|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The goal of me driving to work is to get to work. On the way I take advantage of the slippery road surface, lose the bike in a bend and reconfigure myself into worm food. A complete accident and something which ToE subscribes to as being one of the essential mechanisms of its premise. But there is nothing particularily novel about it nor anything that a human wouldn't have considered had they taken due note of the torrential conditions prevailing at the time. Well, assuming you haven't had kids, your genes would be removed the pool. If the incident is unrelated to genes, then its not likely to have any major effect. However, if it had genetic cause (predisposition to bad planning, recklessnsess, balance problems, perception issues) then it might happen to others with those same genes so the frequency of those problems would reduce. Of course, if the same genes give you a genetic tendency to have lots of babies, that might off set the problem. The real issue is that road deaths are not a significant selection mechanism. Its hardly the root cause of anywhere maintaining its current breeding population size.
All that seems to be going on in this case is that computers produce options that would take us a long time to work out on our own. There is no such thing as an accident if it can be figured out at any point before or after, what the configuration of the system was which produced it. And if no accident then its not beyond a human to predict it will happen I'm not sure of that. Humans might not be capable of thinking in certain ways for example. However, you are basically defining accident as being an unpredictable event, and I don't that's valid. Accidents are unintended events.
Neither is there any advantage in it except that which leaps out and grabs the human imagination - the basic radio. There were likely untold computations disregarded along the way that missed the original goal but which would have conferred 'advantage' or a very significant sub-step to some even greater 'advantage' in some other, as yet unrecognisable/undiscerned way. Indeed - evolution doesn't necessarily choose the best solution. The point isn't the advantage in a radio, its that nobody designed the radio, it was designed by a process.
Why leap on this one in particular except to support the evolutionary model? It seems to me that the conclusions are being rammed into the theory - precisely my background concern with the whole issue of ToE. How is a conclusion being rammed in here? Discovering that an evolutionary process can design novel and unexpected solutions to problems is ramming a conclusion? I don't see it.
Picking and choosing 'accidents' in order to weave a scenario is relative childsplay, if there are potentially infinite accidents to chose from. I'm confused. The radio was an accident? If we continue testing and we find millions of these accidents that discounts that these accidents could happen? Whose to say in that case then that the diversity of life as we see it isn't an accident as you define it? This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 12-February-2006 01:28 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
How is a conclusion being rammed in here? Discovering that an evolutionary process can design novel and unexpected solutions to problems is ramming a conclusion? I don't see it. I won't go into your post in depth Mod, most of it seemed to miss the point I was making which is summed up by this addressing this piece. There was nothing novel or unexpected about the experiment - except in the minds of the observers. Given the set up, the result was a foregone conclusion. All sorts of 'novelty' and 'unexpected' happened outside these results. Except for a particular arrangement which included something not intended to be included in the experiment. Big deal - what else went unnoticed? This accident happened to produce something recognisable to humans as 'advantage' and it was hopped upon as such. And so my contention: if there are infinite accidents possible and we cannot tell which would be useful (as in: part way to something being eventually useful) - but can only here hop onto the obvious, then are we not simply denying the possibility of falsification? IOW, how could the theory fail if all can be dismissed except something that fits. But with infinite accidents something will always fit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There was nothing novel or unexpected about the experiment - except in the minds of the observers. Except in the minds of the designers of the experiment. Thus, the process designed the radio, not the experimenters.
And so my contention: if there are infinite accidents possible and we cannot tell which would be useful (as in: part way to something being eventually useful) - but can only here hop onto the obvious, then are we not simply denying the possibility of falsification? This isn't a theory, its an experiment, so falsification isn't really an issue. The experiment demonstrates that a process can design an object, and that intelligence isn't required. Its doubly powerful because the experiment wasn't set up to design a radio. If you are saying that infinite accidents are possible, whose to say that life as we see it isn't one of those accidents?
IOW, how could the theory fail if all can be dismissed except something that fits. But with infinite accidents something will always fit. The theory can be falsified in an absolute array of ways. This experiment cannot really falisify evolution though, so its erroneous to say that ToE cannot be falsified because this experiment can't falsify it. All this experiment does is demonstrate that a process can design things, even when the experimenters were not intending for the process to design said things. Do you accept that the process these experimenters employed managed to design something? Do you accept that the thing designed wasn't the 'target' of the process? Do you accept that the process used is evolutionary in its nature?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
iano writes: There was nothing novel or unexpected about the experiment - except in the minds of the observers. Given the set up, the result was a foregone conclusion. I assume you accept flying pigs with equal unflappability? You seem to be forgetting your position. You believe it's impossible for information to be created without intelligence. Not only was this oscillator designed by a non-intelligent process, but it took advantage of the environment in ways unanticipated by the experimenters. This experiment falsifies your position, and the unexpected introduction of novelty is an additional bonus showing that unintelligent processes are capable of innovation.
