Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 226 of 249 (346185)
09-03-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Hughes
09-03-2006 1:41 AM


Hi Hughes,
Let's cover this first:
I studied cross-cultural communications specifically.
Right, your background is just as I suspected. You never studied information theory. You claimed you'd studied communications as if it were somehow relevant to this discussion. Your studies in cross-cultural communications are irrelevant to information theory, and it makes no difference whether we're talking about the legitimate information theory of Shannon or the faux theories of Gitt and Dembski.
I think that the strongest argument for design is the abstract nature of communication in cells.
And I think not. Usually when one states a new premise one follows it with supporting explanations and arguments. Since you didn't do that, I have nothing to rebut.
When I say, "The grass is green" and you read those letters, you only understand the message if you can decode them. The letters "GREEN" have absolutely no direct or indirect correlation to "greeness" or "grass", unless both the originator of the message, and the receiver have agreed to an abstract set of rules governing said communication.
Agreeing on meaning is they way people would approach the problem. It isn't the way naturally evolving systems approach the problem. When you look inside a cell, all you see is chemicals obeying natural physical laws. There are no abstractions, except the ones that we ourselves invent.
You're obviously reluctant to accept that what you're offering as evidence isn't really evidence, so maybe it will help if we approach this another way. Can you think of any field of science that offers analogies as evidence, where they say things like, "This is like that, therefore it is that"? You'll be unable to find any, and it should persuade you that evidence is made of sterner stuff than mere analogies.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Hughes, posted 09-03-2006 1:41 AM Hughes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 227 of 249 (346190)
09-03-2006 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by fallacycop
08-31-2006 5:34 PM


Re: ROFL!!
fallacycop writes:
Computers are largely desined by other computers. The principles behind the design are quite simple.
Logician, heal thyself.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by fallacycop, posted 08-31-2006 5:34 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by fallacycop, posted 09-03-2006 8:05 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 228 of 249 (346191)
09-03-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by fallacycop
08-31-2006 5:34 PM


Re: ROFL!!
.
Edited by Percy, : Delete duplicate post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by fallacycop, posted 08-31-2006 5:34 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 229 of 249 (346192)
09-03-2006 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Hughes
09-02-2006 11:40 PM


so you agree ID adds ... nothing? (to science anyway)
Thanks, I posted in that thread.
Saw your non-answer assertion based on denial of evidence. I'll be waiting there for your substantiation of your claim. I'll also take failure to substantiate it as tacit admission that you can't. Note please differentiate between your christian assertions and your ID assertions.
ID ... doesn't displace the scientific method and principles of calibration.
Correct: it is incapable of that.
Let's be blunt: ID, taken to the logical conclusion, is the belief that everything in the universe was designed to be the way it is, that at best science can discover how it {is\was} designed to be.
The problem is that many proponents are {ID+Christian}, and that they have failed to look at what ID means beyond their myopic christian preconceptions.
Take the age of the {universe\earth\life}:
  • for {ID taken to it's logical conclusion} there is no problem with life being 3.5+ billion years old, earth being 4.55+ billion years old and the universe being 13.7+ billion years old -- that is the way it was designed to be, and that is what science shows, and there is nothing in the concept of ID that contradicts this, versus
  • an age limit based on belief, imposed from christian beliefs and not from ID (even gets to the "appearance of age" argument that is used by some YEC\OEC types, the jester god belief).
    ID is a religious philosophy that few have really considered in depth (beyond their comfort level).
    You mean variation as seen now? Simple. It's called genetics, based on an original design scheme that has a built-in variation system.
    Exactly, that is just what I asked and expected. It uses evolution to explain it. It uses science as we know it to explain what we know. ID does not add anything useful to this understanding.
    They two key differences with evolution are that the variation isn't unlimited, and that the designs didn't arrive via decent with modification (ToE). The designs preceded the variations.
    As such it doesn't provide any means to predict growth, evolution and medical advances that don't involve the use of evolution as the actual process involved: it cannot be distinguished from evolution other than by the assertion that at some unknown point in the past it was designed that way. You may claim that " variation isn't unlimited", but equivocation on {when the design was implemented} is (and will be) unlimited. This was already covered in Message 215 (or should I say predicted):
    quote:
    This is where the whole {concept} if "Intelligent Design" fails: it has no mechanism to explain today's evidence that supports evolution.
    Example: How did species {A} arise from species {B}?
    Evolution: {B} accumulates mutations, variations in alleles, that are then selected by natural processes, eliminating some {death before reproduction} in favor of others {reproduce, pass on genes}; over time the differences add up enough to end up with {A} (observed)
    "Intelligent Design" : either (1) I don't know OR (2) {B} was {magically designed} to evolve into {A} by natural processes associated with evolution.
    If (2), then How did species {B} arise from species {C}?
    Evolution: {C} accumulates mutations, variations in alleles, that are then selected by natural processes, eliminating some {death before reproduction} in favor of others {reproduce, pass on genes}; over time the differences add up enough to end up with {B} (observed)
    "Intelligent Design" : either (1) I don't know OR (2) {C} was {magically designed} to evolve into {B} by natural processes associated with evolution.
    If (2), then How did species {C} arise from species {D}?
    Evolution: {D} accumulates mutations, variations in alleles, that are then selected by natural processes, eliminating some {death before reproduction} in favor of others {reproduce, pass on genes}; over time the differences add up enough to end up with {C} (observed)
    "Intelligent Design" : either (1) I don't know OR (2) {D} was {magically designed} to evolve into {C} by natural processes associated with evolution.
    etc ad infinitum ... ad nauseum ... back to the origin of life on this planet ...
    As such ID is incapable of making a prediction that would differentiate it from evolution.
    ID actually relies on mutation and natural selection to produce the diversity of life we see.

