Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 71 of 107 (406325)
06-19-2007 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:30 AM


Processes
If you believe that applying logic to ascertain if a death has been caused by murderer's design, is a science, do you then also believe that detecting intelligent design in biological systems is a science?
Forensic science isn't just about ascertaining if a death has been caused by design. It is about ascertaining exactly how a person died, whether it was murder or accident. Was it the blow to the head from the rock at the bottom of the lake that killed them, or the subsequent drowning? It is about identifying real and observable processes that leave certain pieces of evidence of them happening, and understanding how those processes begin.
However, detecting intelligent design in biological systems can be a scientific process. The point is that no intelligent design has been scientifically detected in biological systems. If we were doing it scientifically (as in forensic science) we'd have to describe a process that would lead to the final result (the evidence). So far the ID movement, which you allude to, has been unable to describe a feasable and repeatable process that could interact in a predictable fashion to the development of life.
Until they describe a natural process then what they do isn't science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:30 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 83 of 107 (406770)
06-22-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Processes
I take this sentence to mean (if not a typo) that you don't deny that ID research is science.
The full paragraph was:
quote:
However, detecting intelligent design in biological systems can be a scientific process. The point is that no intelligent design has been scientifically detected in biological systems. If we were doing it scientifically (as in forensic science) we'd have to describe a process that would lead to the final result (the evidence). So far the ID movement, which you allude to, has been unable to describe a feasable and repeatable process that could interact in a predictable fashion to the development of life.
Which is basically what I am saying. That life was designed can be a scientific conclusion, but it cannot be a scientific theory. A scientific theory would need to describe physical mechanisms (the hows) before it could reach the conclusion. So far the ID movement has stated its conclusion without describing the hows. So yes, ID has the potential to have been a scientific area - but nobody has approached it in a scientific manner.
That sounds debatable. That sounds arguable. But let's say I take your statement at face value. So ID should give up because of this?
Should IDers give up? You can't give up what you haven't started yet.
Should SETI also give up because no intelligent signals have yet been detected from outer space?
Nope - but they know what an intelligent signal looks like because they have a theory as to what intelligent signals look like and what unintelligent signals look like. There is a strong theoretical framework describing how unintelligent signals are produced and how intelligent ones can be produced and the differences between the two.
Are you going to tell students of science who are interested in ID that they are wasting their time? Or should some continue to explore the possibilities?
If someone wants to develop a theoretical framework describing the mechanisms with which an intelligent agent could intervene to 'shape' the development of life then that is their own concern. Go for it if you want, but at this time nobody has actually done this - that's all I am saying.
I'm not sure how "repeatable" the Big Bang event is. Yet it is agreed upon by many as a valid scientific theory.
The Big Bang event is probably as repeatable as a murder. Ie - not at all. However the Big Bang isn't a scientific theory - it is a conclusion from a scientific theory (Relativity being the first theory involved and now work is well on its way to understand the big bang in more detail by synthesising it with quantum theories.
The natural process by which the Big Bang occured is described in detail?
The big bang is described in exquisite exquisite detail. More detail than any other event I can think of. So much detail it takes years to learn the broad strokes, and decades to learn more of the details.
The entire history is not completely mapped out - but that doesn't stop it from being science. Continuing investigation has lead to more and more detail being added into it. The Big Bang is simply 'the universe used to be much much denser'. We have an enormous amount of details on this, and how the universe changed through time from there on in - right up to the point where quantum processes and relativity processes need synthesising.
Then again - nobody is saying that there is a complete history. There are some good contenders being developed but we are missing some key pieces of evidence to discern between them. Those key pieces of evidence have been identified, described and experiments to gain that evidence have been proposed. The Large Hadron Collider was so keenly anticipated because it can help falsify some of these theories hopefully leaving us with only one highly confirmed, unfalsified theory.
Has the natural process which keeps a star burning been completely described in total?
I don't think so, but you may have misunderstood. I have been saying that the exploration and discovery and understanding of processes is science. Not knowing these processes doesn't render their discovery unscientific - quite the contrary. We have a methodology in place for process understanding and we call that methodology the scientific methodology. If you are using it you are engaging in science.
Since 'ID research' is not about discovering the processes of a designer it isn't scientific research into 'Design'. All they have done is attempt to show that the theory of evolution cannot not describe a complete history of life on earth using erroneous data or claiming fallacious conclusions. Criticising the theory of evolution can be a scientific endeavour, but the current criticism from the ID crowd is so untenable it can only really be described as pseudo-scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:59 PM jaywill 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