Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 61 of 396 (438185)
12-03-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object
12-02-2007 6:27 PM


Re: How Does ID Work? Presupposed Fantasy?
Cold Foreign Object writes:
Darwinian science is Atheist ideology. It assumes, from the outset, that reality is tricking us.
It may look designed but that is an illusion because we know there is no God!! Fact or philosophy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-02-2007 6:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2007 10:16 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-03-2007 2:53 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 66 by nator, posted 12-03-2007 5:14 PM Beretta has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 62 of 396 (438193)
12-03-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Beretta
12-03-2007 9:51 AM


Neither
It may look designed but that is an illusion because we know there is no God!! Fact or philosophy?
It,in fact, does not look designed at all. Not in the sense that you are using. If you think it does please post in the following thread after you have read it over.
Distinguishing "designs"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 12-03-2007 9:51 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 63 of 396 (438209)
12-03-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by JB1740
12-03-2007 9:38 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Hi JB1740,
This is where I think you go in a direction that only confuses the issue, especially in a thread with creationists seeking support for their claim that Archaeopteryx is just a bird:
JB1740 writes:
Is it a basal ("primitive") bird? Yes, absolutely.
For creationists, this statement from you says they're right, case closed. As much as you might prefer this way of expressing it, it communicates a different message to creationists. I know you said "basal" and qualified it with "primitive", but Creationists either reject or don't understand the context in which your preferred way of stating this can be properly interpreted, and so insisting on saying it this way, and again let me repeat, particularly in this thread, is working against yourself, and against the others in this thread trying to explain why Archaeopteryx is not just a bird.
If by some stroke of luck Archaeopteryx were still extant today, would it be placed in the Aves class with modern birds? Not an easy option to argue for, is it? So I think it might be better to instead say that Archaeopteryx was a bird predecessor and do what Dwise1 did, enumerate the similarities and differences with both dinosaurs and modern birds.
There's also an inconsistency in your approach. Given the number of shared characteristics with both dinosaurs and birds, if you feel it accurate to state "Archaeopteryx is a basal bird," then you must agree it would be equally accurate to state "Archaeopteryx is an advanced dinosaur," and hopefully just mere consideration of these statements as both true points out the inadequacy of these types of "all or none" statements.
Numerous characters place Archaeopteryx within Avialae as a primitive bird. A statement along the lines of "taxon X is 15% bird and 10% dinosaur" doesn't make a lot of sense. That isn't how we do it.
I think Dwise1 would agree with you that Archaeopteryx shares many characteristics with Aves, but it also shares many characteristics with dinosaurs. It seems you want to emphasize what Archaeopteryx is a transitional to and ignore what it is a transitional from.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by JB1740, posted 12-03-2007 9:38 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by JB1740, posted 12-03-2007 3:35 PM Percy has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 64 of 396 (438244)
12-03-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Beretta
12-03-2007 9:51 AM


Proof of Satan
It may look designed but that is an illusion because we know there is no God!!
Atheist ideology negating face value observational evidence (= what evolution is).
How does a TEist, that is, a person who claims to walk with the Resurrected Christ justify agreement, concerning the appearance of design, with an ATHEIST?
Honest and objective persons know that there is only one possibility since Atheists and Christians are enemies.
Said Christians are not real Christians since the Atheists are real Atheists.
How do we explain why these Christians think that they are real Christians?
Well, Judas the Betrayer "walked with" Jesus for three and one half years, but in John 6 Jesus said that He knew that Judas was a son of the devil all along.
Jesus said that Judas was deceived.
TEists think, like Judas, that the are real Christians walking with Christ. But Jesus tells us the real truth: they are deceived by Satan.
Looks like Biblical typology corresponds to reality overwhelmingly. Every TEist thinks they are the exception, that they can support the Atheist view of reality and that Jesus has given them an exemption.
How could Christians embrace a theory that presupposes the appearance of design to not correspond directly to the work of their Savior's Father, but a deluded idea (natural selection) that only exists in the minds of Atheists?
Answer: Like Jesus said: He knew Judas was deceived from the beginning. In other words, the power of Satan answers the question.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 12-03-2007 9:51 AM Beretta has not replied

JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 65 of 396 (438263)
12-03-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
12-03-2007 11:54 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Percy, while I 100% appreciate what you're saying, it doesn't matter how I would like to classify Archaeopteryx. I do this stuff for a living and Archaeopteryx is almost universally placed within basal Avialae. In fact, I’ve never seen an analysis where it isn’t.
For creationists, this statement from you says they're right, case closed.
Not really, because the creationists state that it’s JUST a bird. The whole thing hangs on that word.
As much as you might prefer this way of expressing it, it communicates a different message to creationists.
I realize it might--and that stinks, but it isn't about what I prefer. Whereas I understand that creationists might see this as an opportunity to exploit, I’m not going to misrepresent the state of the science because it's convenient for us here on this board. And regardless, they're still wrong if they say it is any threat to evolution. They also like to say fossils are all found within sediments that are laid down in water. They say lots of things that aren’t true. That is part of why this whole thing is so difficult. That Archaeopteryx being a bird somehow weakens evolution is just another example of how they love to twist facts. Archaeopteryx being a bird doesn't give them any more ammunition than Rhea being a bird does.
If by some stroke of luck Archaeopteryx were still extant today, would it be placed in the Aves class with modern birds?
In terms of its anatomy...yes. It already is. The bones don't care if the animal is extinct. The dodo is extinct. Are you arguing that the dodo isn't a bird? Of course not. Why? Because the anatomy of the dodo places it within Aves. Similarly, no one here is arguing that Confuciusornis isn't a bird, even though its fossils date to about 125Ma. It's a bird. Modern birds aren’t ignored when looking at fossil birds. The lines are blurry with Archaeopteryx because it is so damn primitive, but the data are what the data are. Archaeopteryx possesses characters that non-specialists don't associate with birds, which additionally muddies the waters. There’s nothing I can do about that. The fact remains that there is almost 100% consensus that Archaeopteryx is a basal bird, NOT a non-avian dinosaur.
So I think it might be better to instead say that Archaeopteryx was a bird predecessor
That's great except that I’d be putting spin on reality to do so.
and do what Dwise1 did, enumerate the similarities and differences with both dinosaurs and modern birds.
except that not all of the data that Dwise1 cited were accurate, as I elaborated previously.
There's also an inconsistency in your approach. Given the number of shared characteristics with both dinosaurs and birds, if you feel it accurate to state "Archaeopteryx is a basal bird,"
It's not about what I feel. It's where the science currently is. According to virtually every analysis I have ever seen, it’s currently accurate to state that Archaeopteryx is a basal bird and it is not accurate to state that Archaeopteryx is a bird predecessor (I keep putting qualifiers out because I know there are a couple of detractors, but I’ve never seen contradictory published results).
"Primitive" and "advanced" animals are part of the game. It isn't just about what group a taxon is a member of but where in the group it is. It’s currently accurate to state that Guanlong is a very basal tyrannosaurid. Why? Because the analyses published so far place Guanlong within Tyrannosauridae, but "low" in the group. Guanlong has three fingers on its hands instead of the two we associate with tyrannosaurids, but when you look at all of the characteristics of this animal, it falls within Tyrannosauridae. You would look at the skeleton of this beast and say "oh come on, that's not a tyrannosaur" and I’d agree with you that it doesn't look much like one on the surface. But when you look at it in detail, it falls out as one. It would not be accurate to call Guanlong a tyrannosaurid predecessor, because it’s “over the line” into tyrannosaurids. The situation is the same with Archaeopteryx except that Archaeopteryx is even closer to the base of birds.
then you must agree it would be equally accurate to state "Archaeopteryx is an advanced dinosaur,"
Yes. You have it exactly. So is Rhea.
and hopefully just mere consideration of these statements as both true points out the inadequacy of these types of "all or none" statements.
It isn't all or none. As I stated, a number of characters place Archaeopteryx “across the line” into true birds, but yes, because it is so damn primitive, it also shares many characters with non-avian dinosaurs. That's the whole point. It’s a great transitional form”precisely for the reasons that are causing the confusion here. A point lost on the creationists. It isn’t CLEARLY a bird at quick glance . it shares lots of traits with both. BUT, from a classification standpoint, it is across the line INTO birds. Most good examples of transitional forms will end up falling into one of the groups they’re transitional between. Perhaps what you’re hoping for is a non-avian dinosaur that has a ton of bird-like characteristics? There are plenty of those, but this isn’t one of them. Perhaps what you want is a critter that we cannot classify easily because it is so transitional? Something the professionals cannot figure out the position of? We’ve got some. Check out Epidendrosaurus. Or Mononykus. Folks have been arguing back and forth as to whether it’s a dinosaur or a true bird since the damn thing was discovered. Folks have a real hard time figuring it out. Transitional.
I think Dwise1 would agree with you that Archaeopteryx shares many characteristics with Aves, but it also shares many characteristics with dinosaurs.
I agree. I did not dispute this statement, nor would I.
It seems you want to emphasize what Archaeopteryx is a transitional to and ignore what it is a transitional from.
I emphasize it because it's “across the line.” I’m not going to talk about what Guanlong is transitional from. What’s cool about it is that it’s a very basal tyrannosaurid. Archaeopteryx is the earliest accepted true bird. What it’s transitional to is the whole point of why this taxon is cool. Unfortunately, that makes Archaeopteryx capable of being twisted to suit creationist purposes. That sucks, but I'd rather not twist the way I present/discuss data. Misrepresenting facts to support their position is what the creationists do. The real solution here is not to base the entire discussion of bird origins on Archaeopteryx. It is only one of many datapoints.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 11:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 7:47 PM JB1740 has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 66 of 396 (438278)
12-03-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Beretta
12-03-2007 9:51 AM