    In other words, ID makes no contribution to understanding the diversity of life or provide any mechanism to predict further changes in the diversity of life (something that would be useful for medicines). The "ID answer" is "it was designed that way" -- which is really no different to the "YEC answer" that "god-did-it" -- both are vacuous assertions that don't contribute to the increase in knowledge or affect our ability to deal with the reality of the universe.
    This leaves ID as a religious philosophy dependent on science for every fact and every bit of evidence in the known universe.
    You can think of it as a series of rooms where creationists have to be dragged kicking and screaming from room to room, but people unencumbered by preconceptions and empowered by curiosity will freely choose to open every door to the very end. The relative {ability\willingness} (or their lack) to go through the doors is not based on ID or on scientific inquiry, but on religious preconceptions.
    How is the design transmitted? You mean originally, (as in the beginning), or today?
    I think we are being misunderstood here, if you thought ID means that designing is still going on.
    In other words you have no mechanism for the transmission of design, and thus it is based purely on an assumption. Without such a mechanism there is no way to say {when design occurred} and without any means to determine {when design occurred} there is no way to determine {if design occurred} or what the {limitations of the designs} were.
    In other words we can take this back ultimately to the development of the universe from the big bang moment of inflation (or the slam bang moment of `brane collision) as the moment when everything was designed, including all the natural processes that we see and which have resulted in the formation of the solar system, the origin of life on earth and the evolution of the vast diversity of life as we know it.
    This is ID taken to the logical conclusion. Life evolved on earth because the universe was designed that way "(as in the beginning)" -- that is the final door.
    Just as many developments (flight, radar are two examples) occurred as a result of close study of nature (what ID proposes was designed by an intelligence).
    Doesn't matter what "ID proposes" -- these things were developed by a close study of nature AND of the basic way the universe operates -- gravity, aerodynamics, light\radio waves, etcetera -- and what the limitations are. In many cases intelligently developed beyond any system that evolved in nature.
    If all that "ID proposes" is that "it was designed that way" then it is intellectually devoid of providing any useful information that is not already provided by scientifically discovering how it works.
    In other words ID is a religious philosophy that uses scientific knowledge and understanding of the way "life, the universe and everything"(D.N.Adams) works, and which can then be incorporated into the philosophical discussions of {why} and {purpose}.
    BUT: ID doesn't add squat to the scientific understanding of the universe.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : added last sentence.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 221 by Hughes, posted 09-02-2006 11:40 PM Hughes has not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22391
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 230 of 249 (346203)
    09-03-2006 10:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 218 by Hughes
    09-02-2006 9:12 PM


    Hi Hughes,
    Well, I see you've allowed some members to bring you over to the dark side! Will you be discussing the topic anytime soon?
    As long as we're not discussing the topic, allow me to comment extraneously for a bit. Reality isn't a matter of opinion, and making erroneous pronouncements about things you're not very familiar with is a poor strategy. The value of your views isn't measured by the determination with which you defend them, but by their ability to persuade others. Most of this thread involves correcting your misimpressions. If you want to convince other people of your views then it really helps a lot to say things that are actually correct rather than wrong. Your latest entry:
    Too bad computers don't just write themselves their own programs from the silicone itself, else you might have something there.
    You may as well have said, "Too bad man can't fly." If you're interested in learning about genetic algorithms then please inquire at an appropriate thread, or propose a new one.
    The topic is whether ID fulfills the requirements of legitimate science. The primary question is whether ID is falsifiable in any meaningful way. Note that arguing that evolution isn't falsifiable is a) off-topic; b) has nothing to do with whether ID is falsifiable; and c) if used as a claim of equivalency with evolution is contrary to your argument that ID is legitimate science.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 218 by Hughes, posted 09-02-2006 9:12 PM Hughes has not replied

