What is science?

Percy, the evidence I am talking about is the same evidence that every scientist uses. Life is evidence. The cell is evidence. Everything that goes on in cells is evidence. ID, Creation and naturalism are conclusions drawn by that evidence.Percy:
Therefore, science proposes that life, and later species diversity, arose through processes known to us and that we have much evidence for, in other words, that they obeyed all the laws and principles of physics, chemistry and biology.John Paul:
That is wrong. Scientists make that proposition not science. There are NO laws of physics, chemistry and certainly none in biology that says life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. Even in the best scenarios we can't even come close.Percy:
You, on the other hand, propose that life was designed by some intelligence.John Paul:
We have two choices. Either life is the product of purely natural processes or it isn't. Why is only one of those choices considered scientific when there isn't any evidence to support it?Percy:
But there is no evidence for that intelligence, and it fails to address the key question of life's origin, i.e., if life can only be designed, then who designed our designer?John Paul:
Give it a rest. The evidence for the intelligence can and is being seen through the microscopes in labs around the world. Who designed the designer is only a key question to nay-sayers. By your logic since we don't know who designed Stonehenge it must be a natural formation.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was once an evolutionist. This overwhelming BS was very mundane when looked at through objective eyes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hello, John Paul.
This is an interesting comment. I was a creationist until it became evident to me that biological evolution explained the real world much better than creationism did.John Paul:
Perhaps it was your sense of what creationism was/ is that was/ is the problem. I have seen too many people blatantly misrepresnt what Creationists actually think about biological evolution. For example I have heard that Creationists think that God created all species and no new species arise. However Creationists at least since the time of Linne (the father of our biological classification system) proposed the Created Kind was more on the level of Genus. Yes, Linne was a Creationist who set out to determine what the Created kinds were. Was his work science?Why do I think I am more objective? As I have stated before I do not limit science to the limitations of scientists. IOW I let the evidence lead me to a conclusion and I don't let a conclusion, ie naturalism, lead the evidence.

edge:
So, now we have 'directly designed' and 'products of design'!John Paul:
Of course we do. And it is not "now" but has always been. You and I are the products of the design of life. We weren't directly designed. By design I can throw a baseball through a glass window. The shattering of the glass is a product of that design. The pattern of the shattered glass was not directly designed, but a product of the design.

NN:
At this point the creationist ideas have been falsified for about two centuries so even if evolutionary theory were proven wrong in some way they won't come back.John Paul:
Any examples of those allegedly falsified Creationists' ideas? Real ideas not the misrepresented ideas. You do realize that evolutionary ideas have been falsified also. Piltdown Man being one of them.While you are at it please provide a way to objectively test the notion that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. Please provide a falsification.The ToE is a theory along the lines of "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't already believe it."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While you are at it please provide a way to objectively test the notion that cetaceans evolved from land mammals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------edge:
Every transitional species discovered in that sequence supports evolution of cetaceans. There is no YEC or ID explanation of the fossil record.John Paul:
But transitionals only exist in the minds of people who want to see them. ID is about biology. There is no way to tell if what you think is a transitional got to be that way via biological evolution/ genetic heredity.
I ask for an objective test and instead get a very subjective test. Go figure...
Explain the fossil record? What again? Billions of dead organisms buried in sediments. We already know in order to be fossilized an organism requires rapid burial. Rapid burial refutes gradualism as a method for producing strata.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please provide a falsification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------edge:
That is part of the problem. In reality, YEC cannot be falsified becuase it is a miracle. On the other hand, the biblical account of the flood, as interpreted by most YECs, can be safely discarded.John Paul:
I asked you (NN really) to provide a falsification for the alleged evolution of cetaceans from land mammals. Typical of evolutionists you twist it around and provide a non-response. YEC can be falsified. All you need to do is show that natural processes can account for life, the solar system and the universe. Perhaps it is YOUR interpretation that can be discarded. I have asked this of you before- what would we use for a reference in order to refute the global flood? Please remember that more than just a flood occured.edge:
What we really have is the inability of YECism to explain life as we see it today and in the fossil record.John Paul:
The reality is it is your inability to understand what YECs say about life. Linne, the father of our biological classification system, was a Creationist in search of the Created Kind. Was his work science?ID uses all of our current knowledge pertaining to design and comes to the conclusion that life was designed.This message has been edited by John Paul, 05-20-2004 11:49 PM

deleted double post...This message has been edited by John Paul, 05-20-2004 11:56 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul: Of course we do. And it is not "now" but has always been. You and I are the products of the design of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Yes, yes, I understand that. However, it bothers me that you are redefining 'design' under an umbrella that includes virtually everything.John Paul:
That's your opinion. In reality I didn't redefine anything. It is my opinion that you are redining science- or trying to. Poppler's notion of falsifiability has been placed in the scrap heap many years ago. How do you falsify reality? If my exitence can't be falsified does that mean I exist outside of the realm of science? Absurd...

1) Designers can design each and every form of living organism which exists or has ever existed on Earth but leave no evidence of their own existence.John Paul:
The evidence of their existence is seen through the microscope, in the mathematical form the natural laws take and many more forms that are discussed in the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.2) Designers can produce designs that appear to be the products of billions of years of evolution, with telltale signs that they are related by descent to every other design (even those which are extinct) but are actually special creations.John Paul:
You obviously have no clue what ID is. Ignorance is one thing. Wilfull ignorance is a shame. ID does NOT go against common descent. But you would know that if you had a clue.3) Designers can produce designs that are redundantly, unnecessarily complex, but these designs should still be used to testify to the intelligence of these designers.John Paul:
What we now observe is the result of mutations culled by NS on the original design(s). BTW if you or any other human can design life better please do so or consider youself incompotent or stupid.

