Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 31 of 168 (306448)
04-25-2006 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ReverendDG
04-25-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Beauty contest?
ID isn't science its a religious-politacal con-job hiding behind science
That may well be the case. Knowing that doesn't dissolve the problem however.
The only way we can show its wrong is to teach our children proper science so when they are adults they don't get fooled by snake-oil salesmen like the heads of IDist groups
I think there may be other tacks but I don't see any knock blows against ID with these any more than I do with the one above.
The 'trouble' is that only a certain proportion of kids are going to become really interested in science: some are wired that way others prefer music or history or literature or art. The battleground for ID (if it is doing as you suggest in the top quote) is a acceptance amongst the widespread population - not just the far more limited science-orientated one.
In order to promote science as more vital than it is currently seen as and hence access more science-exposure time in schools, some other vital area: history, art, music, literature etc... will have to relinquish some of its time. Which is not all that likely to happen - especially if politicians are moving towards an acceptance of ID - even if it is on improper grounds.
The battle needs to focus on where the battle can be most effectual. Where that is, I don't know.
This message has been edited by iano, 25-Apr-2006 01:54 PM

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ReverendDG, posted 04-25-2006 8:23 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 32 of 168 (306466)
04-25-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by iano
04-25-2006 5:21 AM


Re: Never say never...
iano writes:
The objections are to ID's emphasis on promoting itself as science instead of actually doing science.
And valids one if the view is in fact correct.
I don't think you really mean to say this. Being right is one thing, misrepresentation is another. Even if ID eventually becomes an accepted viewpoint within science, it isn't today. Saying it is as a means of promotion can be called many things, but "valid" isn't one of them.
ID will never be true science because the IDist pursuit isn't one of science, but of religion.
If it isn't now that is not to say it won't be ever. It is very early days Percy.
This would be a legitimate plea were IDists hard at work in the field and in laboratories trying to produce scientifically valid results for presentation in journals and at conferences, but they're not. Their efforts are primarily in promotion. By working on the promotion and not the science, by concentrating on the wedge strategy instead of upon the research, it is guaranteed to always be early days for ID. Look at the traditional creationists, still pleading that is early days after well more than half a century.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 5:21 AM iano has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 33 of 168 (306473)
04-25-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by iano
04-25-2006 4:23 AM


neutrally objective
I see almost fanatical putting down of it by a camp that sees it as creationism in another guise but who also happens to be significantly athiestic - so can't really take the views presented as being neutrally objective. It took (a) Catholic Scientist to point out a simple flaw in Percys argument a few posts ago to highlight the bias.
Catholic Scientist was actually suggesting a flaw in my argument; thus you are calling me biased, thus I'll respond.
My original argument was as neutrally objective as one can get:
Hannah (and/or her IDEA center literature) started out (essentially) with the claim that the universe is designed, using references to astronomy. Hannah then suggested that a good experimental design to examine ID theory would be to compare designed and non-designed objects. In other words:
#1. Everything is designed (there are no non-designed objects).
#2. Both designed and non-designed objects will be used to demonstrate #1.
Hopefully you see that Hannah's experiment breaks down at a basic, logical level - there is simply no way to carry out such an experiment, because by Hannah's definition the control group does not exist. There is no room for personal bias in pointing out such a basic flaw.
Please explain to me where the bias is in my argument, or take back the statement that I am some sort of subjective fanatic.
I find it irksome that you call the arguments of myself (and others) biased because you assume that we are atheistic, without actually having knowledge of our spiritual leanings, and more importantly, without examining the arguments at hand. It seems that you are the one carrying a lot of bias in your arguments...
As a side-note, Catholic Scientist was both right and wrong. He was right in the sense that some pro-ID people believe that design is only present in complex objects; however, my response was specific to Hannah's arguments which started with claims that the universe was designed, and thus was not flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 4:23 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 12:38 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2006 1:29 PM pink sasquatch has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 34 of 168 (306502)
04-25-2006 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by pink sasquatch
04-25-2006 10:48 AM


