Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 1:30 PM
388 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,124 Year: 16,730/21,208 Month: 2,619/3,593 Week: 86/646 Day: 26/60 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1842 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 196 of 230 (655481)
03-10-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by jar
03-10-2012 5:37 PM


Re: purpose in science
Well, as Forest Gump would say: "Simple is as simple says (does), sir!"
JCH
This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 03-10-2012 5:37 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by jar, posted 03-10-2012 7:31 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1842 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 197 of 230 (655484)
03-10-2012 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Theodoric
03-09-2012 9:40 PM


[quote] Re: purpose in science
quote:
I offer as evidence only the multiple improbabilities of our existence:
And don't you find it amazing how the water in a puddle so neatly conforms to the hole.


Meaningless!
quote:
We may not understand exactly the how but we have the general gist. I find it amazing that you claim you do not posit a god of the gaps argument and then you use it. Using your own personal definitions does not change reality.

No, but reality should change our own personal definitions should it not?
JCH
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2012 9:40 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 10:31 PM jchardy has responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1842 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 198 of 230 (655486)
03-10-2012 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Panda
03-09-2012 9:53 PM


Re: purpose in science
Questions become evidence when they are not answerable. The law of parsimony, Occam's razor. "-- principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect".

JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Panda, posted 03-09-2012 9:53 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Panda, posted 03-10-2012 8:01 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29035
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 199 of 230 (655488)
03-10-2012 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by jchardy
03-10-2012 6:59 PM


Re: purpose in science
But it is simple.The water exactly fits the puddle. We are simply the product, not some goal.

The odds of us being the way we are is 100%.

The odds of the universe being the way it is is 100%.

The odds of anything in the past is 100%.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 6:59 PM jchardy has not yet responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1842 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 200 of 230 (655493)
03-10-2012 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Taq
03-09-2012 5:09 PM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
Then I am confused as to why you would keep saying things like this:
1) "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."
2) "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
3) "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
4) "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
5) "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 cannot currently verify. How is that anything other than a God-of-the-Gaps?


Wow, I am impressed. You actually read and collated what I wrote!! Thank you!
I confess, I may be applying that logic. I just disdain the label. “God-of-the-gaps” is such a manufactured concept and obviously prejudicial. I think that’s why I reject the term.
If there are gaps, God already filled them --- otherwise we wouldn’t be here. But the evidence from astrophysics and quantum mechanics strongly suggests a sequential requirement of absolute necessity to get to where we are. Just because we can’t understand some of the “gaps” is irrelevant, since they obviously have been attended to in the evolution of our improbable universe (and galaxy; and solar system and earth; and life; and us etc. etc.).
It’s the immutable apparently required sequence I find so compelling.
JCH

quote:
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.


Quite right. I am not an aficionado of ID literature since I have found its “science” attempts all over the place and ultimately uninteresting. I read it only under duress and then with a very critical eye and find most of it rambling and without substance.
I find all of my affirmations in real science; especially quantum cosmology and cosmology in general as well as the biologic sciences (since I was first a Zoologist; then physician; then internist then immunologist).
My feeling is that, while well intentioned, classical IDers are attempting to do the impossible: To make logical sense out of fable and allegory and to somehow extract science there-from. In so doing, they frequently make fools of themselves. They take upon themselves an unnecessary task: To make sense out of mythical rhetoric: Sacred as it is read, but gibberish as applied to reality. That’s not blasphemy, I write; just fact.
If ID would stick with fundamental real science as argument, they would find themselves less ostracized and more included in conversation.
JCH

quote:
So what are these questions, and what experiments can be run to answer them?

