ID and the bias inherent in human nature

As long as we have communication and education there is hope for all. Thankfully I can say no to both of these. I reserve no ‘disk space’ for Hollywood or anyone's perceptions of it. I have trained in the military without active duty, but enough to be familiar with the operant psychology of military command. But I’m not sure why this ‘insider’ vs ‘outsider’ perspective contrast is so significant to you. Shouldn't we all strive for a balanced perspective of the landscape regardless of what side of a window we are on? Objective information is freely available everywhere today.
Unfortunately, so is a lot of crap. Education is required to tell the difference - more so now than ever before in history. Unfortunately, this is very true indeed. But when Joe Public starts to ask questions about what he imagines to be a unified, monolithic entity of science, understanding nothing about science or its methods, he sees nothing but confusion and then grasps reflexively at more simple explanations. Why do you feel so compelled to bind us together ?
I thought we ‘Darwinists’ were always in disagreement with one another ?

quote:

---

Shouldn't we all strive for a balanced perspective of the landscape regardless of what side of a window we are on? Objective information is freely available everywhere today.

---

This, in my view, is what the ID leadership is trying to do in the scientific landscape.

quote:

---

Objective information is freely available everywhere today.

---

Objective? I disagree. Information is spinned from each side. Let me give you an example. Take this paper on evolutionary psychology.Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John ToobyIn this excerpt it seems to support design:

quote:

---

The pattern of results elicited by social exchange content is so distinctive that we believe reasoning in this domain is governed by computational units that are domain specific and functionally distinct: what we have called social contract algorithms (Cosmides, 1985, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992).

​

There is, in other words, design evidence. The programs that cause reasoning in this domain have many coordinated features that are complexly specialized in precisely the ways one would expect if they had been designed by a computer engineer to make inferences about social exchange reliably and efficiently: configurations that are unlikely to have arisen by chance alone. Some of these design features are listed in Table 1, as well as a number of by-product hypotheses that have been empirically eliminated. (For review, see Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; also Cosmides, 1985, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 1989; Fiddick, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1995; Gigerenzer & Hug, 1992; Maljkovic, 1987; Platt & Griggs, 1993.)

---

To avoid a design inference, the following 'spin' phrase is deftly added:

quote:

---

By illuminating the programs that give rise to our natural competences, this research cuts straight to the heart of human nature.

---

(Emphasis in original)Dont bother with a line of reseach into the appearance of design, simply slap in the word "natural", emphasise it, and PRESTO! Mystery solved. An interpretation consistant with Darwin. No fuss, no muss, no rocking the boat, no being labeled a 'pseudo-scientist', their career is safe, and the status quo goes on...and on...and on.The Human brain screams design.Now, it may be that a "natural" explanation is at heart. That is beside the point. The point is objectivity isnt there.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 01:14 AM

So I was bored at work. As a professional in public service I can rationally categorize this as an outreach activity, an educational service to my community.
Besides, I can type fastBut to be honest, it was the activism of creo’s and ID’ists in my own state that made me feel I had to find a forum to debate the veracity of evolutionary biology as a functional theory without equal in the biological sciences. I felt it my responsibility, as someone who uses inferences from evolutionary biology every day to help protect agriculture in this country. You can blame Google that I just ended up here. Well no. I would never call it religion, although I can understand how it might sound like that to you. I have complete faith in the scientific method as the most reliable means for effectively describing nature, but I have no ‘complete’ faith in any specific product of it (as, for example, some Christians have complete faith in the Bible as a product of Christianity), only reserved consideration and, possibly, measured acceptance. But I do believe strongly that good, reliable application of the scientific method in biology has lessons for us all as humans who, presumably, seek to stabilize our planet biologically for purposes of our own continued existence. After all, applied biology in one form or another feeds us, clothes us. heals us and will one day, (God willing ), make our biosphere sustainable. I could have some fun with this sentence, but I will exercise self restraint because I think I know what you are saying. But ‘metaphysical is out there with ‘philosophical’. It is really separate from objective science. On the other hand, these physical theories of small scale phenomena you refer to are not directly observable to the human eye, thus they require mere intellectual mortals (myself included here) who cannot visualize the math to have faith in the ‘methodology’ of science, rather than these specific results themselves. There are a lot of incredibly brilliant physicists and mathematicians in the world, and if any of these models of reality didn’t hold water, if they were flawed in any serious way, then one of them would make a career for him/herself showing exactly why. And the best of the best would have a shot at proving him right or wrong. That is why we can trust science more than any other source of knowledge. These models are not yet perfect, but we can have ‘faith’ that they provide our 'best approximation of reality' to date, and one that can only improve as long as the enterprise of science is allowed to continue.This message has been edited by EZscience (for typos), 05-17-2005 09:22 PMThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-17-2005 09:23 PM

