Foundations of ID

ISCID doesn't identify itself as an ID Institution. Since its proclaimed mission is complex systems (including non-biological ones) it is improper to use its membership list as a group of people who all support ID. It would be like going to a Mexican Food site and saying, look all these people like Taco Bell.

quote:

---

Then why is ID not accepted by the science establishment. Is there perhaps a conspiracy of some sort or are biologists, chemists, et al. just stupid and deluded?

---

Bias. They percieve something that could threaten their worldview, so they shutdown. They dismiss it a priori.

What about the christian scientists? do they shut down as well? I asked a friend of mine who is a professor (in the british sense of the word) of biological sciences (a committed christian) and he said that ID was pure Bo**ocks (and this from someone who believes in a creator). What's causing his bias?I keep hearing about bias but I (and many others) are still waiting to see the evidence....This message has been edited by General Krull, 28-Apr-2005 10:00 AM

quote:

---

If our observations are based on an intelligent designer, how would we ever arrive at a falsifiable conclusion? It seems as though the theory has almost set itself up to be neither falsifiable nor infalsifiable. How do you see us getting around that?

---

Patience. We must wait, and accept the fact that our methods may need to develop for decades before we are sophisticated enough to design a falsifiable test. In the meantime, we must stay open to all possibilities.

I love the obvioulsy unintentional juxtaposition: IOW, ID is not accepted as science because of bias, but ID doesn't have a scientific theory now and may not for decades. Totally ignoring the fact that ID is not accepted as science because it ain't science now and may never be.I see nothing wrong with further research into ID. Researchers will have to compete for funds like everybody else, but the DI seems to be pretty well funded ... what research programs are they running?When Dembski first started out I was all for what he was doing. I was pretty sure it would never do what he wanted it to, but research often has unexpected consequences. Now that he's descended to full-time apologetics he's just wasting time.

quote:

---

What about the christian scientists? do they shut down as well?

---

Christian scientists are people too, so I would say yes there have been some somewhere who have shutdown. Since Christian scientists are not a part of the mainstream scientific community, this has little impact on ID.However, on the whole it has been my experience that Christian scientists are much more brave when it comes to dealing with the opposition. It's just that thier rebuttals are not listened to.Bias is something you either see or you don't. It requires a lot of empathy and a lot of introspection.

quote:

---

Since Christian scientists are not a part of the mainstream scientific community, this has little impact on ID.

---

This is an entirely false dichotomy - you are trying to suggest if that you are a christian, you can't be part of mainstream science. This is rubbish, my friend the professor is a highly regarded professor IN the mainstream sciences.Are you really trying to peddle Scientist=Atheist?We've heard it before and it never washed that time....This message has been edited by General Krull, 28-Apr-2005 10:21 AM

quote:

---

my friend the professor is a highly regarded professor IN the mainstream sciences.

---

You are arguing specifics, and I am saying that generally speaking Christian scientists are not part of the mainstream.Im happy for your friend, but surely you can see he is the exception and not the rule.

quote:

---

Im happy for your friend, but surely you can see he is the exception and not the rule.

---

Really? how do you work that one out? If you can provide evidence that the majority of those involved in mainstream science are atheists I'd be very surprised (I seem to remember we had a thread on this once? anyone remember what it was called?).

Can someone clear this up for me - Are we talking about scientists who are Christian or are we talking about people who are members of 'The Church of Christ, Scientist'?I'm sure a case could be made that members of 'The Church of Christ, Scientist' are not generally part of the mainstream of science.TTFN,WK

I'm talk about scientists who work in mainstream areas and also happen to be christians (but don't you worry us godless are working on then!).

Doesn't the fact that we can set up quantum experiments that only produce a certain outcome when unobserved, and then get those outcomes, lead to the inescapable conclusion that there's no other observer besides us?If there's an observer god watching everything all the time, how is it that we can successfully perform quantum experiments that only work when unobserved?

Because it's God and he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake (and when you're observing, even with utilities). I assume the consciousness we have for the experiments constitutes observation, even if it's not direct.

So, God can opt not to observe, and chooses not to when that observation might substantiate his existence?He's kinda like a cockroach that way. Turn on the lights and he's off to the nearest corner of insubstantiability.

Under the fridge of science.