Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Creationism/ID as Science
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 151 of 249 (344632)
08-29-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Hughes
08-28-2006 3:40 AM


Re: It is rhetoric not science
Hughes writes:
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?
it seems that you have just launched a new theory for the origin of life. shall we call it DD? (it stands for Dumb Design)
Edited by fallacycop, : Typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Hughes, posted 08-28-2006 3:40 AM Hughes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 08-29-2006 9:15 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 152 of 249 (344655)
08-29-2006 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by fallacycop
08-29-2006 7:29 AM


Re: It is rhetoric not science
Actually, that is one of the beauties of English.
ID can mean:
  1. Inept design.
  2. Incomprehensable Design.
  3. Incompetent Design.
  4. Incapable Design.
  5. Inefficient Design.
  6. Inexpert Design.
  7. Inapt Design.
  8. Inappropriate Design.
  9. Inadept Design.
  10. Improper design.
  11. Inadequate Design.
  12. Illadvised Design.
  13. Incongruous Design.
  14. Inexperienced Design.
  15. Immature Design.
  16. ...

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 7:29 AM fallacycop has not replied

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


Message 153 of 249 (344659)
08-29-2006 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Hughes
08-29-2006 3:16 AM


Hughes writes:
How many manufacturing plants have you seen that evolved using natural processes?
This is your evidence? Drawing an analogy or metaphor between manufacturing plants and cells is your evidence that cells were designed?
Let's contrast the evidence for evolution with the evidence for ID. Put simply, evolutionary theory says that the process of descent with modification assisted by natural selection has produced the diversity of life we see today. At a genetic level we understand this takes place by reordering of alleles (sexual reproduction) and mutation (all forms of reproduction). These interpretations are supported by a wide variety of evidence, from fossils, to observations of modern life, to genetic analysis. Within evolution, indeed, within all of science, there are no examples of arguing that an analogy or metaphor is evidence.
In order for creationism/ID to qualify as science it must identify supporting evidence. Rather than offering analogies to manufacturing plants you need to find genetic or fossil or morphological evidence of the designer at work. I'm not sure what form this evidence might take, but this much I do know: with no evidence and only analogy, creationism/ID isn't science.
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.
You're arguing that archeology is science, and forensics is science, so because ID is like archeology and forensics it is also science.
But it's already been pointed out that ID is *not* like archeology and forensics. Neither is seeking intelligent design but simply the indications of human presence and activity.
You're also repeating the same mistake again. Just as a cell being analogous to a manufacturing plant doesn't mean it was designed, it doesn't follow that ID is science because it is like archeology and forensics. For ID to be a legitimate scientific theory it must be falsifiable, its supporting evidence that has been gathered through observation and experiment must be replicable, and it must create an interpretational framework of understanding that is consistent with and explains the evidence as well as making accurate predictions of future discoveries.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 3:16 AM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 6:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 249 (344660)
08-29-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dr Adequate
08-29-2006 4:24 AM


How many manufacturing plants have you seen that evolved using natural processes?
Ah, petitio prinicipii. If you mean to include cells among "manufacturing plants", then I've seen billions of 'em.
Yes, I mean Cells. And no, even you can't claim to have seen them evolve (as in come alive). You can infer their origins based on data you can collect. This is a far cry from observing those origins. I call it faith.
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".
If as you say, it's a "legitimate" scientific question. How is it that you *know* the answer? How sure are you that your answer is correct? Are you absolutely positive? 100% sure?
Hmmm...sounds less and less like science and more and more like a commitment to an article of faith to me.
You may describe ID however you wish. But, from what I've understood, the ID theorist takes the same data, the so called: "mountains of evidence" and re-interprets it in light of new information. Asking the question is this designed or not (by an intelligent source), doesn't mean it's not scientific, as you said. But concluding that the possibility that these manufacturing plants (Cells) which are magnitudes smaller and yet more complex than our own manufacturing plants, cannot have an intelligent source is non-science?
That’s boggles the mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2006 4:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 08-29-2006 11:46 AM Hughes has replied
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2006 5:46 PM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 249 (344665)
08-29-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by ReverendDG
08-29-2006 4:58 AM


