Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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:   A Study of Intelligent Design Debate
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 210 (1735)
01-09-2002 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by mark24
01-08-2002 8:42 PM


mark24:
JP,
I think what Joz & Moose are getting at, is that if the ID that created life on earth isn't supernatural, then what created the IDer?
John Paul:
That is irrelevant as to how (or why) life appeared here on Earth and then diversified. First things first. And first we should determine our own realm before venturing outside of it. Why? Because doing so may help us answer your question.
mark24:
Could you present a scenario that would show the non-supernatural abiogenesis of any ID, please.
John Paul:
I am focused on life on Earth. Once that is answered then I will move on. Did you see the movie "Mission to Mars"? Life on Earth could be the result of alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension. The problem is the word 'supernatural' is a reletive word. Maybe what we deem 'supernatural' to another entity is perfectly natural. And maybe we attach that word to God just because of our ignorance. Just a thought.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by mark24, posted 01-08-2002 8:42 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by mark24, posted 01-09-2002 1:26 PM John Paul has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 92 of 210 (1771)
01-09-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by John Paul
01-09-2002 6:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
mark24:
JP,
I think what Joz & Moose are getting at, is that if the ID that created life on earth isn't supernatural, then what created the IDer?
John Paul:
That is irrelevant as to how (or why) life appeared here on Earth and then diversified. First things first. And first we should determine our own realm before venturing outside of it. Why? Because doing so may help us answer your question.
mark24:
Could you present a scenario that would show the non-supernatural abiogenesis of any ID, please.
John Paul:
I am focused on life on Earth. Once that is answered then I will move on. Did you see the movie "Mission to Mars"? Life on Earth could be the result of alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension. The problem is the word 'supernatural' is a reletive word. Maybe what we deem 'supernatural' to another entity is perfectly natural. And maybe we attach that word to God just because of our ignorance. Just a thought.
ID is NOT synonomous with supernatural forces (ie God).

People are only exploring your position on ID. That your meaning of ID doesn’t infer God, is understood. However, in further exploring your position; If there is a natural ID, then the question who designed the IDer IS relevant. If you’re not going to get into an infinite sequence of aliens begat aliens, that is.
Films like Mission To Mars explain origins of life, much as Panspermia does, it shifts the focus elsewhere, & ultimately fail to explain anything. The main question remains unanswered, how did life originate? (In this case to create more life). If life were created in a lab tomorrow, the origin of the creating intelligence, us, would not be explained. What’s the point of postulating ID if it doesn’t ultimately explain origins?
OK, back to the plot; ID IS POSTULATED AS AN EXPLANATION OF LIFE ON EARTH. The position I wish to explore is the claim that ID doesn’t infer God. Dress God up as a 4th dimensional being if you wish, at the end of the day, life is IC, so life can’t be the ultimate origin of life. So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply.
So, I ask again, & clarify, for you to present a hypothetical scenario in which God is removed from an ID scenario, & solves the origins of all life, by abiogenesis. This is what not having God as part of ID ultimately means.
YOU have found it relevant to deny that God is part of any ID scenario, but can you show it when describing ultimate origins of life with ID?
Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 6:17 AM John Paul has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 210 (1774)
01-09-2002 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by John Paul
01-04-2002 6:44 AM