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


    Message 231 of 249 (346289)
    09-03-2006 8:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 227 by Percy
    09-03-2006 9:24 AM


    Re: ROFL!!
    fallacycop writes:
    Computers are largely desined by other computers. The principles behind the design are quite simple.
    Logician, heal thyself.
    I'm sure there was apoint I wanted to make, when I wrote that, but it was late and I was tired, and I don't think the point came across as intended. Mental note: If to tired to write, don't write at all.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 227 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 9:24 AM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 234 by Percy, posted 09-04-2006 9:35 AM fallacycop has not replied

      
    inkorrekt
    Member (Idle past 6081 days)
    Posts: 382
    From: Westminster,CO, USA
    Joined: 02-04-2006


    Message 232 of 249 (346311)
    09-03-2006 11:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 207 by Parasomnium
    09-01-2006 3:52 AM


    Re: Selective blindness
    Watermelons and Jelly fish are both 96% water, does that mean they are biologically related?
    This is similar to other assumptions. There are only 20 amino acids and according to the principle of structure and activity, for a given biological activity, specific structures of peptides and proteins are necessary. There are also biological limitations. We observe the same peptides and protiens in many species. Does it mean that these species are related?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 207 by Parasomnium, posted 09-01-2006 3:52 AM Parasomnium has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 233 by kuresu, posted 09-03-2006 11:19 PM inkorrekt has not replied
     Message 235 by Chiroptera, posted 09-04-2006 1:49 PM inkorrekt has not replied

      
    kuresu
    Member (Idle past 2513 days)
    Posts: 2544
    From: boulder, colorado
    Joined: 03-24-2006


    Message 233 of 249 (346315)
    09-03-2006 11:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 232 by inkorrekt
    09-03-2006 11:06 PM


    Re: Selective blindness
    When it comes to proteins, that's a given. No duh we're related. Proteins are coded by DNA. Those animals with proteins closer in structure (the amino acid order and possibly folding) are more closely related to us. why? The closer the DNA, the closer the proteins will be.
    Peptides, which I believe you are using for the term amino acid (if not, then you refer to peptide bond, the bond between two amino acids, or polypeptide, which is a chain of amino acids), are also based off of DNA. AAA, TTT, CCC, GGG are four amino acids. everyliving thing on this planet uses these bases (except in RNA, where the T is replaced with U). amino acids won't prove relatedness except for the fact that we all have DNA.
    Basically, the answer to your question, though, is yes.
    abe:
    the reason water can't prove any relatedness is because it is not derived from DNA.
    Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

    All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 232 by inkorrekt, posted 09-03-2006 11:06 PM inkorrekt has not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22391
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 234 of 249 (346388)
    09-04-2006 9:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 231 by fallacycop
    09-03-2006 8:05 PM


    Re: ROFL!!
    fallacycop writes:
    I'm sure there was apoint I wanted to make, when I wrote that, but it was late and I was tired, and I don't think the point came across as intended.
    I actually thought your point was pretty clear, that the complexity of human designs is often dwarfed by that of nature. And I agree that computers are a good example of the level of complexity that humans handle pretty well but that is simple in comparison with nature's constructions.
    Maybe it was just the way it was phrased, but my only issue was that you seemed to be implying that computer design has been reduced to specifying high level requirements to a computer program. What has actually happened in the evolution of computer design over the past 50 years or so is that the specification of computers has risen to higher and higher levels of abstraction. Today it is very common for new computer designs to be specified in HDL's (Hardware Description Languages) that describe behavior at the level of bus interfaces (probably not obvious, but that's a very high abstraction level).
    But we have not yet gotten to the point where the need is obviated for also modelling the computer at lower levels of abstraction and then verifying the equivalency of the models with various comparison techniques that range from simple signal comparisons to formal analysis.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 231 by fallacycop, posted 09-03-2006 8:05 PM fallacycop has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 235 of 249 (346453)
    09-04-2006 1:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 232 by inkorrekt
    09-03-2006 11:06 PM


    Re: Selective blindness
    quote:
    We observe the same peptides and protiens in many species. Does it mean that these species are related?
    In many cases, yes. Slight variations in the peptide sequence of the protein or the nucleotide sequence of the DNA will often have very little or no effect on the performance of the protein. Cytochrome c is an example; it has been demonstrated that an individuals cytochrome c gene can be replaced by another species' gene with no decrease in viability.
    Funny thing is, despite all these genes being essentially the same in terms of functionality, the further apart two species are in terms of the standard phylogenic tree, the more different their cytochrome c genes are.
    Interesting, no?

