Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 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
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 136 of 230 (654832)
03-05-2012 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by SensibleBloke
03-04-2012 7:39 AM


Re: NO ROLE FOR I.D. IN SCIENCE!
quote:
Well John S. Hardy, from your rambling, then if I.D. is not wanting to divert science nor include divine intervention into scientific reasoning, which is impossible anyway.
Then, there is no argument at all with I.D.ers, since science will just remain as is. There is certainly no reason to promote I.D. in any science classes for that same reasoning.
There's no argument.
Quite right. There is no need to introduce faith into the class rooms of science. There is only a need for tolerance of those who believe that the fragility of initial conditions in any sequence of events in the universe (from the big bang forward to the evolution of sentient life) MIGHT be subject to the actions of SOMETHING other than mere chance at the quantum level; and that little is firmly predictable in subsequent sequences. But that does not necessarily mean God or even a directing alien intelligence. It just means we should keep an open mind as to origins of sequences we haven’t the foggiest idea of their actual origin and just leave it at that.
quote:
It is only when they try to insert divine intervention (magic) into the scientific theories surrounding the origin of the universe, thus render it unscientific. should logically cause the I.D. concept to be excluded from science and science classes.
Such insertion of divine magic or intervention, makes them as bad and silly as the fundamentalist creationists who very stupidly, keep trying to get magic accepted as scientific.
From a friend's blog:
The moment Creation (magic) is apparent, it cannot be made scientific (form a theory with consistent, measurable and predictable outcomes).
As stated above, because chaos is so rampant in all systems in the universe, few if any theories have consistent measurable and predictable outcomes. Ed Lorenz found that out and (along with Neils Bohr) dispelled the pseudoconcept of certainty and absolute predictability.
quote:
So they cannot ever exist together.
Magic (creator intrusion) destroys predictability which destroys any scientific accountability and scrutibility.
That is the principle reason Creation cannot be taught in science classes. Because there's no science involved.
Completely agree! Faith and science should never be conflated. But they should never be demonized either. Dogma is BAD, both in science and faith. And when the two are dogmatic at the same time, they are nuclear in destructive ability.
quote:
It cannot even be promoted as an alternative scientific theory, because it is not a scientific theory
It is only a religious argument based on faith alone, never a scientific argument, so it still cannot logically be introduced into science classes, EVER!
As he stated: Any form of magic (divine intervention) anywhere renders any concept unscientific, (esp. the beginning of the universe) therefore excluding it totally from science and it is grossly evident that they cannot teach unscientific concepts in science classes as scientific.
Since you stated that basically I.D. advocates have no quarrels with scientific theory. Like the fact of evolution. Which you should also logically agree with.
Almost totally agree. There are questions in evolution (as to its sequencing and certitude of its predictions) which make it a bit less than "fact", but I certainly accept it as a demonstrated liklihood (with some possible nuances or fine tuning which I would keep to myself in a classroom setting). But, there’s ALWAYS argument in the scientific community. That’s what keeps it healthy -- skepticism. Dogma and closed mindedness is what stunts the growth of science!
Edited by Admin, : Add square brackets to the closing code for the opening quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by SensibleBloke, posted 03-04-2012 7:39 AM SensibleBloke has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 137 of 230 (654951)
03-05-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Trixie
03-04-2012 6:42 AM


