Creationism/ID as Science

Scientists relate fossils to each other. They don't *directly observe* their relationship in real time, they infer said relationship based on various other inferences that they assume to be accurate. Hence, the loss of "objectively observable and measurable conclusions" in science as we now know it. Not a straw man at all. Saying something isn't designed *well* means you admit that it was in fact designed by some intelligence in the first place. IS that what you intended to say?Saying that something isn't designed well, in no way supports your point that it wasn't designed at all. I live in the NW USA and we've had two bridges SINK, in just my lifetime. This doesn't indicate that they weren't designed, does it? How can it be a mockery of science when science is restricted to questions it can test? In other words, detecting whether something is designed or not, *is* within the grasps of scientific inquiry.Detecting whether God exists or not, is outside this scope, so why assume any answer is mocking science?

This makes no sense as written, since one doesn't observe and measure conclusions. I think what you meant to say is that you wish the conclusions (i.e., the theories) of science were derived from the objectively observable and measurable. Which they are. In order to support your position you must provide examples within science where this isn't the case, which you attempt to do next: It might appear to you that the paleontologist is simply assuming relatedness, but he isn't. What he's actually doing is interpreting the fossil in an evolutionary context, i.e., within the context of evolutionary theory, for which there are mountains of objectively measurable evidence. If you'd like to discuss the evidence for evolution then we could discuss it at whatever level of detail you like, but it would be off-topic for this thread, so you should propose a new thread. This thread is about creationism/ID's qualifications as science. What you actually mean to say is that the IDist interprets the fossil in an ID context, i.e., within the context of ID theory, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. There is no evidence of any artifacts of a design and implementation or manufacturing process, nor is there any evidence of an entity that designs and creates suns, planets and life.In order for creationism/ID to qualify as science, you have to explain how it possesses the necessary qualities of science, such as deriving from observation and/or experiment, being tentative, and being replicable.--Percy

quote:

---

Saying something isn't designed *well* means you admit that it was in fact designed by some intelligence in the first place.

---

Weather "designed" this stone arch: Is the weather "intelligent"?Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

I don't think we should go into too much detail about evolution's qualifications as science because that isn't the topic of this thread, so for now I'll just say that the same approach to interpreting evidence should be taken by both evolutionist and creationist/IDist. Science is inductive, and drawing inferences and generalizing is an intimate part of the process of science. Of course it isn't what ReverendDG intended to say, nor is it what he said. He was explaining how various structures in the human body show no signs of the application of intelligence. They were "designed" by the blind evolutionary process of descent with change combined with natural selection that often reflects making-do with what's available. It is a process that has been verified, confirmed and replicated many times using as subjects organisms with generation times much shorter than our own. But this isn't the topic of this thread. The open mind that I think most of us attempt to have about creationism/ID is tempered by the record of unscientific behavior by the creationist/IDist community, primarily their continual efforts at making end-around runs of the scientific process by taking their arguments to state legislatures and boards of education instead of to journals and conferences.So if you think the tenets of creationism/ID are falsifiable and scientifically based upon replicable observation and evidence, all you have do is describe this for us.--Percy

There is plenty of evidence of design. Ever read Denton's book? He describes a cell and it's manufacturing processes.
ID doesn't need evidence of an entity. Rather all that is needed is the same evidences that an archeologist uses, or a forensic scientist needs, for ID to be science.

uh...no.

Unscientific behaviors are apart of life. Both evolutionists and creationists have made these mistakes.
What does continue to trouble me is the idea that one's motivation is considered as evidence for or against a scientific claim. In other words, instead of simply analyzing the data, the person who is seen as a "YEC" (for example) therefore anything he says is called into question because he has "questionable" motives.
So what? Who cares what motives someone has? If they have data to back up their claims, what does the mailman's motives have to do with anything?

The only time anyone worries about the motives of IDists or YECs or Biblical Creationists is when they try to pretend that their nonsense is science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I can't see how your last two posts, or any of your posts, actually, address the issue of how Creationism/ID qualifies as science. If you're interested in making the case for your viewpoint by presenting supporting evidence then this is your opportunity.--Percy

You do not say how a mere description of a cell is evidence that that cell was designed rather than evolved. But this is exactly what you don't seem to have.Moreover, if this is the standard we're using, then archaeologists and forensic scientists both know the difference between a designed artifact and a living creature (or the remains of one). Digging up a pot, an archaeologist asks "Who made it, and why"; he does not ask this question when he digs up the shinbone of an antelope. The ability to tell a manufactured device from a natural one is, indeed, a necessity in his field: do you mean to claim there is no such distinction?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"Mere" description of a cell by a micro-biologist. Quite a over simplification there.How many manufacturing plants have you seen that evolved using natural processes? Of course there's a distinction between animals and artifacts. The point is very simple. An archeologist is able to determine with great accuracy what is from an intelligent source and what is not. That is all.The question is ID science. And if Forensics is science, so is ID.
If Archaeology is science, so is ID.
The same principles are used to detect what came from an intelligent source or not.If you wish to say that ID is not science, then neither are those two practices.