quote:
John Paul:
I agree, bias should not be part of any scientific equation but the sad reality is that it is.
Science has this neato way of correcting errors, including errors caused by bias. It's called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which includes positive evidence, hypotheses which make testable predictions, and potential falsifications.
Let's say that a scientist produces a paper claiming that he has evidence that squid and humans are close evolutionary relatives. (this scientist really likes squid and wishes he was related to them) This is major news to the rest of the scientific community. Other scientists attempt to duplicate this scientist's work, and they fail, which casts a great deal of doubt on the first scientist's hypothesis that humans and squid are closely related. The hypothesis is abandoned.
This is a silly example, of course, but it makes my point. Because of the self-correcting nature of science, personal bias is weeded out eventually. In this way, science comes closer and closer to representing the reality of nature.
The problem with so-called Creation "science", is that they do not ever submit to this stringent correction mechanism. Any work that is anti-evolutionary in nature or which agrees with the Bible is accepted, but any evidence which leads away from their particular interpretation of the Bible is ignored.
That is one big reason why Creation "science" is not science, but religious dogma dressed up in a lab coat, holding a beaker.
Going back to my squid-loving scientist example, Creationists do this kind of thing all the time, except with animals they DON'T want to be related to; primates. Despite the enormous quantity of morphological, behavioral, and genetic evidence which indicates that Chimpanzees are very closely-related to humans, Creationists do not put Chimps and humans in the same "kind". Creationists say that Chimps and humans are not related AT ALL, even though 99% of human genes are IDENTICAL to Chimp genes. However, a Bengal Tiger and my tabby cat, which share fewer genes, ARE the same kind. These are just silly things to claim in the face of all of that evidence, and an obvious contortion to attempt to cram science into the Bible. Makes them look, well, silly.
quote:
John Paul:
And I would rather go through life believing there is a God and to die only to find out there is not, than to go through life not believing there is a God and to die finding out there Is.
Ah, Pascal's wager. You believe not based upon the evidence, but "just in case". That is perfectly fine to believe, of course. Just know that your belief in God has nothing to do with reason, science, or Biology.
Also, that line of thinking doesn't help anyone decide which God or gods to believe in, either. Why not Vishnu, or Allah, or Zeus, or the Great Spirit, or Gaia?
quote:
mark24:
This means not ignoring evidence to the contrary.
John Paul:
Oh, like the way evolutionists ignore irreducible complexity & minimal functionality?
First of all, you did not respond substantively. Please answer why Creationists ignore all the evidence for evolution.
Second of all, these ideas aren't ignored by science. They are simply not powerful arguments. They are, in fact, old arguments given new names.
They aren't evidence. They aren't theories. They produce no predictions. That means that THEY AREN'T SCIENCE. Why should scientists concern themselves with non-science? If they WERE science, they would be published in professional journals.
quote:
mark24:
It's lack of any evidence that doesn't allow a divine foot in the door. This is reasonable.
John Paul:
In my case it is the lack of evidence that drove me away from believing the ToE is indicative of reality. That includes the lack of evidence that life could form from non-life via purely natural processes.
Whether or not the evidence for the ToE convinces you bears not at all on if Creationism has positive evidence for it's claims. If the ToE was shown to be entirely false, that does not mean that your particular interpretation of the Creation account in the Christian Bible is correct, as there is no evidence to support the claims.
Science concerns itself with finding naturalistic explanations to naturalistic phenomena. It has enormous predictive power, and this is why it is altogether superior to Creationism if you want to understand nature. Creationism produces no testable predictions, and has no potential falsifications. God can be used to explain anything and everything, so Creation Science explains nothing.
Abiogenesis is a SEPARATE THEORY from the Theory of Evolution. It could be shown tomorrow that life on Earth was seeded from outer space and it would have NO EFFECT on the ToE at all.
The ToE kicks in as soon as the first life appears here. How/where it came from is not a part of the ToE.
[QUOTE]John Paul:
When the evidence turns up that substantiates the grand claims made by the ToE and abiogenesis, I will embrace it. If it never turns up, then it is just another belief system - ie a religion.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Tell me, JP, how many college-level Biology, Geology or Genetics classes have you taken? Have you read any entire books by Gould or Dawkins? How much of the Origin of Species have you read? Have you ever undertaken to do an HONEST study of science from the source to truly grasp what it is you are railing against?
Who are you to declare that hundreds of thousands of scientists working over hundreds of years are ALL wrong or biased on the basis of nothing more that your religious beliefs?
It is no matter. Science will continue to move forward with it's discoveries of common descent and evolution regardless of your claim that it can't happen.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 6:44 AM John Paul has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 94 of 210 (1820)
01-10-2002 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by John Paul
01-08-2002 4:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
slp:
I would argue that that is not entirely true - we don't know exactly who built it, but we have a pretty good handle on the groups involved.
John Paul:
Yup sure we do. Let's see- we have the Druids, Beakers, Wessex people, Merlin, aliens and assorted Neolithic peoples. That sounds like a pretty good handle to me- NOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
When unable to respond with substance, post fecetious nonsense, probably culled from some Erik von Daniken (sp?) book. http://www.britannia.com/history/h7.html has some actual information, albeit very brief. You can cross the druids, Merlin, and aliens off your list. The beaker folk and the 'assorted neolithic peoples' are the same thing.
John Paul:
First beaker folk and 'assorted neolithic peoples' are not the same thing. To say 'beaker folk' is to specify. Ya know, like differentiate between populations of people living in the neolithic period. This is from your link
"The best guess seems to be that the Stonehenge site was begun by the people of the late Neolithic period (around 3000 BC) and carried forward by people from a new economy which was arising at this time.
These "new" people, called Beaker Folk because of their use of pottery drinking vessels, began to use metal implements and to live in a more communal fashion than their ancestors. Some think that they may have been immigrants from the continent, but that contention is not supported by archaeological evidence. It is likely that they were indigenous people doing the same old things in new ways."
John Paul:
Yup there it is. We have a guess and it's a best guess at that. Woo-hoo, I feel better already. The problem is, was Stonehenge designed and built by these people or did they just live there because it was there?