Percy:
In the past, haven't you distanced yourself from YECs and the flood?John Paul:
I have distanced myself from Biblical literalists. I am open to a global flood and YEC is relative. If I thought the evidence points to a 25,000 year old earth I am still a YEC to you.Science is about finding reality. IOW IF the flood occured science should be able to help us. However there are scenarios in history that happened that science can't tell us about. I don't care if science can tell us about the flood. However that tells me more about the limitations of scientists. If yoiu have a scientific issue with the flood then we can teach it in history class. I have already posted what I know science is. Read my thread opening post. The city of Troy was once thought to be a myth. However with research of historical documents someone found it. Books have been written explaining the evidence for a global flood. I don't understand why you guys don't read them.

LM:
While denying what the design mechanism was: Evolution.John Paul:
Evolution says NOTHING about tghe origins of life. Obviously you and MrH need to read about what ID is and what it isn't.LM:
IDists ignore an OBSERVED design mechanism (evolution) and insert a design mechanism that has never been observed, a non-terrestrial designer.John Paul:
Please provide any objective evidence that mutations culled by NS can do what you think it did. I don't have observe the designers of Stonehenge to know it was designed.LM:
They discard evolution because of a religious presupposition, not because of a logical conclusion drawn from evidence.John Paul:
That is a lie. I say we are religious because the evidence tells us there is a reason to be, or at the very least that something greater than us existed at one time. Behe is an IDist because of the evidence. Go figure...LM:
And speaking of "What is Science?", how do we falsify ID?John Paul:
How many times do I have to post this? ID is falsified once it is shown that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. Once that is done there is no need to infer a designer.

edge:
Nonsense again. Transitionals exist within the fossil record. I suppose to you it is all all coincidence that they occur at the correct stratigrahic levels.John Paul:
Please provide the evidence that shows mutations culled by NS led to alleged transitionals. Without that you have nothing but extrapolation based on a severe bias.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEC can be falsified. All you need to do is show that natural processes can account for life, the solar system and the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
The evidence says just this. There is no need for miracles.John Paul:
Too bad there isn't any evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. Any more lies for us?ID is based on all we know about design.Why do you think a biological theory should explain the fossil record? We have no knowledge on how that record was formed.

Please provide the evidence that shows mutations culled by NS led to alleged transitionals. Without that you have nothing but extrapolation based on a severe bias.M24:
Rubbish, what a load of illogical, goalpost moving misdirection!John Paul:
That's right. Evolutionists will always think facts and logic are rubbish and goalpost moving misdirection.M24:
The ToE predicts that transitionals should exist along the following lines: a transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa.Prediction borne out. Pure & simple, mate. As you are so fond of saying; "go figure."John Paul:
The reality is the prediction is NOT borne out. That is the reason punctuated equilibrium was brought about in nthe first place. Also only a teeny, tiny % of the fossil record could be construed as bearing out the ToE. It isn't borne out by marine fossils. It isn't borne out by insect fossils. It isn't borne out in the alleged evolution of bats. Well, I could go on & on, but what is the point?Where are all the transitionals? All you can offer is a handful of possibilities. You mention Archie. Where are the fossils leading to Archie? They don't exist. What the fossil record shows is the "hopeful monster" approach which isn't borne out by biological evidence. Embryology now shows that Archie might not have been a bird or at least not an ancestor to modern birds.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think a biological theory should explain the fossil record? We have no knowledge on how that record was formed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
But, but, but... you just told us! "Billions of animals died and were buried". Isn't that all we have to know?John Paul:
It depends on what knowledge you seek.edge:
And if you think that evolution is only a biological theory, then you are proving your own ignorance.John Paul:
Odd I don't recall saying or thinking anything of the kind. However the theory of evolution is first and foremost a biological theory. Can the concept of evolution, ie change over time, be applied to other venues? It can and it has.

John Paul writes:
I have already posted what I know science is. Read my thread opening post.Percy:
One's opening post is the beginning of the discussion, not the end.John Paul:
My point is I have not read anything here or anywhere (yet) that would change that view.

back to the topic.Even if science is limited to the observation of objects in the natural world, it does NOT stand to reason that those objects originated via purely natural processes. Natural processes would be those processes unaided by intervening intelligence- a beaver dam would not be natural as it took a beaver/ beavers to buid it- form, function and purpose. Archaeology is the study of objects that are not of natural origins. Anthropology studies artifacts, but first anthropologists must determine an object is an artifact. The fact that we have the word artifact tells us we already know how to determine a natural object from an un-natural object. Forensic scientists also try to determine natural from un-natural. Arson investigators do the same as do SETI researchers. The point being that we already have in place processes that aid us in detecting intelligent design. Why would biology be exempt from these processes? If nature can create the specified complexity we see in living cells it would stand to reason that nature could create an arrow head or an axe-looking object or any number of alleged tools. IOW by questioning the validity of ID in biology you also question every venue that uses design detection processes.Is ID a valid scientific venue? Yes. How so? Life exists. Either life arose from non-life via purely natural processes or it arose from un-natural, ie ID type, processes. It makes no sense whatsoever to exclude one possibility for only philosophical reasons, which is what naturalists are doing.I asked this question before and haven't received an answer:Karl von Linne (a Creationist)was searching for the created kinds when he cam up with binomial nomenclature. He was a scientist The question is- Was his work science?