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
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4320
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4


(2)
Message 16 of 230 (653804)
02-24-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
02-23-2012 7:12 PM


Mod,
Modulous writes:
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
I agree that we can clearly see and understand purpose with regard to human artifacts.
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?
I disagree. I think the proper word is function, not purpose.
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.
Again, we are talking about artifacts. A non-human animal modifies an object or material it finds in the environment. A twig does not have a purpose until it is modified to fish termites out of a mound or build a nest. Before that it had a function as part of a tree.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Panda, posted 02-24-2012 12:23 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2012 3:45 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 39 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:06 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


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


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

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

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

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


(1)
Message 18 of 230 (653811)
02-24-2012 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tanypteryx
02-24-2012 11:01 AM


Tanypteryx writes:
I disagree. I think the proper word is function, not purpose.
Although it seems like semantic quibble, I agree that Mod used an easily misconstrued word.
This has led to people bouncing between Purpose [intent] and Purpose [function].

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 16 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-24-2012 11:01 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


(8)
Message 19 of 230 (653812)
02-24-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


John S. Hardy, Jr. M.D., A.C.P., F.A.C.A. writes:
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.
Scientists don't care what anybody believes. They really don't, they're only interested in what can be shown by evidence and testing to be true.
Science isn't a 'dogma' and it's not remotely interested in the 'goals (and purpose) of the followers of Intelligent Design, nor does it want a 'conversation' with them. That's not how it works.
It's important to understand this; there's no point crying about 'vitriol' and hoping for a reconciliation because science is not a political or religious movement that is looking for a negotiated settlement.
All the ID movement has to do to engage with science is TO DO SOME.
Do the work, get the evidence, get it peer reviewed and published in Nature, then step forward for the Nobel Prize and listen to the every scientist in the world clap and cheer.
Simple really.

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

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

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4320
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4


(1)
Message 20 of 230 (653815)
02-24-2012 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taq
02-24-2012 11:30 AM


Taq writes:
The goal of scientists is to figure out how nature works. That's it. That is not the goal of ID supporters. The goal of ID supporters is to have religion taught in science class.
It seems so sad to me that ID supporters miss the whole point of science. The excitement of finding mysteries in nature is completely lost to them. They know something is going on, but they misinterpret it as an attempt to prove their beliefs in the supernatural as wrong, meanwhile we're just having a blast telling each other what we discovered.
As others have noted, there is a simple cure for this. Stop using propaganda and get into the laboratory. Do the science.
Of course we know that is never going to happen. First, because most of them don't understand how to do science. And second, because they are waiting for us to build a god detector for them.
The other strategy is just to admit that ID is a religious belief and teach it as such outside of the public school science classroom.
This is so brilliant, that I would think even they would get it. Good grief, it's not like we are trying to get science and evolutionary theory in their churches and Sunday schools.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 02-24-2012 11:30 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 3:00 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

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


Message 21 of 230 (653818)
02-24-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tanypteryx
02-24-2012 1:59 PM


General response
My appologies for not knowing how to use the forum format properly. There have been so many responses to my missive and I have responded to the e-mail as a "reply", so none have gotten through. I have a reply to each and every one, so ---- once I've complete some chores, I will post my replies which each of you will recognize as applicable to your specific input will be able to read. Now that I recall how to use this forum, hopefully this won't happen again. JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-24-2012 1:59 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

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


Message 22 of 230 (653821)
02-24-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by lbm111
02-24-2012 7:04 AM


Re: purpose in science
I have to agree that at a fundamental level science cannot account for purpose.
If by 'fundamental level' you mean that a teleological purpose which is essentially definitionally immune from scientific scrutiny, then yes - we agree.
I would agree but does that make it right from a scientific point of view?
Your agreement does not make it right from a scientific point of view, the fact that it is right from a scientific point of view takes care of that.
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
Experiment isn't required, and is not always possible.
we can never observe 'purpose' hence it is superfluous to scientific knowledge
We may never observe teleological purpose, I'd agree (though many teleologists, for instance the IDists, would probably disagree). However, we can infer purposes based on the evidence: The purpose for a hammer. The purpose of the heart. But teleologists want to say that there is also a purpose for the human. And they are very quiet when it comes to telling us what that purpose is.
How would you measure how much purpose a rabbit's tail had? Has it got more units of purpose than a flagella?
I suppose it might be possible in some sense to quantify purpose, I don't think it is necessary to do so in order to infer purpose from evidence.
From a scientific point of view saying that a rabbit's tail has a purpose is as fanciful as saying god created the earth.
Does the heart serve a purpose? I think most people, scientists included, would concur that the heart's purpose is to facillitate the circulatory system.
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.
I don't think it is irrelevant if one's conclusions fit better with the evidence while other's conclusions contradict it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:04 AM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:22 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 23 of 230 (653824)
02-24-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tanypteryx
02-24-2012 11:01 AM