Re: It is rhetoric not science
the 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?
ID says “irreducible complexity = design” not the same as what you stated. Your hang up is that you then assume a whole litany of things about the designer, that he can’t screw up, that those things he designed can’t change or be affected negatively by its environment. None of these extra rules you place on the designer and his product, are necessary.
Saying that something isn't designed well, in no way supports your point that it wasn't designed at all
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.
Your forcing a “should” on a scientific inquiry? A morality that you’ve assumed exists, which is completely arbitrary. Who says a designer *Ought* to do anything? What moral law are you referring to?
Further, your question disallows the effects of time and history on the original design. It’s quite possible that good designs were produced in the beginning, but were corrupted somehow along the way through the expanse of time.
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.
Any theory has limits. Even your beloved evolutionary one. For example, where did matter come from? Where did the laws of physics come from? If a singularity caused it, what caused the singularity? If a singularity is the supposed suspension of laws of physics, then that must mean it’s not science too right?
At some point, any theory of origins has to posit an uncaused entity or event.
And no, I’m not here trying to scam anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ReverendDG, posted 08-29-2006 4:58 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ReverendDG, posted 09-05-2006 3:12 AM Hughes has not replied

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


Message 156 of 249 (344717)
08-29-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Hughes
08-29-2006 9:41 AM


Hughes writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
Ah, petitio prinicipii. If you mean to include cells among "manufacturing plants", then I've seen billions of 'em.
Yes, I mean Cells. And no, even you can't claim to have seen them evolve (as in come alive).
Dr Adequate was responding to your analogy about cells as manufacturing plants, not the origin of life. The topic is creationism/ID as science. If you have any actual evidence supporting creationism/ID theory, this is your opportunity to present it.
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".
If as you say, it's a "legitimate" scientific question. How is it that you *know* the answer? How sure are you that your answer is correct? Are you absolutely positive? 100% sure?
When Dr Adequate says the answer to the question about design is "no" he only means there is no evidence supporting the thesis. He's not implying that no evidence will ever be uncovered.
You may describe ID however you wish. But, from what I've understood, the ID theorist takes the same data, the so called: "mountains of evidence" and re-interprets it in light of new information.
If you're using the same evidence, then it is this reinterpretation that you should be focused on.
When we see cells go from one generation to the next all we observe is the evolutionary process in miniature, with reproductive errors being passed on to offspring and then selected by the environment. How does ID reinterpret this data to conclude design?
Or when we examine the diversity of life and the nested hierarchy of interrelatedness, how does ID reinterpret this data to conclude design?
Or when we examine the fossil evidence, how does ID reinterpret this data to conclude design?
And there are other questions, of course. When the designer implemented his designs, how did he carry out the implementations? What tools must the designer have had for implementing his designs? Does his method leave any evidence or artifacts behind, any signs at all? In other words, what evidence should we seek in the genome for the handiwork of the designer? Are there patterns we should observe in the nested hierarchy of life that would indicate a designer? Or are there patterns of change over time in the fossil record that would indicate a designer?
The important thing to keep in mind is that "a cell is like a manufacturing plant" and "ID is like forensics and archeology" are arguments by analogy, not evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 9:41 AM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 7:06 PM Percy has replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 249 (344752)
08-29-2006 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by ReverendDG
08-29-2006 5:06 AM


how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures? they are nothing alike
According to Michael Denton they are similar.
how can you tell something is designed by an intelligence?
I think this is a good question.
How can the SETI project tell if they have a signal from space that has an intelligent source?
How can an Archeologist tell if it has an artifact that is man-made?
How can a Forensic scientist determine that a murder occured and not an accident?
The principles used in these disciplines are the same used to tell if if something, anything is originated from an intelligent source or not.
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?
Like I said, the principles are the same. And with the SETI project, no, we don't have the knowledge that they are human. So, while you *want* to wave your hand and have this evidence disapear, it will only become more of a problem, not less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by ReverendDG, posted 08-29-2006 5:06 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 08-29-2006 3:02 PM Hughes has replied
 Message 162 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 5:25 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 237 by ReverendDG, posted 09-05-2006 3:46 AM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 249 (344754)
08-29-2006 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Parasomnium
08-29-2006 7:18 AM