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/blavatsky/123/stonebuilt.html
Of course, a best guess by knowledgible folk is a far better thing than speculative nonsense by those pontificating in areas well outside of their sphere of knowledge, no?
Better yet, and before you succeed in veering off into a tangent that you hope you can score points on, again, there is a 'paper trail' that can be followed as to the contruction. Over time.
And, again, where is similar evidence for ID in biology?[b] [QUOTE] slp:
This appears to be one of those 'I must post SOMETHING!' posts...
John Paul:
Then why did you even bother? And what about your link makes it the all knowing authority on Stonehenge? [/b][/QUOTE]
Because I hate to see piffle unchallenged.
I never said, implied, or even slightly hinted at my link being the 'all knowing authority'. It was just one of several that came up on a simple Google search. Of course, at least I provided some objetive information...[b] [QUOTE] quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
But more importantly, we have a history - a 'paper trail', if you will. Examining the site, it has been discovered that what we now refer to as Stonehenge isthe last in a series of modifications to earlier structures at that site. The history is fairly well documented - things such as the source of the bluestone used, the path taken in getting the larger stones to the site, etc.
John Paul:
The point is we don't have to know who designed it or why in order to deduce it was in fact designed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
If that was your point, it was an overly simplistic one (say - didn't someone start a thread about oversimplification and it being a bad thing?).
John Paul:
Actually, when taken in context (which I know is something you can't do), it is a simple point, but one you can't comprehend- so what does that tell us about you? It has absolutely nothing to do with oversimplifying anything. It's just the way it is. Good thing logic isn't required to obtain a phd.[/b][/QUOTE]
The best you seem to be able to offer are your laughably asinine attempts at insulting and mocking my superior education.
I did tkae it in context - the complete context, and not the overly simplistic way in which you had hoped. We do not need to know the exact designer to infer HUMAN design, no. But when HUMAN design is inferred, it is done based on a number of things - history, for one, and more importantly, and as I pointed out, EVIDENCE.[b] [QUOTE] slp:
What analogous information do we have for Intelliegent Design in biological organisms?
John Paul:
Seeing that there isn't any evidence to substantiate the claim life, and therefore biological organisms, are the result of purely natural processes, it is safe to infer ID.
----------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
LOL! I wrote something similar before:
There is no proof that blue fairies push the sun through the sky, therefore, we should conclude that it is in reality pink fairies.
John Paul:
What's this "we" sh!+? YOU can infer whatever you want. Convincing others is a different story. How old are you and what is your level of education?[/b][/QUOTE]
Your response is completely unwarranted. 'We' is simply a word used in a sentence. I don't see what got you so upset. Let's look at what YOU wrote:
"...it is safe to infer ID."
Gee, YOU did not write that it is OK for YOU to infer ID. As written, it appears to be a blanket statement, that anyone should infer ID because the opposite has not been 'proven' (which is logically fallacious on its own).
I am 35 years old, and I have a doctorate in a relevant field.
You?[b] [QUOTE] slp:
Surely, even YOU can recognize a logical (not to mention scientific) fallacy such as the one you just wrote?
John Paul:
So, tell me then. Why do I have to infer the same way and the same things evolutionists do when the evidence (obvious) tells me something different? You are not the Borg and I will continue to go with the
evidence.[/b][/QUOTE]
Your 'evidence' is that the opposite of your views has not been 'proven' to your personal satisfaction. That is not evidence. That is a logical fallacy. I, frankly, do not care one whit what you personally believe. Of course, I did not realize that this - or any - internet discussion forum was to discuss the personal beliefs of individuals and that the job of board participants is to convince individuals of the error of their ways.
My mistake.[b] [QUOTE] OK, I should have posted this as an analogy, but you being a phd and all, I actually thought you knew of such-
Here is a great illustration by Julie Thomas:
quote:
**snip lengthy and irrelevant exposition by internet pseudoauthority 'Julie Thomas'**
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Describing this device, Science News makes it clear that it is not like a machine, it is one. [/b][/QUOTE]
And this is evidence that only ID can 'explain' it how?
And what does this have to do with, say, common descent, which is what these arguments are ultimately about?
If this was supposed to be a counter to the fact that the history of the construction of Stonehenge is indicative of 'natural' (i.e., human) causes, then it failed utterly.
[b] [QUOTE] quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like the many IC systems Behe discusses, there seems to be nothing in the literature about the Darwinian evolution of the ATP synthase.
the above was taken from Behe answers his critics- Nelson Alonso responds
[/b][/QUOTE]
Nelson Alonzo is an incredibly gullible and ignorant ID proselytizer. I engaged him on the KCFS forum some time ago and he - like you and other creationists - simply focuses on minutia and casts aspersions.
What Nelson does not seem to admit i sthat the scientific literature has absolutley nothing - from Behe or anyone else - on the Intelligent Design of ANYTHING biological.
Gee - I wonder why?
Oh, wait - the conspiracy, of course!
But then why doesn't the publication of the Discovery Institute - Origins & Design - have any SCIENTIFIC articles on the Design of anything?
Another post by John Paul devoid of anything substantive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 4:44 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 1:04 PM derwood has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 210 (1825)
01-10-2002 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by derwood
01-10-2002 12:08 PM