Re: neutrally objective
Catholic Scientist was actually suggesting a flaw in my argument; thus you are calling me biased, thus I'll respond
If fact both of us were wrong. It wasn't a flaw in Percys argument I referred to. CS was responding to Omnivorous. Sorry Percy.
Hannah (and/or her IDEA center literature) started out (essentially) with the claim that the universe is designed, using references to astronomy. Hannah then suggested that a good experimental design to examine ID theory would be to compare designed and non-designed objects. In other words:
#1. Everything is designed (there are no non-designed objects).
Hannah is suggesting that people believed the universe was designed. Setting in motion a series of events that would mean the universe came into existance doesn't mean that everything in it was designed
fpijqdcw-9uwefopisjdv wepfoujwevcpiwj wasn't the result of a process of design - it was the result of random action. You could infer design from most of what I've typed (cheap shots notwithstanding) but not from that gobbeldygook above. Saying the universe is designed is not the same as saying everything in it is designed.
I find it irksome that you call the arguments of myself (and others) biased because you assume that we are atheistic, without actually having knowledge of our spiritual leanings, and more importantly, without examining the arguments at hand. It seems that you are the one carrying a lot of bias in your arguments
Hopefully you will see that I wasn't calling you biased. I even said earlier that some folk put together reasoned arguements against ID and that others appear to be bandwagon occupants - cheering on but not giving much in the way of reasoned argument against ID
This message has been edited by iano, 25-Apr-2006 05:42 PM

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-25-2006 10:48 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-25-2006 1:08 PM iano has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 35 of 168 (306506)
04-25-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
04-25-2006 12:38 PM


Re: neutrally objective
If fact both of us were wrong. It wasn't a flaw in Percys argument I referred to. CS was responding to Omnivorous. Sorry Percy.
Nope. Just you were wrong in this case. The only post CS made in this thread was a response to me, not Omnivorous.
Setting in motion a series of events that would mean the universe came into existance doesn't mean that everything in it was designed.
Even if we take this statement to be Hannah's intent, her experiment is still fatally flawed, because there is no way of knowing what parts of the universe are designed and non-designed.
In other words, Hannah would thus be arguing that (currently unknown) design exists in some things, and in order to detect that design we need to compare designed things to non-designed things. Since there is no way to separate "non-designed things" and "things with unknown design", there is still no way to set up a control group.
Still flawed at a basic level.
Hopefully you will see that I wasn't calling you biased. I even said earlier that some folk put together reasoned arguements against ID...
But you absolutely did. You said my flawed argument was a result of me being biased. You made no attempt to counter my reasoned argument, you just pointed out bias and insinuated that I lacked spirituality. Again, that cries bias on your part to me.
Considering that this whole thread is on the topic of a scientist against intelligent design creating a valid academic forum for the consideration of intelligent design, I think the complaining that ID science is lacking merely due to status quo bias needs to stop.
This brings to mind the research grant that was created (I think by the Discovery Institute) specifically to fund scientific research into intelligent design. They got zero applications, because ID has zero hypotheses to test, and thus zero grant proposals to write.
ID theory is so scientifically lacking that a funding agency can't even give away money for ID research projects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 12:38 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 7:16 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 168 (306509)
04-25-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by pink sasquatch
04-25-2006 10:48 AM


Re: neutrally objective
Pink writes:
#1. Everything is designed (there are no non-designed objects).
#2. Both designed and non-designed objects will be used to demonstrate #1.
This is not the basic position of ID. From the wiki entry on ID:
quote:
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Pinky writes:
my response was specific to Hannah's arguments which started with claims that the universe was designed
Now, you typed that you were not arguing against the general ID position but specifically Hannah's position. I still don't see her as claiming that everything is designed. If you could point it out then I totally agree with you on the logical break-down. The part I saw where she mentioned astronomy is:
quote:
Belief that the universe was intelligently designed spurred Kepler on to make sense of the previously very confusing astronomical observations.
  —Hannah
I think she is saying that Kepler thought everything was designed, but I don't read it as her, nor ID, claiming that everything was designed. Even if she did mean that everything was designed, your argument (of pointing out the logical break-down) doesn't hold up against the actual position of ID, just her twisted ID position, if that is what she meant (which I don't think it is).
Hopefully you see that Hannah's experiment breaks down at a basic, logical level - there is simply no way to carry out such an experiment, because by Hannah's definition the control group does not exist.
Yes, if she did mean that everything is designed, then you are correct that we would not be able to find anything that is non-designed to compare it with. But, that still cannot be used as an argument against ID, in general.
There is no room for personal bias in pointing out such a basic flaw.
Personally, I don't think you were being biased. I do think you misunderstood her position though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-25-2006 10:48 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-25-2006 2:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 37 of 168 (306512)
04-25-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2006 1:29 PM