The experiments are being run as we common folk dither on. New information is coming forth every day. There is a continuum of both information and hope, and lots of time for mankind collectively to contemplate.
None-the-less, there will always be those who believe we are simply the result of chaos, entropy and probability and those who believe that, at some layer, our creation and evolution were planned from the beginning by God. Others will sort of mix the two concepts.
Whatever,--- it’s “OK”. We are, after all, sapient beings and part of the universe together, and I think it’s just our job--- our purpose --- to contemplate that simple fact. Probably the only one we all can’t deny.
JCH

Edited by jchardy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 5:09 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:50 PM jchardy has responded
 Message 222 by Taq, posted 03-12-2012 6:17 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1155 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 201 of 230 (655494)
03-10-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by jchardy
03-10-2012 7:18 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:

Questions become evidence when they are not answerable.


How?
Unanswerable questions simply describe what we do not know. The only thing they could be considered evidence of is our lack of knowledge.

jchardy writes:

The law of parsimony, Occam's razor. "-- principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect".


Questions are not explanations either.

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 198 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 7:18 PM jchardy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 202 of 230 (655497)
03-10-2012 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by jchardy
03-10-2012 5:44 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:

It's clear that many things had to be just right for life to evolve in this universe.
...
There is no use to discussing the unknowable.

And yet you discuss the unknowable anyway. The life that happened in this universe was life that was possible in this universe. Were this a different universe with different laws then any life that happened would have been life that was possible in that different universe. How many different types of universes could give rise to life? You don't know, yet you seem certain that it is amazing that life arose in this one.

Any other unknowable things you'd care to discuss?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 5:44 PM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 8:41 PM Percy has responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1842 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 203 of 230 (655498)
03-10-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
03-10-2012 8:25 PM


Re: purpose in science
Apparently not. JCH
This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:25 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:55 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 204 of 230 (655499)
03-10-2012 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by jchardy
03-10-2012 7:58 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:

If there are gaps, God already filled them --- otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

You've misunderstood the term "God of the gaps". When people attribute what we do not know to God, their god is called a "God of the gaps", where "gaps" refer to gaps in our knowledge. As our knowledge grows and fills in those gaps the things attributed to the "God of the gaps" becoms less and less. Gods used to be responsible for the motion of the planets, the weather, disease and much else, but as knowledge has increased these Gods have had to cede control of these phenomena to nature. As our telescopes and microscopes increase in power these Gods recede and shrink.

I am a scientist...

You're a physician.

...since I was first a Zoologist...

You have a BA in zoology from MSAC (Mountain State Agricultural College?) and worked one year as a lab technician at Riverside County Hospital before beginning med school. You were never a zoologist.

But the evidence from astrophysics and quantum mechanics strongly suggests a sequential requirement of absolute necessity to get to where we are...It’s the immutable apparently required sequence I find so compelling.

You're running a word salad generator program, aren't you.

My feeling is that, while well intentioned, classical IDers are attempting to do the impossible: To make logical sense out of fable and allegory and to somehow extract science there-from.

Far be it from me to defend IDists, but you seem to have as little acquaintance with ID as you do with science.

quote:
So what are these questions, and what experiments can be run to answer them?

The experiments are being run as we common folk dither on. New information is coming forth every day. There is a continuum of both information and hope, and lots of time for mankind collectively to contemplate.

It's great to know that these experiments are being run as we common folk dither on, but to ask once again, what are these questions, and what experiments can be run to answer them?

None-the-less, there will always be those who believe we are simply the result of chaos, entropy and probability and those who believe that, at some layer, our creation and evolution were planned from the beginning by God. Others will sort of mix the two concepts.

How scientific do you think it is to postulate a being for whom you have no evidence?

--Percy


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 1:15 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 205 of 230 (655500)
03-10-2012 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by jchardy
03-10-2012 8:41 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:

Percy writes:

Any other unknowable things you'd care to discuss?

Apparently not.

This rejoinder reminds of a bad joke I once saw on a TV comedy hour back in the 60's. One guy says to the other, "Ever ride a jackass." "No," the other guy replies. "Well, why don't you hop on your back and give it a try?"