I disagree. I think the proper word is function, not purpose.
I don't think either word is more proper. My point was really that science can study both 'purpose' in the intentionally created function sense and 'purpose' in the non-intentionally created function sense.
If there was some intended function of the universe, it is feasible that science could study the evidence and conclude this, just as we do from artifacts and animal tools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-24-2012 11:01 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 24 of 230 (653838)
02-24-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Modulous
02-24-2012 3:34 PM


Re: purpose in science
Modulus - Experiment isn't required, and is not always possible.
Ok so you're not talking about scientific investigation here? what sort of science do you do if you don't doexperimental verification? I'm a fan of Gedanken experiments as much as anyone but you cannot suggest that these generate scientific fact.
However, we can infer purposes based on the evidence: The purpose for a hammer. The purpose of the heart.
You can infer anything you want - go wild! providing scientific proof is another matter. Exactly what empirical, quantifiable evidence can be provided for the purpose of a hammer? Can you seriously imagine publishing a scientific paper that proves a hammers purpose is to hit nails as opposed to say hitting people over the head

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2012 3:34 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2012 8:01 PM lbm111 has replied
 Message 26 by Warthog, posted 02-24-2012 9:59 PM lbm111 has not replied
 Message 115 by Larni, posted 03-01-2012 1:15 PM lbm111 has not replied

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


(2)
Message 25 of 230 (653841)
02-24-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by lbm111
02-24-2012 7:22 PM


Re: purpose in science
Ok so you're not talking about scientific investigation here? what sort of science do you do if you don't doexperimental verification?
Have you ever heard of astrophysicists experimenting on star formation?
The sort of science that would answer your question is often called Observational science
You can infer anything you want - go wild! providing scientific proof is another matter.
Science is about inferring things from the evidence. Scientific proof would just be further lines of evidence that is coherent with the initial inference.
Can you seriously imagine publishing a scientific paper that proves a hammers purpose is to hit nails as opposed to say hitting people over the head
I can certainly imagine a lively scientific debate about an ancient hammer, as various clues about it are discussed and their implications for its original use: tool or weapon. I can certainly imagine papers supporting both views might get published, if their was sufficient controversy about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:22 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:17 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 43 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:05 AM Modulous has replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(2)
Message 26 of 230 (653847)
02-24-2012 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by lbm111
02-24-2012 7:22 PM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
You can infer anything you want - go wild! providing scientific proof is another matter. Exactly what empirical, quantifiable evidence can be provided for the purpose of a hammer? Can you seriously imagine publishing a scientific paper that proves a hammers purpose is to hit nails as opposed to say hitting people over the head
Here is a hammer used for hitting people on the head...
...and how they were used...
Hammers used as a tools...
Note that the tools are much shorter than the weapon and the hammer head is proportionally much larger. Although the tool can be used as a weapon, it's purpose is to hammer nails. Their design shows this purpose and they are both less effective in the opposite role. You can fairly safely say what a hammer is intended for using the patterns we see here.
Just because they are both called hammers, doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Yes, I can seriously imagine publishing a scientific paper that proves a hammers purpose is to hit nails as opposed to say hitting people over the head

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:22 PM lbm111 has not replied

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


Message 27 of 230 (653850)
02-24-2012 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
02-24-2012 8:01 PM