Re: Design does not imply a designer
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'd like to see a test of this theory, or better stated. How would you falsify this proposition?
Because I disagree. I see no evidence indicating that evolution has the power to create even the most powerful super-computer.
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.
Yeah right. Vacuous is what it is. Computer models are only accurate if the input data is accurate. No guarantee of that, now is there?
Sorry had to respond, even though this isn't on topic...back to is ID Science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Parasomnium, posted 08-29-2006 7:18 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 08-29-2006 2:39 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 161 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 5:21 PM Hughes has not replied

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


Message 159 of 249 (344757)
08-29-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Hughes
08-29-2006 2:30 PM


Re: Design does not imply a designer
Hi Hughes,
Just a couple comments.
First, regarding design using evolutionary principles, Parasomnium is referring to the field of genetic algorithms. Propose a new thread if you'd like to discuss it.
Second, about this:
Yeah right. Vacuous is what it is. Computer models are only accurate if the input data is accurate. No guarantee of that, now is there?
If you'd like to challenge the validity of computer modelling, please propose a new thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 2:30 PM Hughes has not replied

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


Message 160 of 249 (344761)
08-29-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Hughes
08-29-2006 2:18 PM


Hughes writes:
how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures? they are nothing alike
According to Michael Denton they are similar.
Argument from authority is a fallacy. Normally I'd request that you frame the argument in your own words, but not in this case because analogy is not evidence. This is your opportunity to present the evidence for design, and so far all you're offering is analogies.
how can you tell something is designed by an intelligence?
I think this is a good question.
Usually when someone says they think a good question has been posed it means they intend to answer it. You instead reply with three questions of your own:
How can the SETI project tell if they have a signal from space that has an intelligent source?
Good question. Do you know how they do it? Are you saying that ID uses the same techniques as SETI for identifying something of intelligent origin? Can you provide some examples of ID applying these techniques?
How can an Archeologist tell if it has an artifact that is man-made?
Usually it's obvious, but there are more subtle cases. Archaeologists often want to know if ancient animal bones they find died at the hands of humans, and they do this by looking for signs of human activity, most commonly knife marks on the bone. Is this how ID identifies design? Have marks of some kind been left inside the cell of the designer's work? Can you provide examples of ID finding such marks?
How can a Forensic scientist determine that a murder occured and not an accident?
By searching for signs of violence or foul play and by finding a murder weapon or means of murder. So are you saying that ID works in a similar manner, seeking signs of the work of the designer, or for the tools that the designer used to carry out his work? Can you provide some examples of ID identifying design using these techniques?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 2:18 PM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Hughes, posted 08-30-2006 2:49 AM Percy has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 161 of 249 (344807)
08-29-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Hughes
08-29-2006 2:30 PM


Re: Design does not imply a designer
Hughes writes:
Because I disagree. I see no evidence indicating that evolution has the power to create even the most powerful super-computer.
That's because you have not been looking at the right places.
have you ever heard of genetic algorithms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 2:30 PM Hughes has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 162 of 249 (344810)
08-29-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Hughes
08-29-2006 2:18 PM


how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures? they are nothing alike
According to Michael Denton they are similar.
I don't even know who the heck is Michael Denton. Why should I care what he thinks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 2:18 PM Hughes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Quetzal, posted 08-30-2006 11:05 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 163 of 249 (344822)
08-29-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Hughes
08-29-2006 9:41 AM


