort makes clear that their goal is not the advancement of science but the education, indoctrination even, of children in public schools.

While ID does not share the specific tactics of creationism, the basic strategy is the same: lobby textbook publishers for reduced representation of evolution and increased representation of ID, and lobby legislatures and school boards for representation in public school science classrooms. This strategy is unique to creationism and ID, because they are merely different tactical manifestations of the same fundamentalist religious strategy.

The science that is taught in public schools is selected by curriculum designers from the broad body of science. If ID wants to be taught in public schools then it must do the science and become part of the broad body of science. The situation today is that less than 1% of biologists accept ID. No other theory (and I'm being kind in dignifying ID with the label of theory) with such a tiny degree of acceptance is taught in science class, and ID should not be the first. When its evidence and ideas are powerful enough to be scientifically persuasive, only then should it be taught.

Those who think relativity is wrong or quantum theory is wrong or cosmology is wrong are not lobbying school boards to have their theories taught. Most such thinking is on the part lone loons anyway, but even for those ideas that have gained a little traction, such as MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) or perhaps intrinsic redshifts, there is no lobby to get them taught in schools. The advocates of these alternative theories are busy doing the research necessary to convince other scientists, which is what ID should be doing but hasn't, isn't and doesn't.

Someone else already noted that evidence went unmentioned in your post. As a salesman once told me, you sell the product you have, not the one you wish you had, and you do whatever is necessary within ethical bounds to sell that product. The ID movement is trying to sell as science something that is not science, and those efforts are definitely not within ethical bounds, nor, to broaden the scope beyond my salesman analogy, within moral bounds. If ID is feeling some resentment and animosity it is well earned.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jchardy, posted 02-23-2012 2:44 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
lbm111
Member (Idle past 1455 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 15 of 230 (653792)
02-24-2012 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
02-23-2012 7:12 PM


purpose in science
I have to agree that at a fundamental level science cannot account for purpose.

Modulous - you state that evolutionary biology is concerned with purpose and it is a natural mode of thought to infer agency. I would agree but does that make it right from a scientific point of view?

Much scientific language is framed in terms of 'purpose' but ultimately if it is to be scientifically tested it must come down to empirically observable experiment and we can never observe 'purpose' hence it is superfluous to scientific knowledge.

We can observe a rabbits tail, an appendix or a flagella but never ever can we observe a 'purpose'. How would you measure how much purpose a rabbit's tail had? Has it got more units of purpose than a flagella?

From a scientific point of view saying that a rabbit's tail has a purpose is as fanciful as saying god created the earth. Maybe the 'purpose' for the rabbit's tail fits better with some empirical data you have whereas the existence of god contradicts it but that is surely irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 02-23-2012 7:12 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2012 3:34 PM lbm111 has responded
 Message 38 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:04 AM lbm111 has not yet responded
 Message 133 by rick, posted 03-04-2012 6:31 AM lbm111 has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017