Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

quote:

---

Perhaps though, I'm wrong, and there is something inherent to ID that makes testing it logically impossible, unless it is distorted out of all recognition.

---

I think I have finally decided how I am going to "take" ID as post-ICR intelligent"" debating(of course others here "debate" this) but I k'now" the ICR from which I situate my own.So I think it is not in ID that inherence continues to make illogical the rebate science may gain say. Specifically it seems that ID shows that other creation science to rely on A-series TIME (see "A world without time" by Palle Yourgrau) and reads to me that Goulds' ideas are flawed insofar has his notion of clumped morphospace FOILS special creation in the A-Series sense that Yourgrau tried to show epistemologists that Godel had wrote does not exist. I came to my own thought on subjectivity of time from trying to "picture" organism competion of different species not from time in general relativity. I also have thought that Carnap is not correct so I would probably agree with Godel on if math is not syntax of language but I have not read that paper by the G-man.It is however realists who have stalled the incorporation of Godel's relation of Einstein and Kant and thus Gould seems to have been mislead even though I think he had the correct criticism of Dawkins. Hakwing was left making ad hoc requirements and that is what is happening here untill ID produces some results but if I am correct that ID makes the already subjective time (from the secular perspective) even more idealist than the YECS had presented it will be more than time that is needed here. The Putnams and the Quines of the world need to be shown that the nervous fluid is both received and transmitted differently in biological tissue that is macrothermodyanmic than that is simply biophysically phenomenologiclly dynamic. I gained a lot reading Derrida on Husserl and seeing how Derrida's thoughts were off scientifidally but Provine-Gould constrictions still restrict acesss to this subjectiviy we can have in abundance on EVC!!

(1) {God(s)}. - ALL HAIL MIGHTY CROCTHOR! GOD OF BEER, PEANUTS AND TOILET PAPER. I'd need to break this down into two subgroups:(1a) {GOD} singular. - has it's own agenda, possibly hiding in plain sight: everything you see is some aspect of {(it)}, or having done enough here gone off to do other great things elsewhere, or built the universe, is totally uninterested in bacteria infesting some planets, etc. Logically, there are endless streams of concepts ...(1b) {GODS} multiple. - the big guns could be elsewhere doing the big picture things, leaving little sprites and half-gods to finish up around the edges, sometimes so bad a complete re-do is required. Gods having wars of dominance with lots of debris left over. Logically, there are endless streams of concepts ...There is no way of testing any of these concepts, short of the appearance of a god willing to demonstrate {(its)} abilities, so pondering them may be entertaining, but not likely to be productive.(2) {Alien(s)}. - could be just one, killed by accident on way home. and number of possibilities. This of course is the same problem with SETI. How many years have we been broadcasting in analog radio waves? Now going digital ... what is the next form of communication? Cable? Laser satellites? We have the technological capability to stop wasting energy broadcasting wasted broadband. With the rise in energy costs, we may soon see real effort to stop wasting energy broadcasting wasted broadband.Here is another take on it Lungfish, by David Brin (SciFi) Yep, this just pushes the question back a {LIFE} generation, and seeing as life took at least 3.5 billion years old, the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, WE have not attained the ability to ID life elsewhere (yet), and the early universe did not have the necessary elements (first stars had only Hydrogen, Helium, and (maybe) Lithium, and the rest of the elements didn't start to be available until they had been manufactured inside stars and then those stars exploded (nova \ supernova) to distribute them ... and then time for those elements to coalesce into planets around a new star ...You don't have a lot of time for multiple generations.(3) {btw} Maybe that's part of the inscrutable plan. Maybe it is better regulated on the mainstream planets of created life, we're out in the boonies.(4) {mudball prodded with stick} Watching. Careful not to influence the experiment with any accidental input. How many scientists watch petrie dishes of bacteria die out completely without a moral or any other qualm at all.(5) {Purpose} Endless entertainment. What can be more entertaining than a troop of monkeys presuming to have big moral discussions or coming to ridiculous conclusions about their personal and individual importance in the grand scope of the universe?Of course ... NONE of this is testable (at least without new evidence, like a pipette in the sky) At least according to our understanding of life, the universe, and everything (by D.N.A.) Why? if god(s) unknowable, then it doesn't matter which one, because you can't know. If god(s) knowable, then it becomes self evident, and you no longer need to wonder.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ah so that's how God did the Flood (extra large pipette of course)...

