Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 118 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 3:04 AM
362 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ThinAirDesigns (3 members, 359 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,274 Year: 20,880/21,208 Month: 1,313/2,326 Week: 649/345 Day: 11/161 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
13141516Next
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Percy
Member
Posts: 15667
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 166 of 230 (655293)
03-09-2012 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by jchardy
03-09-2012 2:16 AM


Re: purpose in science
Hi John,

If you're not trying to make a case for the validity of ID as science then for me personally it doesn't matter what you believe. People should be free to believe whatever they want, and I think you said this, too. But they don't have the right to force their beliefs on others, particularly children.

So if you're not arguing that ID is science and if you're not trying to force ID on children or anyone else, I'm fine with letting you go your happy way.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 2:16 AM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 3:18 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 167 of 230 (655312)
03-09-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by jchardy
03-09-2012 2:16 AM


Re: purpose in science
After all, Einstein’s thought experiments were founded in his imagination and not evaluable until mathematically formatted.

This characterization is wrong, and the analogy is completely inapt. Einstein's thought experiments were based on hypothetical scenarios that showed the ramification of postulates that were based on observed phenomena. The thought experiments were not random speculations and guesses divorced from any and all evidence.

I would characterize Einstein's thought experiments as hypothesis generating activity, where the result of the activity is predictions that were both falsifiable and explicitly logically (i.e. mathematically) required by the hypotheses. In other words, Einstein's thought experiments represent science activity of the highest order. Quite unlike your speculation.

As an aside, there is no doubt about in my mind, that there is an "I'm like Einstein, struggling in the patent office" corollary to Godwin's law.


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 162 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 2:16 AM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 4:05 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7022
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(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 responded

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

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1895 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 169 of 230 (655333)
03-09-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
03-09-2012 7:23 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
Still sounds more like Deism than ID as currently used by the majority of proponents.

Dear RAZD and ALL:
NO. While Deism DOES "---presuppose the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator BUT "HE" does NOT intervene in the universe". I (and many teleologist IDers) believe that a Creator PROBABLY DID AND DOES take an ACTIVE role in both the initiation process of the universe, and --- by subtle effects at the quantum level, utilizing chaos and modifications of initial conditions of each component system, DID direct the evolution --- first of the universe and then of life as it evolved with goal toward first sentient and then sapient beings such as ourselves.

The prospective GOAL of that evolution is to act as a communication mechanism of spiritual components of the “kingdom” of the Creator (God) with His ultimate creation (man, and possibly other sapient beings in the universe), allowing them (and “Him”) physical interaction and spiritual development within the universe so created such that “He” (as a spiritual whole) might participate in “His” (or “IT’s”) creation.

This concept is neither provable by ANY means mankind could devise, nor is it “magic” nor “witchcraft”. It is merely a concept; a belief system, felt strongly by many to be valid, and should be left at that.

Its teachings or concepts should be restricted to individuals; families; accepting religious organizations and it should not find itself at loggerheads with science nor formal education since such discussions are purely philosophical.

However, since its precepts demand a continuum of evolution (at the quantum, molecular and macroscopic levels) within the universe and within life systems and are founded on scientific knowledge as it evolves, concepts evolving from physics, astrophysics, biology, chaos theory and mathematics et al are pivotal in RECOGNIZING the process emanating there-from.

In short, science is a VALID TOOL OF INVESTIGATION AND AFFIRMATION for those who believe that --- what we are experiencing, from the beginning, is NOT by CHANCE; but purposeful.

THEREFORE EVERY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE PROVIDES ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE; ANOTHER COG TO COMPLETE OUR CONCEPT, AND VALIDATE OUR BELIEF IN AN ULTIMATELY DIVINE ORIGIN AND PROCESSES WITH ULTIMATELY DIVINE GOALS.
JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2012 7:23 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2012 3:41 PM jchardy has not yet responded
 Message 180 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2012 5:37 PM jchardy has responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1895 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 170 of 230 (655334)
03-09-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
03-09-2012 8:00 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
So if you're not arguing that ID is science and if you're not trying to force ID on children or anyone else, I'm fine with letting you go your happy way.
--Percy

Percy: Quite right. I do NOT take the position ID should be “a science”. It utilizes science to affirm its beliefs and those who believe in a teleologic ID. I.e., a PURPOSE for what we see from a spiritual point of view. There SHOULD be no conflict. JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 03-09-2012 8:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 03-09-2012 4:22 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18855
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 171 of 230 (655335)
03-09-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jchardy
03-09-2012 3:11 PM


definitions of deism
Hi again jchardy,

NO. While Deism DOES "---presuppose the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator BUT "HE" does NOT intervene in the universe". I (and many teleologist IDers) believe that a Creator PROBABLY DID AND DOES take an ACTIVE role in both the initiation process of the universe, and --- by subtle effects at the quantum level, utilizing chaos and modifications of initial conditions of each component system, DID direct the evolution --- first of the universe and then of life as it evolved with goal toward first sentient and then sapient beings such as ourselves.