IOW, how could the theory fail if all can be dismissed except something that fits. But with infinite accidents something will always fit. No evidence for or against the theory is being dismissed. What is being "dismissed" is those changes which are disadvantageous because they are selected against by the environment. Your "infinite accidents" isn't too far off the mark since the earth is a very big place, and those few "accidents" that provide a survival advantage will be preserved. This is the way evolutionary change works, and it is how the oscillator experiment worked. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
How could you not allow your students to make any CRITICAL THINKING? No wonder our students are not doing well and they cannot compete with others specially from Asia. When we become too subjective, we are loosing our perspectives. Before accepting anything as facts, it is extremely important for all of us to examine evry information available and apply the questions: How? Why? and why not? This will make an objective study of science. Otherwise we will only be reproducing ROBOTS who will not examine anything , but accept everything as :THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE. This then becomes Guided ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
IOW, how could the theory fail if all can be dismissed except something that fits. But with infinite accidents something will always fit.
All I can say here is DUH!! That is pretty much what we have all been telling you all along. When there are infinite tiny accidents then at least one of them are bound to go in a direction which gives the descendent of an organism a survival advantage under specific environmental conditions. Improvements will be selected for. Just as they were in the successive generations of devices that finally came up with the radio reciever/oscilator. With life, it isn't the experimenter who dismisses the ones who don't do the job properly (unless you believe an invisible designer is taking a direct hand). It is natural selection that does it. Organisms that don't have the correct "fitness function" for a given set of conditions do not survive to pass on their genes. Exactly the same principal. It makes no difference what the selective pressures are. They can be environmental, arbitrary acts of God or a set of rules put into place by an experimenter. The result is the same. Evolution. This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 02-12-2006 04:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
How could you not allow your students to make any CRITICAL THINKING? It would be nice to see some examples of actual thinking from you. However, let's start easy; let's just see some examples of reading with comprehension. It is necessary to have knowledge of subjects before it is possible to think critcally about them. Here you have an opportunity for learning a little which you appear to be squandering. Those of us who have seen a little (or a lot) of the workings of science in acedemia know that robots is not what is aimed for or produced. You statements don't seem to match reality in at least some places.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'd just like to say that I find this entire exchange hilarious:
IANO: No matter how many accidents occur, you'll never get anything useful. OTHERS: Not so, here's an example... IANO: Well of course if you have enough accidents, you'll be able to pick and choose something useful! As if that proved anything. Really priceless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Crash, you are a frequent poster. It would be particularly helpful if you would remember to pick a good post title. Could you try please? Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Inteligent design must be treated as a theory in the context of science.
If it cannot withstand the rigors a theory must endure to be accepted within the contexts of scientific thought it should not be taught as science. To scientifically prove or disprove ID is not currently possible. For that matter niether is the existance of self.....which is for another forum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
To scientifically prove or disprove ID is not currently possible.
Then it is not (by definition) science as it has just failed one of the fundamental tests.It is not falsifiable! So it is out!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
But there are perfectly good theories that are not currently disprovable. That isn't the point.
It would appear that ID isn't disproveable in principle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
But there are perfectly good theories that are not currently disprovable. That isn't the point.
There are? Not to try and put you on the spot or anything, but could you point me in the direction of one of them please? I honestly don't know of any. All scientific theories that I am aware of, at least explain how things work and make predictions based on the proposed mechanisms.Even if those predictions are still complete theory (such as "M" theory), they can still be potentially falsified if the next bit of evidence points to something different or the next stage of the mathematical "proofs" don't meet the predicted results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
NosyNed writes:
But there are perfectly good theories that are not currently disprovable. That isn't the point.PurpleYouko writes:
Note the difference between "currently" and "potentially". It is an important distinction.
..., they can still be potentially falsified ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Note the difference between "currently" and "potentially". It is an important distinction.
Yes I guess it does make a difference. [ABE]Then again it is also not currently possible to falsify my theory that there are immaterial, invisible fairies in my house that mess about with all my stuff yet I have a bunch of circumstantial evidence that says that there are. This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 02-17-2006 04:16 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024