Yes, I mean Cells. And no, even you can't claim to have seen them evolve (as in come alive).
"Evolve as in come alive"?
You can infer their origins based on data you can collect. This is a far cry from observing those origins.
Just as an archeologist infers the origins of a potsherd from data he can collect. This is a far cry from observing those origins. Just as a forensic scientist infers the cause of death based on data he can collect. This is a far cry from witnessing the crime.
Yet you admit that archeology and forensic science are sciences. And the whole point of these sciences is to find out about events which we didn't witness: that's the whole shebang.
I call it faith.
Yes, you do, don't you, because you're a creationist, and one of your more pointless rituals is to use the word "faith" as though it was a dirty word.
I guess it's easier than putting up substantial arguments for intelligent design or against evolution; but then, so is saying nothing at all.
If as you say, it's a "legitimate" scientific question. How is it that you *know* the answer?
From the evidence; the same way I know the answer to the legitimate scientific question of whether pigs are capable of flight.
How sure are you that your answer is correct? Are you absolutely positive? 100% sure?
Hmmm...sounds less and less like science and more and more like a commitment to an article of faith to me.
Yes, you're right, if I'm sure pigs can't fly, that's my religion. Yup. Yes indeed.
You guys ...
But concluding that the possibility that these manufacturing plants (Cells) which are magnitudes smaller and yet more complex than our own manufacturing plants, cannot have an intelligent source is non-science?
Not that they cannot: merely that in fact they do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 9:41 AM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 249 (344845)
08-29-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
08-29-2006 9:38 AM


This is your evidence? Drawing an analogy or metaphor between manufacturing plants and cells is your evidence that cells were designed?
Analogy's are tools used to help us see things we might not have seen otherwise. I'm using it here as a way to expose the principle used by ID theorists, that of detecting design in a cell, much the same way we'd detect design if we looked at a manufacturing plant.
Analogies always break down, and limited in their explainitory power.
Is it evidence? No, it leads us to evidence.
For ID to be a legitimate scientific theory it must be falsifiable, its supporting evidence that has been gathered through observation and experiment must be replicable, and it must create an interpretational framework of understanding that is consistent with and explains the evidence as well as making accurate predictions of future discoveries.
All of this is true, and I'm sure some ID believing scientists are working on it. In fact, it appears that some here believe it to be falsified already.
And Just as Darwin stated:"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
ID states (No reference, put this together from my understanding): If it could be demonstrated that any irreducible complex structure existed, which can be formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, then the theory of ID would absolutely break down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 08-29-2006 9:38 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 08-29-2006 8:16 PM Hughes has not replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 249 (344856)
08-29-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
08-29-2006 11:46 AM


When we see cells go from one generation to the next all we observe is the evolutionary process in miniature, with reproductive errors being passed on to offspring and then selected by the environment. How does ID reinterpret this data to conclude design?
This observation or data doesn't support decent with modification (without vast amounts of extrapolation). It does however contain evidence for an intelligent source for said processes. Such evidence includes and is not limited to the communication process (Message->encode->transfer->Decode->Asimilate), and the vast array of irreducible complexities that boggle the mind.
Or when we examine the diversity of life and the nested hierarchy of interrelatedness, how does ID reinterpret this data to conclude design?
Where Decent with Modification (DwM) groups things together, as if there was some biological connection. ID holds no need to show things are grouped together, and biologically related. For example, Chimps may be 4% different, genetically from Humans, yet this fact is largely irrelevant, and not especially useful in anyway. Similarities and differences are simply what they are, based on the designs found in the genes.
So, while evolutions go to great pains to "connect the dots" ID only connects the dots that indicate intelligence was at work. Sure, animals can be grouped according to different systems and similarities. However, no amount of grouping is evidence of a biological connection.
Or when we examine the fossil evidence, how does ID reinterpret this data to conclude design?
Again, Darwin needed vast amounts of time for his theory to work. He needed the fossil record. ID doesn't require or need any particular order or not. It's focus is on the most difficult evidence for darwin to explain. All the other supposed evidences are easily reinterpreted in light of this new knowledge.
For example. What does a fossil tell us? That an animal died, and that it died suddenly. What does the fossil record tell us? That many animals died in the past, suddenly. Not much if any biological information can be gleaned from the fossil record. So many times scientists think they've got something, only to be proven wrong when a "living fossil" is found (a living example, of what was once thought extinct).
The vast amounts of extrapolation and inference found in evolutionary theory are thrown out, as unsupported and unfalsifiable.
In other words, what evidence should we seek in the genome for the handiwork of the designer?
This is an interesting question. I don't have a good answer. But, I'd speculate that a language of cells might indicate something about the originator of that language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 08-29-2006 11:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 08-29-2006 8:30 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2006 1:41 AM Hughes has replied
 Message 174 by Parasomnium, posted 08-30-2006 3:30 AM Hughes 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