slp:
The best you seem to be able to offer are your laughably asinine attempts at insulting and mocking my superior education.
John Paul:
LOL! You are the reason 'military intelligence' is an oxymoron. Also you are proof that all it takes to get a phd is time and a way to pay for the courses.
slp:
But when HUMAN design is inferred, it is done based on a number of things - history, for one, and more importantly, and as I pointed out, EVIDENCE.
John Paul:
OK please provide the evidence that humans designed Stonehenge. Without that evidence all you can do is to assume humans did.
Then again that is all you do when it comes to the diversity of life. Assume common descent as put forth by the ToE...
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by derwood, posted 01-10-2002 12:08 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by derwood, posted 01-10-2002 1:52 PM John Paul has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 96 of 210 (1835)
01-10-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by John Paul
01-10-2002 1:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
slp:
The best you seem to be able to offer are your laughably asinine attempts at insulting and mocking my superior education.
John Paul:
LOL! You are the reason 'military intelligence' is an oxymoron. Also you are proof that all it takes to get a phd is time and a way to pay for the courses.

What do I have to do with Military Intelligence? That seems to be completely irrelevant. If all it takes is time and money to get a PhD, then I have to wonder why so many more people do not have them.
Of course, this is just simplistic gibberish spewing from the gaping maw of a creationist without a relevant degree, so it should be taken as such.[b] [QUOTE] slp:
But when HUMAN design is inferred, it is done based on a number of things - history, for one, and more importantly, and as I pointed out, EVIDENCE.
John Paul:
OK please provide the evidence that humans designed Stonehenge. Without that evidence all you can do is to assume humans did.[/b][/QUOTE]
Design is inferred from the fact that humans built it. Now, of course, it will be justified to infer that aliens designed Stonehenge because, afterall, I did not provide any evidence that humans did.
Again, there is absolutley no rational, reasonable reason NOT to assume that humans designed Stonehenge. They certainly left evidence of their 'trial and error' approach to building it.[b] [QUOTE] Then again that is all you do when it comes to the diversity of life. Assume common descent as put forth by the ToE...
[/b][/QUOTE]
That is probably one of the most ignorant mutterings that I see frequently from such creationists. While it is true that comon descent is assumed - at this point in the 'game' of scientific research - that assumption is not premised on some logical fallacy as presented by you in your inference of ID.
Indeed, the 'assumption' of common descent is, in reality, premised upon observation of the evidence.
Creationists often write such gobbledegook without thinking it through, for do they not assume special creation prior to doing their, ahem, 'studies'? If so, and if their 'logic' is to be applied objectively, then clearly there is something wrong with the way the creationist approaches such things as well.
This is what I will refer to as the 'open mind syndrome.' Creationists like to claim that if one went into a research program with an 'open mind' - that is, being open to supernatural explanations - they would surely see the evidence for their version of events. Both YECs, OECs, and IDCs claim this same basic tenet.
It is quite ridiculous, and if anyone cannoet see how, I will gladly explain.
[This message has been edited by SLP, 01-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 1:04 PM John Paul has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 97 of 210 (1837)
01-10-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by TrueCreation
