Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 292 (194320)
03-25-2005 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by commike37
03-25-2005 1:08 AM


Re: A Simple Solution
Even a cursory observation of the web site, for example, the post of the month section, would reveal that it is almost exclusively composed of pro-evolution or anti-creation science.
There is no such thing as "Pro-evolution" or "anti-creation" science. Science by definition does not become biased towards one theory or another.
I challeng you to find one piece of pro-creation or anti-evolution evidence from that website.
Once again I am confused. What do you mean by "pro-creation" evidence? Evidence is evidence; it does not have an affiliation. Evidence that shows men existed before fish is not pro or anti anything. A more legitimate challenge would be to find any false or made up evidence. So what don't you try that? Go look at Talkorigins find some false evidence and bring it to our attention.
I wonder Does the fact that flat earth theories do not show up on legitimate geological websites mean that they are unfairly biased?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:08 AM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:47 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 292 (194323)
03-25-2005 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rand Al'Thor
03-25-2005 1:34 AM


Re: A Simple Solution
There is no such thing as "Pro-evolution" or "anti-creation" science. Science by definition does not become biased towards one theory or another.
You oversimplify this. Evolution is as not as cut and dry as empirical evidence, there are more factors like inferences and interpretting the evidence. I hate to backtrack again, but I'll repost this quote from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center.
Actually, upon closer inspection, once one understands the predictions of intelligent design theory, it becomes clear that there is much data published in the journals already supporting intelligent design theory; researchers simply have not been inferring design because the implications of their results have not been made clear to them.
Now of course, this isn't the only example here, but the point I'm trying to get across is that using evidence to prove evolution is like using economic growth to prove happiness. However, this website still has a huge pro-evolution slant.
Once again I am confused. What do you mean by "pro-creation" evidence? Evidence is evidence; it does not have an affiliation. Evidence that shows men existed before fish is not pro or anti anything.
OK, I'll rephrase, but it's still the same goal. Find one piece evidence that supports intelligent design or refutes evolution. Even if you still do not think I have worded this request correctly, I think you can understand the general intent of the request.
Does the fact that flat earth theories do not show up on legitimate geological websites mean that they are unfairly biased?
You know how you hate arguments like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well I also hate extreme analogies like that. I think we can at least agree that ID has more evidence behind it than flat-earth theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-25-2005 1:34 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-25-2005 2:48 AM commike37 has not replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 292 (194326)
03-25-2005 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by mikehager
03-25-2005 1:33 AM


Re: More Stereotypes
And where do the laws of physics come from? I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mikehager, posted 03-25-2005 1:33 AM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by mikehager, posted 03-25-2005 4:59 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 60 by coffee_addict, posted 03-27-2005 2:52 AM commike37 has not replied

Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 292 (194343)
03-25-2005 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by commike37
03-25-2005 1:47 AM


Re: A Simple Solution
I think we can at least agree that ID has more evidence behind it than flat-earth theory.
Really? Both of these ideas need evidences that no one seems to come up with.
Find one piece evidence that supports intelligent design or refutes evolution.
Let's just go on a hypothetical situation here. Assuming that there is in reality no evidence for ID, is it still wrong for them not to have any evidence that supports creationism on their site?
You know how you hate arguments like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well I also hate extreme analogies like that.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics argument isn't wrong because it is a bad analogy, it is wrong because the Earth is not a closed system. Anyways, if you think the analogy is so completely wrong then why not do what we have suggested. Create a thread where you can show your evidence! Or if you think that it is a matter of interpretation then create a thread about that! Until you do so I stand by the analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:47 AM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2005 2:54 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 292 (194347)
03-25-2005 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rand Al'Thor
03-25-2005 2:48 AM


The 2nd law of thermodynamics argument isn't wrong because it is a bad analogy, it is wrong because the Earth is not a closed system.
To hell with closed systems. The thermodynamics argument is wrong because a change in allele frequencies in a population isn't a thermodynamic change. Evolution is not a negatively entropic process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-25-2005 2:48 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-25-2005 3:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 292 (194350)
03-25-2005 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
03-25-2005 2:54 AM


To hell with closed systems. The thermodynamics argument is wrong because a change in allele frequencies in a population isn't a thermodynamic change. Evolution is not a negatively entropic process.
lol *bows down* I am not worthy I am not worthy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2005 2:54 AM crashfrog has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 52 of 292 (194393)
03-25-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by commike37
03-25-2005 1:08 AM


any evidence yet?
I've spent part of my post listing all of the people and organizations who have supported ID in one form or another. I just want you all to realize the progress ID has made without me having to rehash evidence for every potential topic that would degrade into an "ID isn't science" debate.
commike-
You've listed people.
You've listed organizations.
You've listed writings about ID by those people and organizations.
You haven't given a single piece of real evidence.
Think of it this way; imagine if you asked for evidence for the theory of evolution, and I stated "Well, I have a list of a bunch of scientists who feel it is true, and there are these organizations made up of those scientists that have written FAQs and primers and briefs; but I can't give you a single experiment that has been done, or even tell you what the theory of evolution is."
If I said that, I would hope you would reply with "That's not science! Show me some evidence!"
That's essentially what I'm saying to you.
To say that despite everything I've listed here and much that I've left out, that ID can't put forth a plausible theory is just plain ludicrous.
Prove to me it is ludicrous - tell me a single plausible (falsifiable) ID theory. I'm beginning to assume you cannot since I've asked several times and you haven't given me one. If ID is true science this should be an easy task.
By the way, I'm still waiting for a reply to my previous post, and for that apology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:08 AM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 12:45 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Taqless
Member (Idle past 5913 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 53 of 292 (194411)
03-25-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:42 PM