Re: purpose in science
I'm re-entering this thread as the originator of the question first posed.
Talking about a hammer is somewhat interesting, but the pivotal question was about "proof" and "investigative or observational science." Technically, that's what science is all about. From Scientific investigation comes observation; from observation comes hypotheses; from hypotheses come experimentation. If you can't establish a valid experiment on earth, you try to do it in orbit. If you can't do it in orbit, you try and validate your hypothesis within the bounds of previously validated theory (e.g., General Relativity or Quantum Theory) and see if your hypothesis is mathematically compatible and/or your observations based on your predictions are consistent 100% of the time. Even then, you have no "proof" of validity,-- even if you have a Nobel prize as a result. You have a theory or hypothesis that is accepted as consistent "up to the point it has been challenged."
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2012 8:01 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 28 of 230 (653851)
02-24-2012 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by hooah212002
02-23-2012 5:12 PM


DAWKINS IS A DRAG
By the way, I consider Dawkins an idiot. Not because he have faith" but because he demeans all that do. He claims belief results in damage both to children who are taught it; and to nations who accept it. Those of us with an open mind only say --- maybe that's the way it's supposed to be. Dawkins type of narrow, inflexible thinking is exactly what causes conflict which can never be resolved. Those of faith can never convince Dawkins and his ilk of "the error or their ways" any more than Dawkins can convince us that he is correct. We will all know soon enough, since (basically) we are all already dead. We will know or not know at the moment of our death, and so what? If there is something, there is --- I chose to believe there may be. If there is nothing, so what? Darkness and no pain forever is not so bad. But I hate surprises, and I love looking for evidence while I'm here and sentient. It's both fun and challenging; and folks like Dawkins are just a drag. JCH
________________________________________

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by hooah212002, posted 02-23-2012 5:12 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by hooah212002, posted 02-25-2012 7:57 AM jchardy has replied

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


Message 29 of 230 (653852)
02-24-2012 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
02-23-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
OK. This is precisely the kind of vitriol that is unhelpful.
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. But I also don’t believe in magic. I believe in purpose as a POSSIBLE REASON for the evolution of the universe and life through 13.7 Billion years. It’s certainly true that that’s enough time for probability to do a lot, but the final answers are a long way away, and to deny everything based on bias and vitriol or repugnance is not the way of science and it should not be the way of faith either.
There should be an understanding that we (as humans) are all connected (if by nothing else, quantum entanglement), and we all have our puzzles we deal with in life and about this remarkable Universe and the peculiar and improbable location we find ourselves in it. If we don’t have those puzzlements, I, at least, think we should. We don’t have to believe in anything. We KNOW about the second law of thermodynamics; we KNOW about chaos theory and probability, and strange attractors etc. etc. etc. We KNOW about the horizon of the CMB which limits our view into the past of our universe so we can KNOW nothing past about 14 Billion years ago; we KNOW of the incredible SCALE we are dealing with in our universe of around 65 orders of magnitude (10 65 OR SO) from the exceedingly large to the exceedingly small, with us conveniently plunked right in the middle somewhere. That has always puzzled me. I have sought meaning and in doing so, I have sought explanation from Science. What I have found is that there are no clear explanations nor predictions and hugely more questions than answers AND, most bothersome I find are that technical walls we run into which we can never hope to breach to get all the information we need to clarify our need for answers. I find nothing offensive in anyone’s belief. I just choose not to reward STRANGENESS WITH ANGER. It is not productive, and furthermore, maybe some of these strange ideas are, in fact correct. Some of them at least.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 02-23-2012 5:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 02-25-2012 12:50 AM jchardy has replied
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 02-25-2012 11:24 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 52 by hooah212002, posted 02-25-2012 11:51 AM jchardy has not replied

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


Message 30 of 230 (653853)
02-24-2012 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
02-23-2012 5:45 PM


I apologize if I gave that impression. If I did, I miss-spoke (or wrote). I am a fan of science and have used it to delve into the origins of matter at the Big Bang (quantum Cosmology) and as a physician have used science throughout my career. There is no need for disrespect on either side of the ledger if only both sides will respect the other's data base and beliefs. I am a strong proponent of always keeping Science and Religion well apart. When one implements the consideration of Intelligent Design, they should do so on a purely personal basis. There is no firm evidence one way or the other, and there is never a reason to pound a believer in Science into submission, disallowing their research or instruction based on some faith based concepts. In addition thee is no excuse for Scientists to demean those who believe the creation of this improbable universe and the improbable evolution of sapient/sentient beings as somehow divine in origin; or at least the results of some "planning" on the part of "something or someone". There should be no conflict.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 02-23-2012 5:45 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Blue Jay, posted 02-25-2012 4:40 PM jchardy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024