01-07-2002 8:51 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]The whole debate arrousing Intelligent design is the fact that we have complexity in our environment, complexity is everywhere, in every form of life. Intelligent design is assuming a creator and looking at what he created and seeing how complex it is, evolution will always be able to explain almost every aspect of life, it just matters how far you will drift off from science into fantasy to give that answer, humans will always have a great imagination. There are many animals that it is simply overwhelming to the mind such as the giraffe, Bombardiar Beetle, birds nest fungi, turtle migration, armadillo, spiders, etc, they all fortell intelligent design, to realize the unity in its working systems is utterly amazing, thus posed intelligent design.[/QUOTE]
The sun travelling across the sky used to be "utterly amazing" to us, so Apollo was the sun god in his firey chariot.
Before the connection between pregnancy and intercourse was made, reproduction used to be "utterly amazing" and baffling to humans, so we worshipped female fertility goddesses, as females were thought to solely be responsible for bringing new life into the world.
Lightning used to be "utterly amazing" to humans, so Zeus was the mighty god who hurled the lightning bolts down to earth.
The fact that humans have ALWAYS attributed that which amazed and puzzled us to the divine or something "otherworldly" is nothing new.
Isn't it interesting that all of these ideas about the gods are thought to be rather quaint?
That a organism or system found in nature is amazing to humans does not equal ID or God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by TrueCreation, posted 01-07-2002 8:51 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 2:18 PM nator has not replied
 Message 99 by TrueCreation, posted 01-11-2002 11:36 PM nator has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 210 (1842)
01-10-2002 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by nator
01-10-2002 2:06 PM


schraf:
That a organism or system found in nature is amazing to humans does not equal ID or God.
John Paul:
And it isn't evidence for materialistic naturalism either. Now what?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by nator, posted 01-10-2002 2:06 PM nator has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 210 (1953)
01-11-2002 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by nator
01-10-2002 2:06 PM


"The sun travelling across the sky used to be "utterly amazing" to us, so Apollo was the sun god in his firey chariot."
--Thats because they used mythology to explain, not logic.
"Before the connection between pregnancy and intercourse was made, reproduction used to be "utterly amazing" and baffling to humans, so we worshipped female fertility goddesses, as females were thought to solely be responsible for bringing new life into the world."
--Ditto
"Lightning used to be "utterly amazing" to humans, so Zeus was the mighty god who hurled the lightning bolts down to earth."
--Double Ditto, though I still find lighting pretty fantastic (certainly doesn't imply a God striking the earth or anything!)
"The fact that humans have ALWAYS attributed that which amazed and puzzled us to the divine or something "otherworldly" is nothing new."
--So we should get a new theory of evolution because it can't explain them without using amazingly abstract numbers?
"Isn't it interesting that all of these ideas about the gods are thought to be rather quaint?"
--People of those times didn't use logicical reasoning to figure out something, they just said hey thats amazing and I can't explain it with my intelligence so I'll give the contribute to a God! Thats why some ancient civilizations had so many Gods!
"at a organism or system found in nature is amazing to humans does not equal ID or God."
--Amazing must not be too amazing to you then. This doesn't apply to the ID argument.
----------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by nator, posted 01-10-2002 2:06 PM nator has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 100 of 210 (1959)
01-12-2002 9:05 AM



Schraf writes in message 97:
That a organism or system found in nature is amazing to humans does not equal ID or God.