There is no orthodoxy to deism, and there are many that consider active roles possible. The minimalist definition I've seen is provided by

http://www.deism.com

quote:
Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 3:11 PM jchardy has not yet responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1895 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 172 of 230 (655336)
03-09-2012 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by NoNukes
03-09-2012 10:39 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
This characterization is wrong, and the analogy is completely inapt. Einstein's thought experiments were based on hypothetical scenarios that showed the ramification of postulates that were based on observed phenomena. The thought experiments were not random speculations and guesses divorced from any and all evidence.

Quite true. But teleologic ID concepts are also NOT “random speculations and guesses divorced from any and all evidence”.
Our concepts ARE also based on science and its known, prospective and introspective considerations. In this regard, OUR concepts have just as much founding as those that Einstein had which initiated his integration of Maxwell’s EM equations and Hendrick Lorentz’ work subsequently integrated into ideas leading to GR.
The difference is, our concepts extend it (science) to the "impossible" --- to the spiritual aspect of the universe --- we, of course, assume the validity of those concepts BUT do NOT demand you (or any one else) accept those same concepts as "valid", since ---- they may not be; and certainly will never be "provable".
JCH

quote:
I would characterize Einstein's thought experiments as hypothesis generating activity, where the result of the activity is predictions that were both falsifiable and explicitly logically (i.e. mathematically) required by the hypotheses. In other words, Einstein's thought experiments represent science activity of the highest order. Quite unlike your speculation.
As an aside, there is no doubt about in my mind, that there is an "I'm like Einstein, struggling in the patent office" corollary to Godwin's law.

Well, sir, --- This has not even the foggiest reference to “Godwin’s law”, and to your relief, I admit that “I AM NOT LIKE EINSTEIN”.
But you, I, and all of us have the advantage of his same quantum computer (our fertile human brain) which struggles continuously to make sense of our world, and universe, and our human condition as a reflection of the remarkable universe we find ourselves in.
I am quite certain Einstein didn’t “struggle” in the patent office position. It afforded him the hours of boredom to contemplate, which to one of such dynamic brilliance (along with probable ADD), could only find solice in his genius imagination.
JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2012 10:39 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2012 5:28 PM jchardy has responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1895 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 173 of 230 (655339)
03-09-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Taq
03-09-2012 11:27 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
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.

This is a peculiar concept: “God-of-the-Gaps” is it not? I certainly don’t respect the concept at all. God does NOT exist in our ignorance! He may, however, be found to exist in the thorough contemplation of our knowledge, even then, though, He will NEVER be “obvious”, nor “verifiable”.

quote:
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?

These are primitive concepts. Teleologic IDers do NOT attempt to disprove NS. They look for end-points which seem to lead to new questions to answer which should be pursued by science.
JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 11:27 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 03-09-2012 4:26 PM jchardy has not yet responded
 Message 177 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 5:09 PM jchardy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15667
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 174 of 230 (655340)
03-09-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by jchardy
03-09-2012 3:18 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:

I do NOT take the position ID should be “a science”. It utilizes science to affirm its beliefs and those who believe in a teleologic ID. I.e., a PURPOSE for what we see from a spiritual point of view.

If you want to believe that ID "affirms its beliefs" using science then I'm fine with that, as long as you don't try to actually promote it or teach it as science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 3:18 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15667
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 175 of 230 (655341)
03-09-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by jchardy
03-09-2012 4:17 PM


Re: purpose in science
Hi John,

You don't believe ID is science, but you think it uses science to verify its hypotheses about such things as purpose in the universe. And you reject God-of-the-Gaps, but state that God will never be "obvious" or "verifiable."

Its beginning to sound to me that you believe the same thing as most IDists, you're just inventing an alternate vocabulary.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 4:17 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1895 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 176 of 230 (655344)
03-09-2012 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by NoNukes
03-06-2012 7:16 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
To help clarify what you mean here, can you provide an example of an inflexible science dogma that has damaged its image?