Re: purpose in science
Right, Trixie. Sorry for the delay, but I just cannot answer everyone's response. Your enquiry is straight forward and without venom and I appreciate that!
My position is this:
1. Everyone has a right to believe what they wish to believe, recognizing that much work has been done and is being done within science resulting in much benefit to mankind through accumulation of knowledge and application of that knowledge.
2. Dogma (inflexible positions both in science and religion) has been damaging to both the image of science and Religion.
3. Religious, political and scientific concepts are mutually toxic to one another and should NOT be mixed except on an individual non-institutional basis. I.e., it’s OK to express a bias in one direction or the other, but there is no certitude== not really.
4. The work of science should be to elaborate hypotheses and theories which are testable by the scientific method. If they are not testable, they may be promoted on an individual basis but should never attempt to dominate without verification and testing.
5. Faith is not testable outside of an individual’s sphere of influence. It is a mistake to make faith an imperative universally, even though one believes strongly there is a benefit.
6. Some scientific theories have been rigorously tested and held up, and much of it (in the realm of particle physics and cosmology) is exciting and under way and still full of controversy.
7. With the sensitivity to initial conditions espoused by Chaos theory, there is the possibility that some force or design or non-human engineering effect could/might direct the evolution of the Universe from the beginning (i.e., from the Big Bang onward) toward a preconceived goal.
8. By nuanced manipulation of chaos — at the quantum or, eventually molecular level, that designer might subtly direct subsequent events,--- elaborating systems to result in the highly improbable and idyllic conditions Earth, and possibly other select planetary systems --- leading thus to life and then through evolutionary means, well hidden, toward ---- first sentient, then sapient (intelligent) beings such as ourselves.
Thus, my concept. JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Trixie, posted 03-04-2012 6:42 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2012 3:13 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 139 by Pressie, posted 03-06-2012 5:01 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 140 by Trixie, posted 03-06-2012 6:57 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2012 7:16 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 147 by Pressie, posted 03-07-2012 5:57 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 138 of 230 (654965)
03-06-2012 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jchardy
03-05-2012 9:32 PM


Re: purpose in science
Jchardy writes:
7. With the sensitivity to initial conditions espoused by Chaos theory, there is the possibility that some force or design or non-human engineering effect could/might direct the evolution of the Universe from the beginning (i.e., from the Big Bang onward) toward a preconceived goal.
8. By nuanced manipulation of chaos — at the quantum or, eventually molecular level, that designer might subtly direct subsequent events,--- elaborating systems to result in the highly improbable and idyllic conditions Earth, and possibly other select planetary systems --- leading thus to life and then through evolutionary means, well hidden, toward ---- first sentient, then sapient (intelligent) beings such as ourselves.
You're quite at liberty to fantasise like this but without the slightest mote of evidence, it's just more words. I still have no idea what point you're trying to make.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 9:32 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 2:16 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 139 of 230 (654968)
03-06-2012 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jchardy
03-05-2012 9:32 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:
1. Everyone has a right to believe what they wish to believe, ....
Yes, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.
However, nobody has the right to teach sham science as "science". Only science should be taught as science.
Religious beliefs should not be taught as "science". Therefore no accommodation of religious beliefs in science classes.
The fraudulence of creationists pretending that Intelligent Design is "science" should be exposed for what it is: dishonesty. That's it. Pseudo "science" should not be taught in science classes. You, jchardy, are a victim of their dishonesty; you believe their deception.
Furthermore, the only thing to understand about Intelligent Design is that it is not science. It is religion dressed up as "science". They don't tell the truth by keeping on pretending to lay people that they do "science". It isn't . Nothing more to understand about that.
Edited by Pressie, : Added last paragraph
Edited by Pressie, : Edited at request of moderator
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 9:32 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 2:12 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3696 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 140 of 230 (654973)
03-06-2012 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jchardy
03-05-2012 9:32 PM


Re: purpose in science
Thank you for your response.
The problem is that there is no evidence to support what you say. Yes, it's possible, but so is the creation of the universe by, to paraphrase Dr Adequate, an angry purple anteater called Gordon.
It doesn't matter if there's logic in your idea, it has to be falsifiable. You have to ask what sort of evidence, if it came to light, would falsify your hypothesis. How would you go about looking for that evidence? That's what science is and does and it is something that ID has notably failed to do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ID can never do it, just that they haven't yet. Instead, we get propaganda, soundbites and a lot of hot air about atheistic "evilutionists". We get "refutations" of the ToE based on a comlete misunderstanding of what the ToE actually says and no amount of explanation as to how they've misunderstood the ToE will deflect them from repeating the same pointless strawman refutations.
Science has observed the amazing variety of life on this planet and come up with a testable hypothesis of how that variety of life has come about. Subsequently, much evidence has come to light which fits with this hypothesis. Additionally, no evidence has come to light which falsifies it. It can be falsified, it just hasn't been so far.
Compare that with ID. ID also observes the amazing variety of life on this planet and has come up with a hypothesis that it has been designed like that. However, they have no way to detect evidence of design. They can't describe how it would look if it wasn't designed, i.e., they can't suggest a way to falsify their hypothesis. Well, to be more accurate, they did in that they said that more than 2 mutations couldn't happen without design, but when that was shown to happen they moved the goalposts and now it's up to four mutations (this is a very condensed version of what they've done).
Instead of testing their hypothesis, they continually try to discredit evolution, but to date their results have supported evolution, even when they've deliberately "loaded the dice" against evolution in their experimental design. For example one experiment on 2 related proteins (common ancestor type thing) tried to turn the 2 proteins into each other. It didn't work so they declared that they couldn't have a common ancestor (again simplistic and brief). Now, me and my cousin share a grandparent. I cannot turn into my cousin and my cousin cannot turn into me. Does that prove that we don't share a grandparent? According to Doug Axe it does because that's the logic he used when he did the work. (See Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway, BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).)
There is no way that science and scientists should be flexible to factually incorrect information, poor science, even poorer understanding of scientific concepts, deliberately misleading information, blatant lies and propaganda and sloppy experimental design and analysis. Why should they hold themselves to one standard, yet be flexible enough to allow those with lower standards to claim that they have the same standards?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 9:32 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 2:07 AM Trixie has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 141 of 230 (654975)
03-06-2012 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jchardy
03-05-2012 9:32 PM