John Paul replies in message 98:
And it isn't evidence for materialistic naturalism either. Now what?

TrueCreation replies in message 99:
Amazing must not be too amazing to you then. This doesn't apply to the ID argument.
I think Schraf is saying that the tendency of ID adherents to attribute to God that which they don't understand or cannot explain has strong parallels in human history. Evolutionists believe that such an approach is unscientific and are therefore trying to understand how, for example in the case of Behe, attributing poorly understood microbiological evolutionary pathways to God is any different.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by TrueCreation, posted 01-12-2002 3:56 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 104 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 10:00 AM Percy has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 210 (1982)
01-12-2002 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Percy
01-12-2002 9:05 AM


To imply that ID is an unscientific concept is partly true, but it has a major part in science. The unscientific area would be to assume a creator and say that because so and so is so complex it had to have a designer, this is conjector. The scientific method is looking at this, figuring out how it works, find out the odds, in an evolutionists case it must be feasibly possible to contribute to evolving kinds, ie molecules to man evolution (kinds to kinds). If there is an impossibility, then ID has an argument, explinations shouldn't be contributed by assumptions or conjectors, like saying well we know that it happend so it isn't a problem, but it is.
------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 01-12-2002 9:05 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 01-12-2002 6:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 210 (1986)
01-12-2002 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by TrueCreation
01-12-2002 3:56 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]To imply that ID is an unscientific concept is partly true, but it has a major part in science. The unscientific area would be to assume a creator and say that because so and so is so complex it had to have a designer, this is conjector.
The scientific method is looking at this, figuring out how it works, find out the odds, in an evolutionists case it must be feasibly possible to contribute to evolving kinds, ie molecules to man evolution (kinds to kinds).[/QUOTE]
ID is not scientific because there is no theory, the notion makes no predictions, and there is no positive evidence for an IDer.
Negative or lacking evidence for the ToE does not constitute positive evidence for any other theory or notion, including ID.
The ToE could never have existed at all, or be completely falsified tomorrow, but this in no way can be considered positive evidence for Creationism.
quote:
If there is an impossibility, then ID has an argument, explinations shouldn't be contributed by assumptions or conjectors,
That is the heart of the problem.
How do you tell the difference between, "It's impossible!" and "We don't know yet", or, "We don't have the brain power to comprehend it."?
Oh, BTW, TC, have you looked at the thread I started entitled "Questions Creationists Never Answer"? One of the question I haven't had answered yet is "Define Kind. IOW, how can I tell the difference between one kind and another?"
Since you used the word "kind" in your reply, I was thinking that you must be able to define the word and tell me how I can tell what "kind" an animal is.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by TrueCreation, posted 01-12-2002 3:56 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by TrueCreation, posted 01-12-2002 8:29 PM nator has not replied
 Message 105 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 10:09 AM nator has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 210 (1987)
01-12-2002 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by nator
01-12-2002 6:32 PM