A mere description of a cell by a micro-biologist is not an argument that it was designed rather than evolved.A mere description of a cell by a quorum of Nobel Laureates is not an argument that it was designed rather than evolved.A mere description of a cell is not an argument that it was designed rather than evolved. Ah, petitio prinicipii. If you mean to include cells among "manufacturing plants", then I've seen billions of 'em. Right. And archeologists place plant and animal remains amongst those things which do not have an intelligent source, do they not? If ID is right, then archeologists are wrong, are they not? If ID is science, then archeologists cannot determine "with great accuracy" what is and is not from an intelligent source, can they? But here we go again.Imagine an archeologist, a forensic scientist, and a biologist dig up the skull of a saber-tooth tiger. We ask them if it's a product of intelligent design.Archeologist: No. ("With great accuracy", remember?)
Forensic scientist: No.
Biologist: No.Now I think you're slurring over your reasoning slightly. It is true that in archeology, the question: "Is it designed or natural?" is always a legitimate scientific question. But it is not always correct to answer "designed".ID does not consist of asking the question of whether organisms are designed, which is a legitimate scientific question to which the answer is "no"; rather, ID consists of pretending that the answer is "yes".The question of whether the Giants' Causeway was really built by giants is a fair question to which geologists can give a clear answer; but this does not make the Giants Really Built It OK Hypothesis science.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

i'm not sure you even understood what i said, did i say they observe anything in realtime at any point?
no i said they look at the fossils details such as structures of the fossils, and how they relate to other fossils details - you aren't making a strawman you are flatout denying they have a way of showing how fossils relate to each other honestly. the inference is the structures of the fossils did i ever once say 'design'? no i did not i said built,structured, etc - design implies intellience in normal word-usege. as for saying design somehow magically makes you think i admit ID is true, well thats your imagination and nothing more - and things can be designed without intelligence look at crystals they are not designed but have structure and shape that looks like it but the question is why would something of intelligence design things so badly and co-opt things that are already part of a system? evolution easily answers this. can ID answer this that was what i was asking, what does a human designed bridge have to do with it, humans don't design biological systems, they don't have the ability to. human intelligence is very limited and you can't compare living things with nonliving things like animals and bridgesthe fact that ID says complexity=design and some how the intellience designed things like this? is my question can you answer why a being able to design living systems would screw-up so much? but it does, a being able to produce life should be able to produce good designs that work without so many problems, since really why is the only question since ID knows nothing about how things are done. i call it a mockery because you have to keep asking the same question over and over again till you hit a point of illogic, who is the designer? aliens? well if you define complexity as a qualifier to design then whos the aliens designer? as i said you have to come down to god that is not designed and ID doesn't work, because a god is complex so it would be designed, but god is the only thing not designed isn't it?
this is not workable it isn't falsifible, so its not science.
its a mockery of science because it pretends to be science when its not what does this have to do with anything? i'm not talking about god, i'm talking about ID's core idea, which is the inferrence that complexity shows design, but its all a basic plea to religion.its still creationism trying to scam people

how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures? they are nothing alike yes because archeologists have examples and evidence they are man-made, what evidence besides want does ID have? how can you tell something is designed by an intelligence? sorry but those do not work, both forensics and archaeology have to do with man-made things, by definiton since we are human we *KNOW* if something is man-made by the very fact that we are humans, so we have a refrence about this, what criteria can we use to define a biological thing as designed and one that is not? sorry, but the two have evidence and ID does not, if ID does where is it? the only things IDists trot out are fault ridden arguments, like umm this one

No, it does not mean that. I can't speak for ReverendDG, but if you ask me, then I'd only admit that something not designed well is indeed designed. But there's no reason to assume a designer. I think design can be arrived at in more than one way. Intelligence is a good and quick way to get design. But evolution is also a very adequate way to arrive at design. It may not be very quick, and it may not always yield good or sensible design (although at times it's just plain brilliant, far better than any human intelligence could ever hope to achieve), but it yields design nonetheless.I think - and I've said this before on these EvC fora - that there is design in nature, but that this doesn't mean that there must be a designer. (I am using the word 'design' in the sense of "a functional arrangement of elements in a product".) The mindless process of evolution is perfectly capable of producing design, without the need for any intelligent input whatsoever.Moreover, this is not just a vacuous claim: it has been demonstrated in computer models of the process of evolution. Random mutation and selection are things that can be modeled very accurately on a computer, so that the process taking place in these models is not just a simulation of an evolutionary process, but is in fact the real thing, i.e. a real form of evolution takes place on whatever object these models evolve.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.