    "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 232 by inkorrekt, posted 09-03-2006 11:06 PM inkorrekt has not replied

      
    ReverendDG
    Member (Idle past 4110 days)
    Posts: 1119
    From: Topeka,kansas
    Joined: 06-06-2005


    Message 236 of 249 (346594)
    09-05-2006 3:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 155 by Hughes
    08-29-2006 10:06 AM


    Re: It is rhetoric not science
    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.
    it is the same thing, and IC has been found to be baseless and only an infference from someones own viewpoint, it has no evidence. how is it a hang up? we know nothing about this so called designer other than he does screw up if he designs body plans. Why believe ID if evolution answers the questions that are asked and has evidence to suport it. I mean if you want a designer go with TE at least they don't try to deny the designer is god, unlike ID who denies the designer in reality is god ,so they can claim to be science.
    as for this:
    None of these extra rules you place on the designer and his product, are necessary
    see the problem is i'm using my own Intelligence to come up with things like this, don't you think an intelligence that can design something as importiant as life be about to be intelligent about how its designed?
    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
    what morality? i didn't say a damn thing about morality, are you infering this from my use of 'good'? when i use the word good, i am saying something that functions and doesn't have any huge flaws in it,
    for example a spine that is constructed to stand upright and not give the lifeform back problems because of the flawed way the spine works, this is not something i would do if i could create life, there is not point to it
    but we have a theory that explains why we have a spine that isn't quite built for straight up and down use; evolution - namely our spine has along with the rest of us to the point were we can walk mostly upright but its not really built for it since its mostly built for four legs
    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.
    corrputed? by what? this sounds less and less like science and more like religious thought, there is no evidence of any corruption anywhere. fossils and life we have now shows that its been like this for nearly 2 billion years.
    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?
    like i said go read some books on evolution, these things have nothing to do with evolution, ToE has to do with life evolving not matter or the universe
    of course a theory has limits its a theory, its limit is what it frames and thoerizes about which is why you will never see any theory outstepping its boundry and talking about another theory. such as evolution talking about atomic theory or germs.
    At some point, any theory of origins has to posit an uncaused entity or event.
    and this has what to do with evolution? you are getting abiogenesis mixed up with evolution, talk to chemists about that one
    And no, I’m not here trying to scam anyone.
    what are you talking about? i'm not talking about you, i'm talking about ID as science
    but it sounds to me like you got scammed, if you are taking it personally
    Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 155 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 10:06 AM Hughes has not replied

      
    ReverendDG
    Member (Idle past 4110 days)
    Posts: 1119
    From: Topeka,kansas
    Joined: 06-06-2005


    Message 237 of 249 (346602)
    09-05-2006 3:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 157 by Hughes
    08-29-2006 2:18 PM