Obviously the ID movement is NOT trying to take a balanced view. A balanced view would consider the amount of work done and the success of a theory in weathering challenges. ID hasn't even got a theory. They are apparently "reevaluating" their two major design arguments (irreducible complexity and CSI) despite the fact that it is clear that neither has even been properly completed, and it is clear that as they stand both are abject failures.As science ID is just a speculative fringe movement trying to use political actin to unbalance the scientific landscape in their failure. Lysenkoism briefly succeeded in something similar (although relying on Stalin's support rather than attempt to influence public opinion), but I am not aware of any legitimate science that had to resort to such tactics.

quote:

---

They are apparently "reevaluating" their two major design arguments (irreducible complexity and CSI) despite the fact that it is clear that neither has even been properly completed, and it is clear that as they stand both are abject failures.

---

Oh? I didnt know that. Could you provide a link to this information?

The reevaluation or the failure ? The "reevaluation" statement came from an ID Blog (Paul Nelson's IIRC).(Added in edit
Yes - here it is: )The failure of both IC and CSI is readily apparent to anyone following the argument (the latter is particularly obvious when you ask for actual instances of Dembski's filter in real use).This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-18-2005 03:30 AMThis message has been edited by PaulK, 05-18-2005 03:31 AM

Yes, I saw that when it first came out. Are you an Orb abuser? heh

quote:

---

At the moment, we[...]are in the midst of the first major cycle of proposed refutations

---

I take this to mean that they are working on it. Im not sure if anything will come from it, I guess we wait and see. Maybe it would go quicker if the IDists in the scientific community came out of the closet. With all the hoopla they are probably scared. Its like a witch-hunt.Not only that, but I have a suspition that somewhere there are scientists working over-time behind the scenes to completely discredit ID once and for all.Whatever happens, my personal faith is safe. I'm not here to prove or disprove ID. Im here because I believe on principle science should follow the evidence wherever it leads, reguardless of the philosophy behind the scientific method.Since I am religious, I believe ID is real, and I believe that God is offering Mankind this one last chance to open its heart to Him. He knows that Mankind has grown distant from Him, and He is offering us just enough evidence to get the worlds attention, but not enough to convince all outright.He wants to see if Humanity CHOOSES to look for him, or if we turn away from the possibility of finding him. We still have a choice...still have free will about it. Seek and ye shall find, right?If we choose to uphold science as our Guiding Light, and in the process turn away from a real live opportunity to find Him, then as far as He is concerned, we have made our choice.Call it a hunch.I want Mankind to make the right choice, but I suspect it won't. It never does, lol.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 05:24 AM

"Besides, I can type fast"It takes me awhile and I have to edit and re-write things, alot. I wrote one post to RASD that took about 4 passionate hours of my time to just cough up a few fairly coherent sentences ...(of course he hand-waved me with a few STRAWMAN-like responses that probably took 2 minutes, tops). Yet, I do appreciate your restrained, thoughtful, and coherent replies.I think you hit well by attempting to divide camps into philosophy vs. science. But I'll still passionately stutter that quantum theory, i.e., that it seems more and more metaphysical the deeper and smaller you go.ONE QUESTION: How microscopic (in the ultimate quantum reality of matter and energy) must one go before calling it religion vs. science?(Of course one might ask the opposite: How macroscopic (in the cosmic reality of matter and energy) must one go before calling it religion vs. science?)