"Oh, that's a good one," the other guy replies. "I'm going to try it on this gentleman coming now. Sir, have you ever ridden a jackass." When the gentleman says no the guy turns his back and says, "Well, hop on."

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Minor wordsmithing.

Edited by Percy, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 8:41 PM jchardy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Panda, posted 03-10-2012 9:17 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1155 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 206 of 230 (655503)
03-10-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Percy
03-10-2012 8:55 PM


Re: purpose in science
Shouldn't that be:
jchardy writes:

Percy writes:

Any other unknowable things you'd care to discuss?


Apparently not.

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 205 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:55 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 207 of 230 (655504)
03-10-2012 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by jchardy
03-10-2012 5:44 PM


Re: purpose in science
It's clear that many things had to be just right for life to evolve in this universe.

Oddly enough, repeating the same claim in response to a request for clarification doesn't add to the discussion, nor does it make the claim more persuasive.

There is no use to discussing the unknowable.

If there's no use discussing the unknowable, there's even less use basing a hypothesis on such lack of knowledge.

All we can deal with is what we know or can analyze.

And if you cannot know the details of all possible ways life can arise, you cannot begin to assign probabilities of it arising.

I just ignored the request because I didn't think you were serious. What work do you want me to show? What detail?

The calculations you used to come to your conclusion that life is too improbable to have arisen without influence from an intelligent agent. I can't begin to discuss with you your claim that it's improbable without such calculations. Without them, we are left with nothing but you claiming it's so and me disagreeing. That's not a debate.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 5:44 PM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 12:54 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 208 of 230 (655505)
03-10-2012 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by jchardy
03-10-2012 7:12 PM


Re: [quote] Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:

quoting Theodoric

quote:
I offer as evidence only the multiple improbabilities of our existence:
And don't you find it amazing how the water in a puddle so neatly conforms to the hole.


Meaningless!

The fact that you don't understand the point doesn't mean it's meaningless.

The conditions on earth are suited to support life because life has adapted to suit the conditions on earth. We don't see life forms that require 10% of earth's gravity to flourish because any such life forms that might have arisen would have been outcompeted by organisms better suited to the conditions that do exist. Similarly, the water in the hole might think that the hole is perfectly designed to hold it, just the right shape and depth. But the fact of the matter is that the water's shape and amount are determined by the hole instead.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 7:12 PM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 12:43 AM subbie has responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1842 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 209 of 230 (655512)
03-11-2012 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by subbie
03-10-2012 10:31 PM


Re: [quote] Re: purpose in science
quote:
The fact that you don't understand the point doesn't mean it's meaningless.
The conditions on earth are suited to support life because life has adapted to suit the conditions on earth. We don't see life forms that require 10% of earth's gravity to flourish because any such life forms that might have arisen would have been outcompeted by organisms better suited to the conditions that do exist.

OK, I’ll play; that’s more like it. Riddles waste time. I agree with your general surmise.

quote:
Similarly, the water in the hole might “think” that the hole is perfectly designed to hold it, just the right shape and depth.

Or, just as correctly, the water might “think” the hole it fashioned was now perfectly designed by itself for its purposes.

quote:

But the fact of the matter is that the water's shape and amount are determined by the hole instead.

Unless, of course, the hole was made by the impact of the water, (e.g., a glacial lake), in which case the hole might fit the water perforce.
Water is very persistent and forceful stuff on the move, particularly when in solid state.

I am still at a loss to determine your point here in contrast to my position. Enlighten me!
JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 10:31 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by subbie, posted 03-11-2012 12:31 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1842 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 210 of 230 (655513)
03-11-2012 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by subbie
03-10-2012 10:23 PM


Re: purpose in science
Rather than going through calculations, none of which would be mine alone, I would ask that you read the summary of Chapter 1 of Mallary's "Our improbable universe" at: http://www.improbableuniverse.com/Chapter1.html .

JCH


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 10:23 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by subbie, posted 03-11-2012 12:42 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017