Okay, let's start, as has been suggested, with ID is scientific in it's approach, uses scientific method, and therefore should be considered a science. From here, what you need to state is what the ID theory states, not "predictions", but a useful/testable/falsifiable explanation for what we see today.
Then you need to show evidence that has been provided by ID scientists, not to be confused with having alternate explanantions for someone else's data!, for the points you mentioned:
1. Reverse engineering of biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core.".
2. Rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record.
3. Re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and
4. Function for biological structures.
commike37 writes:
Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!
So, show it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:42 PM commike37 has not replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 292 (194441)
03-25-2005 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by pink sasquatch
03-25-2005 9:17 AM


Re: any evidence yet?
First off, you did not deal with my challenge of uniqueness. I specifically said the argument raised here was non-unique, and that this needed to be taken care of to win this argument. Rather than trying to rebut this point, you're just raising the typical "ID isn't science" response here again, just like Bush raised his typical "it's bad for the troops" neo-con message in the first Bush-Kerry debate.
I'm not here to challenge evolution. I know all the work they've put in to it, and I'm willing to accept that evolution is science, and I don't need a list of their accomplishments to show that. But I'd like you to prove that on the ID side, all of these groups, people, etc. have not put forth a single plausible ID theory or have presented ID in a scientific way, and that all of the ones I've left out have done the same, and how therefore we can conclude ID is not science.
---
And once again, I'm not asking that a certain aspect or tenet of ID be automatically accepted as science. I'm just asking to reject the notion that all of ID is not science. Once we get past that, then we can debate whether "X" journal or "X" person or "X" version of the design theory is acting in a scientific process. But it's just a stupid generalization to say that all of ID is not science.
This message has been edited by commike37, 03-25-2005 01:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-25-2005 9:17 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-25-2005 2:24 PM commike37 has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 55 of 292 (194446)
03-25-2005 1:00 PM


OK, this is NOT a debate ID forum.
PLEASE, someone involved here open a thread in Is It Science or Intelligent Design and lets get it on. Hashing around in Suggestions and Questions is just going to get this thread closed.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:45 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 292 (194454)
03-25-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by AdminAsgara
03-25-2005 1:00 PM


Allright, I never wanted this topic to go in this direction in the first place, so keeping this in mind we don't want to turn it in into an ID debate. I would like to further state my concerns that I've most vocally put out in Messages 1 & 38. Allow me to start with a story to segway into this.
One time, at the last speech & debate tournament, me and another person from my school were talking to a Jewish girl from another school. We somehow got onto the subject on how my school and community was too white (which is true) and my colleague described it as mostly white & Protestant (though I really think it's white & Catholic, but that doesn't change the main point). The Jewish girl then mentioned something about how she'd like to show us [I forget what she called the place] sometime. Obviously she wanted to give us a perspective of the real world outside our white & Catholic community. Sometimes I wish I could give some of you a tour of the ID world, of the long version of the FAQs and primers posted on the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, of the Center for Science and Culture, and through the many scientists who support ID. Just like the Jewish girl wanted to give us a more balanced perspective of the world, some of you need a more balanced perspective of the ID side. Even despite some of ID's shortcomings, it's still come a long way, even among evolutionists.
Access Research Network
How Many Scientists Take This Stuff Seriously?
http://arn.org/...ists%20take%20this%20stuff%20seriously.htm
Intelligent design is still a minority position, but even many scholars who disagree with it are intrigued by the ideaand can’t seem to get it out of their minds.
Elliot Sober, for example, is a distinguished philosopher of science at the University of Wisconsin, and was recently president of the Central Division of the American Philosophical Association. Although he is skeptical of intelligent design, he nonetheless spent much of his 1999 presidential address grappling with it. He also took the time, along with two of his graduate students, to write a long review of William Dembski’s book, The Design Inference.
Others have also become intrigued. In Spring 2000, eminent philosophers and scientistsincluding two Nobel laureatestraveled from as far away as Switzerland and France to attend a conference at Baylor University, in Waco, Texas, where the main topic was intelligent design. Although many were skeptical of intelligent design, they clearly thought it warranted serious attentionand enjoyed the give-and-take with intelligent design theorists.
Biologist and philosopher of science Paul Nelson, who participated in the conference observed, These world-class scientists came to the conference, had a great time, good interaction and, almost to a person, thought the conference was worth doing.
Despite opposition in the culture and in science, Nelson said, the intelligent design movement will continue to grow.
It’s not the kind of thing you change overnight, Nelson said. But there’s a steady, healthy growth of the intelligent design community, where we’re bringing in a lot of people of diverse backgrounds and diverse viewpoints. The little plant of intelligent design continues to flourish.
I wish more of a perspective like this existed on a web site. However, rather than debating specifics on ID, too many are saying ID (not a specific ID scientist or journal, but ID as a whole) is not science, and this is cutting off good debate on a lot of topics. Also, many people have been throwing many other negative stereotypes at ID.
Well, I feel I've done all I can to say my piece. I really need to stop posting on this forum for now and get back to work on some other important stuff (like AP test prep. I'm taking AP Macroeconomics and AP Physics B at school, but AP Calculus AB and AP Computer Science AB isn't offered at my school, so I have to do some really intense text prep for those two exams). So if any of you want to respond, I'll warn you that it will fall on deaf ears (not that I don't care, I'm just too busy). Just think about what I said, and (gasp) maybe even explore some of those websites I've mentioned in my topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-25-2005 1:00 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by paisano, posted 03-25-2005 3:09 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 03-28-2005 1:26 PM commike37 has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 57 of 292 (194462)
03-25-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by commike37
03-25-2005 12:45 PM


