Message 51We were in a discussion of ID as Science and what it involves.
Testable theories based on evidence that make predictions and that can be falsified.
The scientific process.
Actually Proof, fact and evidence, is exacly what I am looking for here.
Then you are on the wrong foot: no scientific theory can be proven, only logic and math can be proven, with conclusion following from precepts if the construction is valid, and the result being true if the precepts are true.
Scientific theory can be invalidated, and another mark of science is re-evaluating, reforming or replacing theories that have been invalidated.
Ibid
Message 55Im curious about your request that I not mention the word EVOLUTION at times in the discussion, ...
It's simple: if ID is true it can stand on it's own. If you know logic then you know that disproving {A} does not of itself prove {B} in any way. All you have is not{A}.
Creationists and IDers often mention "alternative explanations" and "different interpretations" of evidence as examples of scientific principles, yet they NEVER seem to present what those explanations are, ...
... nor do they consider that the logical conclusion of having two "interpretations" of the evidence of {what is reality} is that there must be two realities, ...
... or that one or more "interpretation" is false, and you are back at one "interpretation" that is valid.
you fellas certainly have no problem mentioning Creationiost and ID in every other sentence.
That is because ID -- as practiced -- is the same as creationism, is formulated by creationists, and is used by creationists. You classify yourself as a "creationist/IDer" (
Message 51).
... my establisment of ID will be stricly on the basis of Science and those definitions.
Yet the impression of your proposed new topic does not give me confidence that you truly mean this.
Message 1Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?
The inclusion of Logic as a science, would greatly enhance the understanding of ID as a science, if it is understood in its prpoer context and usage. In my discusions with those on the PBS discussion, it was never offered with a simple yes or no, as to wheather Logic constituted a Scientific Method. I heard much about how useful logic was in the formation of arguments and how it was not stricly a science, but was never offered any valid reasons as to why it was not.
Not on it's own. Logic is used in science, as is math, but to be science you need testable theories based on evidence that make predictions and that can be falsified. The scientific process is more than just logic.
If all you want to discuss is logic, that is philosophy, not science.
In my view it is not only the starting point of any science but the ending and refining of it as well.
No, it is the testing of concepts against the reality of evidence, predicting things that should occur if your conclusions (theories) are correct, and passing falsification tests.
It in and of iteself can establish the validity of a designer or the possibility of a designer.
But with only logic all you have is a philosophical conclusion. If that conclusion cannot be tested then it is not science. If that conclusion is not based on evidence you do not have science.
... wheather a mechanism can be established through a method of scientific endeavours to establish ID.
It's called doing science.
Message 56I clasify myself as a Creationist/IDer because the age of the earth is of little or no intrest to me in the dicussion of Cr/ID as science.
I of course believe in God and the Bible as his Word, but in my mind it has no bearing on the issue.
Do you realize that the logical conclusion of ID is that not one thing in the bible need be true?
Ibid
Message 58Further, it always helps in these discussion, if you identify yourself, as Atheist, Agnostic, Non-theist or evoulutionist, etc. So I will know how to formulate my arguments and responses.
But the logic of the argument does not depend on the belief of people: it is either good logic or it isn't, it is either based on fact or it isn't. What this amounts to is judging the argument by the person and not the content - an
ad hominum fallacy.
Ibid
Message 60 &
Message 62Also, how do I insert one of you quotes?
Type
[qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type
[quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out
(help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
Welcome to the fray, Dawn.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
™ Version 4.2