Re: neutrally objective
This is not the basic position of ID.
I never said it was, so I'm not sure why you are arguing as if I did. In fact, the lines I wrote both before and after the bit you quoted specify that I was criticizing Hannah's experimental design.
I still don't see her as claiming that everything is designed.
Not directly, no. But by suggesting that the solar systems are designed, and that the basic laws of physics are essentially the result of intelligent design theory, she's making a very strong implication.
I think she is saying that Kepler thought everything was designed, but I don't read it as her, nor ID, claiming that everything was designed.
Then she makes a very poor choice of references, if she believes them to be wrong.
your argument (of pointing out the logical break-down) doesn't hold up against the actual position of ID, just her twisted ID position
Which, of course, is why I specified that I was criticizing Hannah's experimental design at every step of the way.
I'm not even criticizing her "ID position", I'm criticizing her experimental design. Get it?
Yes, if she did mean that everything is designed, then you are correct that we would not be able to find anything that is non-designed to compare it with.
Her experimental design is still fatally flawed even if she believes that there are some non-designed objects, because there is no way to distinguish between non-designed objects and objects of unknown design, and thus no way to establish a control group.
Doesn't matter what she meant - her experimental design is still flawed.
But, that still cannot be used as an argument against ID, in general.
How many times are you going to state this? Find somewhere in the thread where I used Hannah's experimental flaw as an argument against ID in a general sense, otherwise shut up about it already...
Personally, I don't think you were being biased. I do think you misunderstood her position though.
Thanks. But with either reading of her position, her experiment has serious problems at a basic level.
Now, though that is not an argument against ID theory in general, I do think Hannah's sort of experimental thinking is representative of what the ID folks have put forward thus far in terms of hypotheses/experiments. They usually have glaring flaws - false analogies, circular reasoning, begging the question...
...unless you can point out an ID hypothesis or experiment that is solid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2006 1:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 38 of 168 (306567)
04-25-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by pink sasquatch
04-25-2006 1:08 PM


Non-designed? How to decide...
ps writes:
Nope. Just you were wrong in this case. The only post CS made in this thread was a response to me, not Omnivorous
Bloody heck, think I'm getting senile in my middle age. Or else just biased. You are of course correct ps. Sorry for wasting your time
As to bias..that would depend on whether your argument is correct or not. If not, then I would say the statement might well be the result of bias. Or simply honest. Or I could be wrong. Lets have a look see:
In other words, Hannah would thus be arguing that (currently unknown) design exists in some things, and in order to detect that design we need to compare designed things to non-designed things. Since there is no way to separate "non-designed things" and "things with unknown design", there is still no way to set up a control group.
Still flawed at a basic level.
This is more or less your position and at first flush you have a point. But the only intelligence we could hope to recognise is intelligence which is recognisable by our intelligence. If it isn't, although it may exist, we won't be able to discern it as intelligence. IOW: for intelligence to be seen as intelligence it must share the hallmarks of our intelligence (whatever those hallmarks might be decided to be). All that design in nature has to do in order to be considered design (as a starting principle) is to be apparent to us as being design. A way of refining this down so as to approach the realm of science and prevent any old perception as being considered design, is to formalise it and refine things down - which is what Hannah may have been proposing. To make it jump through some hoops.
I was reading an interesting piece on ID in which the basis for not considering ID to be science was discussed. The writer listed about 7 main attributes of what something must generally attain to (according to current accepted practice) before something is considered science. It wasn't that the proposition had to score 10/10 in all areas but it should satisfy reasonably well in most of the 7 attributes. Satisfying a couple wasn't deemed enough (ID failed the test acccording to the writer). It seems that 'what is science' is not that precisely defined. Something can be patently not science (pseudoscience?), something can approach (protoscience?) or be most definitely science
I imagine the same could be applied to looking at design in nature. We can look at something which to our way of evaluating it seems to have no intelligence attached to it at all. Volcanic rock doesn't have much about it which suggests it was designed (didn't Paleys Watch chart this territory?) whereas Behes blood clotting systems seemingly does. That evolution might accomodate the blood clotting system easily (I presume it does) is not the point here. There is a difference between a rock and the blood clotting system in terms of our being able to recognise attributes of intelligence in its makeup
If you can discern intelligence (or pseudo intelligence if you prefer) then you can for the purpose of the hypothesis perhaps draw a dividing line. You have a starting point from which to delve further and propose more hoops for the intelligence to jump through.
You're off and running..
(having said all that. I was sitting on the loo a while ago, looking at an orange centipede (actually it had about 20 legs down each side) wander its way across the newspaper I was reading. About a centimetre long and about a 2 mm wide body. It tacked along the edge of the newspaper 'feeling' with its antennae over the edge, backing off then going a little further. It rarely diverted from tracking the edge, perhaps wandering 2 inches in from the edge but 'remembering' its task and heading back to the 'abyss'. Watching it was fascinating, the way it curved its body to change direction by moving certain legs and not others. Its rate of direction change varying between abrupt turns and gentle arcs (why it picked one over the other I do not know). Those little legs flying along at a rate to leave the eyes ability to resolve standing - all worked by some miniature system of nerves and proto?muscles and joints and stuff.
If intelligent design, then the intelligence far and away exceeds our own (another hoop to add to investigation into design?) We can perhaps figure out how the centipede works. But we could at best only copy it - if we only knew how (our intelligence hasn't proved itself to be capable of that level of 'design'. Which gives me an idea!
Another hoop by way of approaching the investigation into ID is to see if we can find any design of our own which doesn't find itself already replicated in nature in close matching principle (terms to be fought over). When I read about flagella-as-propulsion I immediately asked myself (as an engineer) "what about bearings and seals to stop the prop shaft wearing out the organism and the the medium being swum in from entering the organism") It seems these componants have been included in the evolution/design. The flagella beat me too it.
If intelligent then the 20pede tells me it is far far
greater an intelligence than us. We might then expect that it thought of the basic idea first. And that we only produce poor copies
This message has been edited by iano, 26-Apr-2006 12:50 AM