Re: purpose in science
2. Dogma (inflexible positions both in science and religion) has been damaging to both the image of science and Religion.
To help clarify what you mean here, can you provide an example of an inflexible science dogma that has damaged its image?
3. Religious, political and scientific concepts are mutually toxic to one another and should NOT be mixed except on an individual non-institutional basis.
I don't think it is possible to keep politics out of science, because many political decisions either are, or should be based on a consideration of the science. For example, the science showing the cigarettes were harmful to your health had unavoidable political and economic consequences. But perhaps I am missing your meaning here.
I.e., it’s OK to express a bias in one direction or the other, but there is no certitude== not really.
Quite often there is certitude, or at least a degree of confidence so high that it ought to require.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 9:32 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 4:37 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not 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

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 144 of 230 (655077)
03-07-2012 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Taq
03-06-2012 11:53 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
quote:
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.
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!
quote:
ID does not have evidence. It is a faith based belief that has produced no usable knowledge.
Obviously this is so. This is another point I have made TIME AND TIME AGAIN! I am only advocating three major points: 1) A courteous relationship based on some degree of mutual respect (though it appears that is very difficult for some, and I wonder why malignancy has to be part of any discourse since it offers nothing of benefit.)
quote:
You want to pretend that these are on equal footing. They are not.
I want to convince as many as possible that MUTUAL RESPECT BETWEEN INTELLIGENT PEOPLE SHOULD be the operator in discussion.
No one will be convinced of anyone’s rectitude (correctness) if they are assaulted by poisonous rhetoric. This approach is unnecessary and destructive to any communication --- if communication is what we are attempting to accomplish.
quote:
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.
You may not realize this, but there are some ID supporters who do real scientific research. NOT on PROOVING intelligent design (even teleologic ID) — since ID can never be proven --- obviously! But those who have a faith-based belief ensconced in their final results keep that belief well hidden, 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. It would be almost like being of the wrong caste or wrong race or wrong sexual orientation which seems to be much more reasonably tolerated today than having a faith based interpretation of anything. How can such a disparity exist in the 21st century?
quote:
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.
I don’t disagree. He expounds, but offers no original research to confirm his pronouncements. I’m not sure that IC should be used as a validation for teleologic ID since I don’t believe there are any possible ways to affirm something as strange as an occult designer of all that is.
Our interpretation is: the designer had no intention of being confirmed by scientific research. What we interpret is the peculiarity of the universe as it is and how improbable it is that we are here now in such an idyllic environment in an otherwise hostile universe. Racking it all up to probability seems just too improbable == to some of us.
quote:
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.
WRONG — WRONG — WRONG! ID is an INTERPRETATION, NOT an attack on science.
Most of us IDers find science valuable and wonderful in almost all aspects, if for nothing more than it provides an insight into the processes of creation (that is, what the BB initiated and all that proceeded thereafter).
We believe knowledge accumulation is good. It has always been so. It is DOGMA that is BAD. Thinking one has all the answers and then demeans those who have opinions or interpretations which extend the range of possibilities beyond those which they consider acceptable.
It is certainly true that RELIGION has imposed dogma on science in the past, but this no longer applies except in a miniscule irrelevant circle who represent a fringe.
The fringe have a right to their opinions and beliefs, but do not have a right to impose their opinions and beliefs on others either.
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
There are already plenty of psychological studies on this --" endeavor to develop some insight into the tenants of faith; to understand WHY those who are convinced of the validity of their faith."
Psychological needs are different from spiritual needs. 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.
quote:
"---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?
No, because I agree. I doubt if any scientist does a study --- with all it entails (including the statistical analysis and subsequent peer review) really ever does such a study. Not just ID motivated scientists, but ANY scientist.
quote:
"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?
Completely WRONG. Certainly teleologic IDers WANT all science to continue to every possible logical and testable hypothesis, seeking every possible conclusion.
We want to see EVERY obstruction overcome to see if science CAN do what it aims to do: To render an explanation for all we see!
We LOVE science; we love especially mathematics which provides insights into theories (some of which are ours about the fundamentals of matter --- ordinary and dark, and the interchangeability of energy with matter).
No, I do NOT see why there must be such a conflict at all.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 11:53 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Pressie, posted 03-07-2012 1:26 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 146 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2012 2:17 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 148 by Panda, posted 03-07-2012 7:52 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 149 by Admin, posted 03-07-2012 8:45 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 150 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2012 9:44 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2012 10:14 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 03-07-2012 11:40 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 155 by jar, posted 03-07-2012 11:51 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 145 of 230 (655078)
03-07-2012 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
jchardy writes:
.....But those who have a faith-based belief ensconced in their final results keep that belief well hidden, 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.......
Ah, the global conspiracy against creation "scientists". Poor, oppressed little people; these faith-based "scientists" are.
Has it ever occurred to you that the simple reason creation "scientists" don't often get published is the fact they don't normally follow the scientific method; and if they do, they usually do really, really bad science? I could provide you with quite a few examples if you're interested.
Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence
Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence

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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 146 of 230 (655079)
03-07-2012 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
This is simply special pleading.
You admit science has probably got evolution right.
There is obviously evidence strongly in favor
You accept ID offers no science of its own.
Obviously this is so. This is another point I have made TIME AND TIME AGAIN
Yet you want scientists to be nice to people who have been shown in a court of law to be promoting religion not science.
No. That isn't going to happen unless and until those making their claims join the science community by ACTUALLY DOING SOME. Until then, they can all whistle.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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

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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 147 of 230 (655083)
03-07-2012 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jchardy
03-05-2012 9:32 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy
I don't understand much of what you're trying to say, but I completely disagree in some of the instances I do understand. For example, your point 3:
jchardy writes:
3. Religious, political and scientific concepts are mutually toxic to one another....
I disagree. They should compliment each other. You only see, for example science, toxic to religion because science disproves a literal interpretation of your holy book, together with providing strong evidence that that your religion is based on wishful thinking. The lack of empirical, verifiable evidence for you surviving your death is one example. Another one is the evidence that organisms always died and death did not start after somebody was tricked into eating from some tree.
jchardy writes:
... and should NOT be mixed except on an individual non-institutional basis....
I disagree. For example, allegations that prayer heals people should be investigated. This should be tested rigorously, as it could improve conditions for humanity if true. Unfortunately for you, the studies done so far indicate that people being prayed for are just as likely to die as people not being prayed for.
jchardy writes:
... I.e., it’s OK to express a bias in one direction or the other, but there is no certitude== not really.
I disagree. For example, there is a very high degree of certainty that Antartica is (tomorrow we could say was) situated in the Southern Hemisphere on the Seventh day of March, 2012. This is deducted through a variety of lines of empirical, verifiable evidence for Antartica existing in the first place, as well as being situated where it is in the second place. Empirical, verifiable evidence for a phenonema can provide a very high degree of certainty. Certitude.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed the last few sentences
Edited by Pressie, : Changed a few sentences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 9:32 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 148 of 230 (655087)
03-07-2012 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
jchardy writes:
I find the lack of gradualism (graded evolutionary change sequentially in continuum) a problem with classical Darwinian evolution.
Luckily we have moved on from classical Darwinism.
And you know that we have moved on from classical Darwinism.
Because you wouldn't have used the adjective 'classical' if you did not know.
Perhaps you should move your education forward a few years and try something from this century.