    Percy answered this well but i want to answer it since its a reply to me
    According to Michael Denton they are similar.
    and who is michael denton? why should i care what he thinks? can you answer the question? using words that give people an idea of things work doesn't mean the words equal reality. i mean if i say "the brain is like a computer" does that mean it is a computer? no it does not, infact the brain is nothing like a computer in structure material or function
    nether are cells, so other than someones words saying they are how are they related?
    I think this is a good question.
    it is thats why i'm asking it, do you have an answer?
    How can the SETI project tell if they have a signal from space that has an intelligent source?
    they refer to the only intelligence they have, us, if the aliens wanted to speak to us they would use something we would use
    How can an Archeologist tell if it has an artifact that is man-made?
    being that we are the only lifeform that builds artifacts, such as arrowheads i think its obvbious, now can you say the same of some intelligent designer other than us?
    How can a Forensic scientist determine that a murder occured and not an accident?
    they determin if there was a struggle by how the body looks how the room in which the body is found to be, the way the death is setup, how it was done and if they find other dna or fingerprints.
    The principles used in these disciplines are the same used to tell if if something, anything is originated from an intelligent source or not.
    see the problem is, this doesn't answer anything, as i said before, all of these use refrences from us, as criteria, all three of these sciences are about humans. ID is about the designer not us, so you can't use corrolations of human intelligence to define the designer, unless you want to admit that he isn't intelligent at all or needed, since there seems to be such a derth of information about this so called designer please tell me how knowing next to nothing about said designer is sciencitific or remotely useful in the advancement of mankinds knowledge of the universe?
    your answer requires us to know about the designer to find design in the univiverse so what can you tell us about this designer, other than its not God
    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.
    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.
    no they are not, all of your examples are based on the knowledge that the evidence points to people being the cause, by the way why are you using seti anyway? i don't really consider it anything more than a pipe-dream at this time.
    we don't have the knowledge that they are human.
    what does this even mean? do you mean the aliens? the idea of seti is to send out a signal to see if a lifeform like us sends one back, the logic is that if life is possible here why not somewhere else? why not a lifeform with intelligence like ours? they wouldn't be human anyway unless they were decended from somesort of ape-like animal like us
    So, while you *want* to wave your hand and have this evidence disapear, it will only become more of a problem, not less.
    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.
    by the gods, what evidence? no one thing you have posted is evidence of anything, its all been a shell game to try to throw people off.
    so i will ask again:
    how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures?
    how can you tell something is designed by an intelligence?
    what are the criteria of something designed and can you show this.
    the fact is its up to the IDiest to show ID is true not up to scientists to show its not, the only things i've seen from IDists is "evolution can't account for blah blah (which happens to be untrue if they learned more about ToE) therefor ID is the only answer
    even IC is bias to ToE, since part of it is that things are too complex for evolution to be the answer so it must have been a designer, because parts can't work without all the other parts, which is wrong.

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

      
    Hughes
    Inactive Member


    Message 238 of 249 (347186)
    09-07-2006 1:21 AM


    IS ID Science?
    In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection. No different than detecting design in archeology, seti, or even cryptology.
    how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures?
    On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant was evidence of intelligent design. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants.
    how can you tell something is designed by an intelligence?
    Detecting design, as in SETI involves detecting a message.
    Yes, it is a weak idea, but it is still science.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 239 by PaulK, posted 09-07-2006 2:13 AM Hughes has not replied
     Message 240 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-07-2006 3:12 AM Hughes has not replied
     Message 241 by obvious Child, posted 09-07-2006 3:45 AM Hughes has not replied
     Message 242 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2006 4:58 AM Hughes has not replied
     Message 243 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2006 7:16 AM Hughes has not replied
     Message 244 by Percy, posted 09-07-2006 7:49 AM Hughes has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 239 of 249 (347193)
    09-07-2006 2:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 238 by Hughes
    09-07-2006 1:21 AM


    Re: IS ID Science?
    If IS "is the science of design detection" then ID should be producing lots of testable work on detecting design. It shouldn't even be looking at evolution until is has well-tested and reliable methods of detecting design - and even than that would be expected to be a sideline.
    But that hasn't happened. Instead we get lots of books that have more to do with attacking evolution than about methods of detecting design. They produce very little work on detecting design - Dembski is about the only one who has really tried. And even Dembski failed to use his own method correctly when he tried to apply it to the evolution of a bacterial flagellum. Nobody outside the ID movement uses his work at all.
    THe term ID was invented because "Creation Science" had been exposed as religion trying to masquerade as science, so creationists needed a new name to hide behind. It is NOT the "science of design detection" because the ID movement doesn't even care about trying to produce such a science. That claim is just one of the lies that the ID movement puts around in their efforts to convince the public that creationism is science.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 238 by Hughes, posted 09-07-2006 1:21 AM Hughes has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 245 by inkorrekt, posted 09-30-2006 6:02 PM PaulK has replied

      
    Archer Opteryx
    Member (Idle past 3597 days)
    Posts: 1811
    From: East Asia
    Joined: 08-16-2006


    Message 240 of 249 (347206)
    09-07-2006 3:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 238 by Hughes
    09-07-2006 1:21 AM


    Re: IS ID Science?
    Hughes:
    Yes, it is a weak idea, but it is still science.
    It is not science. Science deals with the natural world and ID's premise is inherently supernatural.
    You can describe natural organisms and make valid observations. But to say, no metaphors intended, that organisms are 'manufacturing plants' or that you are in the business of 'detecting messages' is to assume not only a designer whose existence you cannot demonstrate, but even that unproven designer's intentions.
    This is not science.

    Archer
    All species are transitional.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 238 by Hughes, posted 09-07-2006 1:21 AM Hughes has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024