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-25-2006 1:08 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2006 2:07 AM iano has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 168 (306576)
04-25-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
04-25-2006 2:46 AM


Re: IDEA club
quote:
ID isn't interested in further investigation. They just want to find a biological feature that they can "prove" to be designed.
...which they don't do, ever, anyway.
From everything I've ever seen, their "proof" is never any kind of positive evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2006 2:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2006 2:13 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 168 (306578)
04-25-2006 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by iano
04-25-2006 4:23 AM


Re: IDEA club
quote:
There are many paths to the summit and if (for one doesn't prove things in science as I so often hear) there is the slightest chance of establishing ID as a science and some feel that that is possible then you shouldn't be too surprised if they employ tactics which level the playing field somewhat.
So, you mean that they should continue to not do science at all but be allowed to call it science in order to "level the playing field"?
quote:
Getting folk awakened to the possibilites by bypassing the traditional avenues of peer review (if that is what they indeed do) might cause research finance to be freed up and result in a breakthrough somewhere down the line.
So, what you are saying is that by lowering our standards of quality, research it will result in better science?
Curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 4:23 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 3:24 AM nator has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 41 of 168 (306618)
04-26-2006 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
04-25-2006 7:16 PM


Re: Non-designed? How to decide...
To really get a comnparison tbetween designed and non-designed systems we would need to establish what evolution could and could not do. To ignore that issue is to beg the real question.
Behe's attept to address the issue through the idea of "irreducible complexity" ("IC") failed. He never even finished his original argument. He even tried to introduce a significantly different definition of "irreducible complexity" to try and save his argument, but it never worked.
Meanwhile science made progress on working out how the systems he discussed had evolved. I've seen ID supporters even deny that blood clotting is IC. In the Kitzmiller case it was apparent that Behe had simply written off the possibility of progress in workign out how the immune system had evolved, and had ignored all the progress that had been made since he published.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 7:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 3:31 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 42 of 168 (306619)
04-26-2006 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
04-25-2006 8:13 PM


Re: IDEA club
...because the ID movement is apologetic, not scientific. THey arent interested in doing real rsearch. They just want easy excuses to say that they are right.s

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 04-25-2006 8:13 PM nator has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 43 of 168 (306623)
04-26-2006 3:00 AM


I see no reason not to explore the idea of intelligent design.
I do have to wonder though. What definition of inteligence will be the measure? To me that will be a sticky one.

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 44 of 168 (306628)
04-26-2006 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
04-25-2006 8:22 PM


Re: IDEA club
pseudoscience > protoscience > science
Call it evolution. Like I said, its early days yet. Who knows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 04-25-2006 8:22 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RickJB, posted 04-26-2006 4:31 AM iano has not replied
 Message 86 by nator, posted 04-26-2006 8:14 PM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 45 of 168 (306629)
04-26-2006 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
04-26-2006 2:07 AM


ID = Evoution but not quite
To really get a comnparison tbetween designed and non-designed systems we would need to establish what evolution could and could not do. To ignore that issue is to beg the real question.
I disagree. Evolution happens to be something which is described as best explaining the evidence, making it a solid theory - even unto some (not necessarily you) describing it as fact
This is not to say that one can't develop a theory which decribes aspects of the whole show better than evolution. One doesn't need to refer to evolution to do that. I understand ID allows for evolution to work on the designed elements.
But they could be just playing it a little tongue in cheek, a little politically. It would help the ID idea be inserted in many peoples minds if evolution isn't thrown out the door. Bite sized attempts at capturing the wider imagination
If that is indeed the focus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2006 2:07 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2006 3:36 AM iano 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