---

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after

[Perhaps though, I'm wrong, and there is something inherent to ID that makes testing it logically impossible, unless it is distorted out of all recognition.]That's exactly the point. What can't be tested can't be falsified, right?:-)

hmmm me thinks your nearly as big a loon as me is .....further question as needed .. does who /whom/whst ever ID us have full liability cover , cos if we ever find them/she/he/it i can see some lawsuits coming ..however..SETI should work IF they are out there , we are smart enought to realize there will be newer communication methods , BUT radio waves are a most likely start for any race , so you would keep a beacon going , im sure we will ..if scientist found a sentient bactrai which could communicate i think they would not let it die out .. i think it nwould be a heartless IDer who would not help us save us from ourselves .is it not clear that any IDer must be as near to the concept of a god/s as to be to all intent and purpose be one .. ... can we not say that ID is the "god" of the secular ? and to claim any scientific base is unsurportable , and it need to be taught as a faith concept .

I guess that was the point of this topic. Is there a way of making ID falsifiable? The simple answer is probably no, but then, that would have been a pretty short topic.I wasn't necessarily asking for something that would be practical, rather to see whether there was something inherent in ID DISPITE THE ABSENCE OF A FALSIFICATION that made it unscientific. If that's the only stumbling block, is it possible to manipulate ID to make it falsifiable? How much would have to be changed? Would it in fact just look like standard scientific theory, devoid of deities, or would there be room for a god or gods if specific conditions were met? (Like if there was suddenly massive proof that the Hindu pantheon existed for example.)Cheers

Well,I was reading Kant's (practical)reason again...
If ID was considered wholly as a synthesis within an imperative (i.e. it did not proceed first from considerations of space and time purely)then if the duty to have done so got sufficient attention and Kant's ideas of action and reaction were updated to the past century it seems possible that the "intelligence" WOULD NOT be reducible to simply science tomorrow. The trouble is getting one to take the imperative without a necessarily deterministic mechanism in the outer empirical world from wherever the practice divided the internal and external. If there were some hermeneutic between prior creation science and ID that shifted between reasons pure and practical it seems that science would fall within Biblical Creationism but one would surely meet political obstacles to such a culture of the skills necessary to carry out the circle of thought.I do suspect that if anything more is socially to come from ID it will be piecemeal as notions of space and time might alter as work is done by the rather few and near between and thus only the empirical side-products will make it into global circulation. Just a final guess and the end of my rope here... Edited by Brad McFall, : processed with m-word

Not devoid of deities, agnostic on deities. And that's the best you would end up with in ID. If you take it to it's logical conclusion, what you end up with is a philosophic viewpoint that there may be gods or there may be aliens but until we know that, the best we can do is use science to the fullest capability to understand the universe and everything in it the way it is and not try to force it into what we want it to be.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

or bigger. And have no worries about a destructive alien race? "Hey bullies, here we are, bring it on" -- that sure worked well last time I heard it ... Only IF she was listening. How long has it taken for the human race to even consider other species communicating sufficiently intelligent content to be considered having a conversation?And bacteria do communicate. It just takes too long for a conversation for people to follow it.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : fixed html link

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

you may be bigger ...but i practice harder ...if we or any other race is concerned about inter galactic bullies we would shut down all radio/ electrical devices now ..and any "new" comms systems ..any sure we have only just started to look and listen .. but the IDer(s) have had the had from the day they started it all .. and they must have been a bit more advanced compared to us at that point anyway so should be able to spot a wailing brat like the human race ...

You have to practice? You haven't tried to use federal money to build a beacon, or tried to organize a non-profit group to build it, so you haven't really attracted the notice of the xenophobes to start campaigning against it. Like Pat Robertson. You are making the logical error of thinking that we are the reason for the design job. And that the job is anywhere near finished.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

[If that's the only stumbling block, is it possible to manipulate ID to make it falsifiable?]If ID is to become a falsible scientific theory, it first has to take a stand on some scientific points such as the age of the earth. So far, the IDists are unable (or unwilling) to make such a stand as they'd rather not offend their 'friends' in the YEC movement.At the rate it's going, the overstuffed 'big tent' of ID might explode.

i dont have to but with the right people practice is fun ....so if i can show Fox news is a cover for a radio beacon to call to the other beings out there Pat will shut it down ??
What im saying is its to late the signals are out there either you shut everything down and hide our you point a redundent satalite outward as a beacon .Noooo i know we are not the object or the final point , but we are a clearly in need of help , do you think any IDer's as totally heartless and so disconected as to ignore us ... even us pitiful humans produce some how care enough to help others in need .

Just because you are working on evolution does not make it right and acceptable. This is not the answer. The real answer is "There is no answer" Why? Chemical Evolution is impossible. It has been proved time and again. If you are going to prove it, then the existing Chemical laws need to be rewritten!!!!!!!!!

Age of the earth is not the scope of ID. The fundamental premise of evolution is that everything including the complex systems came into existence by self organization, random choice and mutations. There is no evidence for these phenomenon. All these processes point out to a designer. This is plain and simple. Whatever evolution is failing to explain, ID only provides an alternative explanation. Just as evolution has never been proved, ID also has its own issues.