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 144 by jchardy, posted 03-07-2012 12:48 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 149 of 230 (655090)
03-07-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
I not only strongly agree with these sentiments expressed by John, but also endorse them as residing at the very core of the goals of EvC:
jchardy writes:
I wonder why malignancy has to be part of any discourse since it offers nothing of benefit.
I want to convince as many as possible that MUTUAL RESPECT BETWEEN INTELLIGENT PEOPLE SHOULD be the operator in discussion.
No one will be convinced of anyone’s rectitude (correctness) if they are assaulted by poisonous rhetoric. This approach is unnecessary and destructive to any communication --- if communication is what we are attempting to accomplish.
Phrased another way, if you're right, snark doesn't make you more right, it only makes you appear small. And if you're wrong, snark is embarrassing.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 150 of 230 (655096)
03-07-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


the marriage of ID and science
I find the lack of gradualism (graded evolutionary change sequentially in continuum) a problem with classical Darwinian evolution.
Darwin was not a classical gradualist (aka phyletic gradualist). As he said in the Origin of Species:
quote:
But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification
I want to convince as many as possible that MUTUAL RESPECT BETWEEN INTELLIGENT PEOPLE SHOULD be the operator in discussion.
Naturally, you won't convince everybody to have a discussion with mutual respect. There will always be some that do not believe that respect has been earned. That said, there are still some that would happily engage with you in a manner that can be said to be polite and respectful.
All you need do is move on from this meta-discussion, to an actual discussion ID. Then you can ignore those you find disrespectful (or ideally, report them).
You may not realize this, but there are some ID supporters who do real scientific research. NOT on PROOVING intelligent design (even teleologic ID) — since ID can never be proven --- obviously! But those who have a faith-based belief ensconced in their final results keep that belief well hidden, 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.
This has been claimed, and was even the subject of a documentary. Unfortunately, the evidence that supports this is very weak.
IDists have unfortunately shot themselves in the foot on this subject. By using dishonest tactics to shoehorn papers into peer-reviewed literature they have lost their credibility and respect.
They have started their own journals, but the ideas they put forward in them have yet to pass the arguably more grueling round of peer review: Post publishing review.
It would be almost like being of the wrong caste or wrong race or wrong sexual orientation which seems to be much more reasonably tolerated today than having a faith based interpretation of anything. How can such a disparity exist in the 21st century?
I can assure you that in America at least, this is completely wrong. Can you imagine a gay president? A black president is still a novel idea. Can you imagine a president with faith?
Of course you can imagine a president with faith. Having faith is still socially acceptable in American society. It's still socially acceptable in Europe, too. This is the sign of privilege - being completely blind to just how good the faithful have it. In fact, there is strong social pressures towards having faith, with a large number of people who say they wouldn't vote for someone who has rejected faith. Anyone that criticizes the privilege that faith has acquired is subject to harassment, death threats and the like.
However, a 'faith based interpretation' will get you kicked out of a serious scientific discussion. Serious scientific discussions surround evidence not taking anything on faith, nullius in verba!
WRONG — WRONG — WRONG! ID is an INTERPRETATION, NOT an attack on science.
It is, in some sense, an attack on science. As the testimony at the Dover Trial shows: IDists want to redefine science in such a way that ID is science. Their redefinition would mean that astrology is also science.
You might not. But then again, as I have previously commented, you are not part of the ID movement.
Those who claim no need for a spiritual connection with the universe are simply deluding themselves.
Probably not on topic, but the feeling that you are connected in some spiritual way to the universe is a classic delusion, I'm afraid. You've got it the wrong way around.
Unless you are defining spiritual to mean 'have an emotional response to' or something banal - in which case I urge you to use less loaded language to make your points.
We LOVE science; we love especially mathematics which provides insights into theories (some of which are ours about the fundamentals of matter --- ordinary and dark, and the interchangeability of energy with matter).
You might love science. But so many IDists that have come before you have maligned scientists, used pseudoscience that looks plausible to their target audience: layfolk, and other assorted tactics.
If you are coming here to have a discussion about ID which doesn't do anything like that, then you are welcome. Start a new thread to debate the evidence.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jchardy, posted 03-07-2012 12:48 AM 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