Well—ll, OK. But you won’t like this one either:
1) Whenever Science gets tangled with politics, it produces dogma almost as inflexible as when it entangles with religion. Take the “Global Warming” debate for example.
2) We seem to understand “this year” that weather cyclicity is a “usual” phenomenon through the eons on our planet.
3) Changes currently taking place in our climatic conditions are taken advantage of by politicians with an agenda to direct the debate in a direction of their choosing.
4) There is controversy: Not all scientists agree that man-made elevations in CO2 are a significant contributor. This controversy should be met in open forum, yet those scientists are demonized and alienated by other’s of their own simply because they wish an open and frank discussion.
5) Their publications are blocked. Speaking engagements are cancelled. They lose tenure because they have a “different” or “deviant” or “aberrant” concept of what the data actually shows.
THIS IS DOGMA. I detest it, and so should all scientists; but, sadly, many embrace it ---- for political reasons, --- and it damages science!
Sadly, nothing can further damage politics. That realm is already damned in most quarters, yet it continues to be misused malignantly, and poor scientists allow themselves to be sucked into the black hole.
JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2012 7:16 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7022
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


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 responded

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

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1895 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 178 of 230 (655349)
03-09-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Pressie
03-09-2012 4:47 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
Could you be so kind as to provide the following:
1) define what you mean by such an "agent";

GOD.

quote:

2) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of said agent;

Impossible to verify.

quote:
3) provide a definition of what you mean by "plausible means" in this instance.

By nudging or changing either the initial condition of critical change points or any sequential point thereafter, since EACH chain of events have “new beginnings” for the next sequential change.

quote:
4) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of those "plausible means";

See quantum theory; chaos theory, strange attractors; fractals and understand the meaning of “uncertainty”.

quote:
6) provide evidence that there is anything else but our "physical universe";

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. Of course, there’s the extrapolations of M-theory --- though these are all just elaborations of our “physical universe” == we think.

quote:
7) define what you mean by "manipulated" in this instance;

Again, See quantum theory; chaos theory and understand the meaning of “uncertainty”.

quote:
8) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for this manipulation?

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.

quote:
Without this the sentence surely doesn't have much meaning. You might as well have said:
"My point is that there are plausible means by which the brain farts of the green crocodile on Betagustlust (far beyond our understanding) might manipulate the evolution both of the physical universe and of life and its evolution".

Yes, I suppose that is one primitive, angry and simplistic way of expressing it.

JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Pressie, posted 03-09-2012 4:47 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 6:14 PM jchardy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 230 (655351)
03-09-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by jchardy
03-09-2012 4:05 PM


Re: purpose in science
But teleologic ID concepts are also NOT “random speculations and guesses divorced from any and all evidence”.

You've already admitted that those concepts are not evidenced.

I do NOT demand you (or any one else) accept those same concepts as "valid", since ---- they may not be; and certainly will never be "provable".

No, but if I don't accept those concepts, I'm in denial of the truth, according to you.

But you, I, and all of us have the advantage of his same quantum computer (our fertile human brain)

No, as a matter of fact, we don't. Even Einstein was only "in the zone" for a couple of decades. I've never been on Einstein's level and you are not currently there.


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 172 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 4:05 PM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 9:32 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4959
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 180 of 230 (655352)
03-09-2012 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jchardy
03-09-2012 3:11 PM


Re: purpose in science
Jchardy writes:

NO. While Deism DOES "---presuppose the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator BUT "HE" does NOT intervene in the universe". I (and many teleologist IDers) believe that a Creator PROBABLY DID AND DOES take an ACTIVE role in both the initiation process of the universe, and --- by subtle effects at the quantum level, utilizing chaos and modifications of initial conditions of each component system, DID direct the evolution --- first of the universe and then of life as it evolved with goal toward first sentient and then sapient beings such as ourselves.

The problem with this sort of language is that it's just waffle. It has no content, it's a religio-sciency mash up without substance. You could substitute any pseudo scienticic nonsense in there and it would make just as much sense and have just as much non-meaning. I mean why leave out muliverses, string theory and brains? You might as well use them, you chucked in everything else big physics you could think of.

The only reason to mangle science like this is to lend fake authority to a very, poor story. As has been said many times, you can believe anything you like but if you want to call it science it has to BE science. Using scientific sounding language to describe elderly philosophical ideas is fooling anyone here.

You still haven't said anything at all new, you've just used a load of verbage to say it. I fully get that you want ID to be respected by science, but it isn't and until it does some, it can't be.

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 169 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 3:11 PM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 9:11 PM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
13141516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017