proof and refutation
First off, you did not deal with my challenge of uniqueness. I specifically said the argument raised here was non-unique, and that this needed to be taken care of to win this argument.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you sure you made this challenge to me?
But I'd like you to prove that on the ID side, all of these groups, people, etc. have not put forth a single plausible ID theory or have presented ID in a scientific way, and that all of the ones I've left out have done the same, and how therefore we can conclude ID is not science.
The above statement will hopefully serve as an excellent example.
I cannot prove what you ask, because I cannot refute a negative.
You however can prove the claim "ID is not science" (since it is a falsifiable statement) by showing a single example of ID science.
Do you understand yet why I am asking for a single example?
the ID side, all of these groups, people, etc. have not put forth a single plausible ID theory or have presented ID in a scientific way,
I can't logically show that. You can show me that a "single plausible ID theory" exists, and thus refute that claim.
Also be careful of concepts like "presented ID in a scientific way". Lots of things that are wholly unscientific can be presented with the appearance of being scientific - such as the PCID journal, which claims to publish hard science but does not.
I'm just asking to reject the notion that all of ID is not science. Once we get past that, then we can debate whether "X" journal or "X" person or "X" version of the design theory is acting in a scientific process.
Okay - help me reject the notion, by demonstrating that a single such 'X' exists. You can refute the notion, but I cannot prove it - understand?
But it's just a stupid generalization to say that all of ID is not science.
Again, I cannot prove the generalization but you can refute it.
Why haven't you done so yet?
(And by the way, will I ever get that apology for your abusive accusation?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 12:45 PM commike37 has not replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 58 of 292 (194469)
03-25-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by commike37
03-25-2005 1:45 PM


Sometimes I wish I could give some of you a tour of the ID world, of the long version of the FAQs and primers posted on the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, of the Center for Science and Culture, and through the many scientists who support ID.
Your assumption that all of us on the Evo side are simply unfamilar with the details of ID is unwarranted.
I am a Catholic physicist. As such I'm not ill disposed toward ID as a philosophical idea. However, I have actually taken the trouble to carefully read not just the ID material aimed at popular audiences, but Dembski's technical works themselves.
I find too many fatal errors in his work to regard it as scientifically valid. Just to touch on the main ones briefly,
1) He has a tendency to employ statistical computations that rest on invalid assumptions, and seems in many instances to fundamentally misunderstand or misapply such concepts as conditional probability.
2) He seems to not understand the difference between Shannon information and Kolmogorov computabilty. He repeatedly employs these concepts as though they were interchangeable, where they are decidedly not.
3) He does not present scenarios for observational or experimental tests or falsifications of his ideas.
I'm sure you can find more scientific criticisms in ID specific threads on this board.
One last question - are you Protestant or Catholic? If the latter, why are you so opposed to the idea of evolution when the Church indcluding Pope JP II does not regard it as incompatible with Catholicism ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:45 PM commike37 has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 59 of 292 (194483)
03-25-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by commike37
03-25-2005 1:50 AM


Re: More Stereotypes
Bluntly, no. I asked a question. Don't avoid it. Put up or shut up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:50 AM commike37 has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 60 of 292 (194774)
03-27-2005 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by commike37
03-25-2005 1:50 AM


Re: More Stereotypes
commike writes:
And where do the laws of physics come from?
That is a philosophical question, which has nothing to do with science. But to be blunt, we don't know. And we are proud to admit that we don't know. Furthermore, we are willing to bet that you don't know either.
You are doing a pretty good job at dodging the issue. You made a claim about ID. As far as I know, science hasn't tried to offer any explanation about the origin of the laws of physics. There has been individuals who have tried to give out their opinions, but the scientific community remains neutral on such issue. Big difference. Since you've made a positive claim, I think you should follow through with it and answer the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:50 AM commike37 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024