"ID is not scientific because there is no theory, the notion makes no predictions, and there is no positive evidence for an IDer."
--Ofcourse there is a theory, the theory is, all things to their own degree admit their own unique design in biological complexity and unity. ID would more accurately be portrayed as a concept, or a study more than a theory. The predictions as are the theory tells. And as for the positive evidence, disregarding the fact that it has even rarely been discussed in this thread, its the way your going to interperet that evidence, its a study of the origin of complex unity and their explinations.
"Negative or lacking evidence for the ToE does not constitute positive evidence for any other theory or notion, including ID."
--I never said it did? Though if evolution cannot explain it and creation can, that is the ID argument.
"The ToE could [B]never have existed at all, or be completely falsified tomorrow, but this in no way can be considered positive evidence for Creationism."
--Well, my own personal opinion on that would have to be that I never said it was evidence for creationism, overwhelming or minusqual (if thats how you spell it). Its about the best possible explination, can evolution explain it, or can Creationism? Though you would object correctly, if evolution cannot explain it, Creationism always can, ID is not an argument against Creationism, it is an argument against 'E'volution. I originaly planned this thread to be where to discuss whether it can or cannot be falsified, though I have not been able to get many on my chain.
"How do you tell the difference between, "It's impossible!" and "We don't know yet", or, "We don't have the brain power to comprehend it."?"
--I guess 'impossibility' was not the right word for it, be it more 'feasability', because there is always a possibility, it just how far you will drift off into fantasy to be it so. 'We don't know yet' contributes to 'We don't have the brain power to comprehend it'. I have not had the trouble in any way of being unable to comprehend anything if it is observable, can be tested or experimented on. The supernatural for one is not comprehendable, but naturalistic phenomena is. I would consider the 'we don't know yet' valid as long as there is nothing to point to either view, or logical hypothesii can be suggested for an explination. ID is much more down to earth than what you seem to be implying it as ('We cannot comprehend it' or 'We don't know yet') Because we do know how things work, and how things function. There is an argument waiting to be argued.
"Oh, BTW, TC, have you looked at the thread I started entitled "Questions Creationists Never Answer"? One of the question I haven't had answered yet is "Define Kind. IOW, how can I tell the difference between one kind and another?" "
--Yes I viewed the thread when you started it.
"Since you used the word "kind" in your reply, I was thinking that you must be able to define the word and tell me how I can tell what "kind" an animal is."
--To define kind, first we must get a little insite on what makes something a 'kind', I'm no biologist, but I know what is a kind and what isn't, I can look at a rhrino, and a bird and say they are not the same kind (obviously) but I can also look at a rhino and an elephant and say their not kinds, but then I can look at them again and contemplate, mabye they are the same 'kind' antomy can tell. I do know that in order to produce a new kind a new characteristic must be added, something such as say a good sized tail from the coccyx with a slight complexion of a dogs tail, nerves, muscles, etc working in unity to give it new function. A new organ would make a new kind, give humans the function to produce a new cell. What would not be contributed to a new 'kind' would be something to the degree of an extra arm growing out of your back, or anything that you already have, that was mistakenly trying to grow where it isn't suppost to.
-----------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 01-12-2002 6:32 PM nator has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 210 (2128)
01-15-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Percy
01-12-2002 9:05 AM


Percy:
I think Schraf is saying that the tendency of ID adherents to attribute to God that which they don't understand or cannot explain has strong parallels in human history. Evolutionists believe that such an approach is unscientific and are therefore trying to understand how, for example in the case of Behe, attributing poorly understood microbiological evolutionary pathways to God is any different.
John Paul:
But IDists, including Behe, don't attribute anything to God. See the following link:
IDers are from Mars, ID critics are from Venus
most notably- When ID proponents say- "I do not propose or think the designer was God"
ID critics hear "I am hiding my religious convictions and motivations"
What Behe is saying (yup my conclusion from reading his book and articles) is don't say something evolved from something else without knowing whether or not it could.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 01-12-2002 9:05 AM Percy has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 210 (2130)
01-15-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by nator
01-12-2002 6:32 PM


schraf:
Since you used the word "kind" in your reply, I was thinking that you must be able to define the word and tell me how I can tell what "kind" an animal is.
John Paul:
Wow. How many times do you have to be told that this is a reletively recent research venture, that the research is ongoing and no conclusions have been reached yet?
Please tell us if you think that this is not a valid scientific research avenue, why it isn't and why searching for the originating organism(s) under the materialistic naturalism framework is.
schraf:
How do you tell the difference between, "It's impossible!" and "We don't know yet", or, "We don't have the brain power to comprehend it."?
John Paul:
Like all scientific theories, they change when new evidence comes to the front. Until such evidence comes up to substantiate the materialistic naturalism PoV, why is saying the apparent design in living organisms is illusory more scientific than saying the apparent design in living organisms is NOT illusory?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 01-12-2002 6:32 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by mark24, posted 01-15-2002 10:22 AM John Paul 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