How can you discredit a 'God of the Gaps' style of argument. No matter how much we know there will always be gaps in our knowledge, just as every transitional fossil discovered simply means there are two new 'missing links'.TTFN,WK

In theory, there is no limit, except that we have no evidence, direct or theoretically extrapolated, to suggest that anything smaller than quarks are required to make up all subatomic particles.Again, what I think you really mean by 'metaphysical' is 'intangible' because it's comething we can't see or touch. It requires a 'leap of faith' for those unable to understand the evidence and the math.Metaphysical: (Random House Websters Unabridged) While quantum cromodynamics might seem metaphsyical, it is based on a theory consistent with a large body of observations, so it might be abstract, but it is certainly not concerned with causality, truth, ultimate grounds, or anything like that.No matter how small you go (or how large), science can never approach the status of a religion. Its models do not rest on faith but on evidence. Its theories do not seek to dictate morality or human concepts of right and wrong. It is not governed by any immutable dogma, nor is it immune to refutation by novel findings. It is subject to change and refinement through experimentation and verification and no ultimate purpose is ever attached to its constructs or its inferences. The validity of its theories is only measured by their accuracy in accounting for observations.

Behind the scenes !?
I thought we were doing it quite effectively right here, out in the open !

Paul Nelson seems unaware that there are naive supporters of ID who really do og around saying that there IS a theory of ID. THat he chooses to try to demean opponents - in a way that would draw loud complaints if the other side did so - is all too typica of the way ID has to argue. When Dembski regards it as acceptable to misrepresent the people he quotes, why is Nelson complaining that people accurately present HIS opinion ?ID is not and never has been about follwing the evidence whenever it leads. Want to ignore the evience for an Old Earth ? That's fine with ID. Want to ignore the evidence that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor ? Thats fine too.Ypur own comments indicate that you are only happy with following the evidnece if it leads to the conclusion you want.

__________________________________________________
Limbo states:
Dont bother with a line of reseach into the appearance of design, simply slap in the word "natural", emphasise it, and PRESTO! Mystery solved. An interpretation consistant with Darwin. No fuss, no muss, no rocking the boat, no being labeled a 'pseudo-scientist', their career is safe, and the status quo goes on...and on...and on.The Human brain screams design.Now, it may be that a "natural" explanation is at heart. That is beside the point. The point is objectivity isnt there.
__________________________________________________Your words are forcible (notwithstanding a few typos). Unfortunately, we proto-mega-evolutionists do currently act as if the world were naturally flat. We hand-wave away the gaps by calling them missing information. We refuse to look beyond anything materialistic in quantum phenomenon, albeit, we think we know what quarks are.IDists seem to perceive that a rounder and bigger picture truly exists concerning the earth and its metaphysical inhabitants, despite the necessary metaphysics implied in ID.IDists are not so passionately involved in being dispassionate about science (despite some of us evos here with 5000 or so heated posts).Refute me if you’d like, I’ll try to remain dispassionate.

creationism in it's most simplistic meaning is the belief that the universe was created. some stop there, while others believe that life was created. some stop there while others believe that specific forms of life were created.evolution is the study in the changes in species over time. there is no contradiction between that study and any of the above beliefs.it is only when you get to a very narrow concept of creation according to a very specific {path\format} that faith can have a conflict.the evidence that the conflict only occurs for a very small subset of the group {religious beliefs} would indicate that the problem is not between evolution and {faiths} but between the small subset and reality.this is no different than the {extreme minority} belief in a flat earth versus the reality of the global earth spinning an elliptical orbit around a rather unremarkable star in a distant arm of a relatively unspectacular galaxy.or the {minority} belief in a young earth versus the reality of the earth being composed of recycled debris of old stars that coalesced into a planet some 4.55 billion years ago.there are also many people of faith who have no problems with these facts and their faith, ergo the problem is not the facts.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

you mean the agenda shared by democrats, republicans and independents?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}