Re: How Does ID Work? Presupposed Fantasy?
What are the predictions of ID?
What are the potential falsifications?
How have they been tested?
What have been the results?
If you have no answers to those questions, why should ID be taught in science classes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 12-03-2007 9:51 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 67 of 396 (438296)
12-03-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by JB1740
12-03-2007 3:35 PM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Hi JB1740,
Thanks for the reply, well done! It isn't easy for a true expert to gently correct a nudnik who has the gall to try to correct him, but in this you succeeded. It also isn't easy for a true expert to convince said nudnik that he really is a true expert, or at least knows much more than said nudnik, and in this you also succeeded.
And so I now understand that the preponderance of scientific opinion is that Archaeopteryx is a bird. A very primitive bird, but still a bird. I still feel very uncomfortable with the "Archaeopteryx is a bird" statement, though. I think that in the presence of creationists this should never be stated without immediately noting how different it is from modern birds with many dinosaur traits that modern birds do not possess. Perhaps a mention might also be made of the somewhat arbitrary nature of classification systems, though this might go over their heads.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by JB1740, posted 12-03-2007 3:35 PM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 12-04-2007 1:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 70 by JB1740, posted 12-04-2007 9:08 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 68 of 396 (438326)
12-04-2007 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
12-03-2007 7:47 PM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
If we use cladistic terminology then birds ARE feathered dinosaurs and that may be the simplest approach to take.
The alternative, ignoring cladism, is to point out that the bird/dinosaur distinction is binary and that any "intermediate" would be classified as a bird-like dinosaur or a dinosaur-like bird. Archaeopteryx is over the bird side off the line so it's classified as a bird - although it's close to the dinosaurs than any modern bird is. Just what we'd expect of an intermediate.
(And then we get to the point that intermediates are not required to be direct ancestors of modern forms - my understanding is that archaeopteryx is considered a side branch)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 7:47 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2007 7:28 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 69 of 396 (438348)
12-04-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
12-04-2007 1:51 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
If I use dwise1's statement (Message 54):
So Archaeopteryx is 2-27ths bird (7.4%), 17-27ths coelurosaur (63%), and 6-27ths transisitional between the birds and coelurosaurs (22%). The two bird characterstics are used to classify it as "bird", but the evidence clearly shows that creationists' claims that it's "100% bird and nothing else" are clearly completely and utterly false.
And I note that the bird characteristics show it is close to basal in the bird lineage, but that it is proportionally more coelurosaur than modern birds are.
Then I note that (according to evolutionary theory) the earliest possible organism that could be classified as a bird would only have the most rudimentary features of what later develop into modern birds, and that the rest of the characteristics would be like those of the non-bird ancestors.
From this I can conclude that the branching off from the lineage of coelurosaur \ dinosaur has occurred with Archaeopteryx, and thus it is a bird by that evidence, and that the traits of modern birds that differ from Archaeopteryx have evolved later. That is testable.
(And then we get to the point that intermediates are not required to be direct ancestors of modern forms - my understanding is that archaeopteryx is considered a side branch)
Of course we expect whole families of closely related species to be evolving under similar natural selection pressures, some successful and some not.
The questions though, relating to ID starting with different assumptions and having alternate explanations, are (1) how do IDologists explain archy, and (2) what do those explanations predict we can find in other fossils that will test those explanations and differentiate the ID concept from the evolutionary one?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added ID

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 68 by PaulK, posted 12-04-2007 1:51 AM PaulK has not replied

JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 70 of 396 (438359)
12-04-2007 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
12-03-2007 7:47 PM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Thanks for the reply, well done! It isn't easy for a true expert to gently correct a nudnik who has the gall to try to correct him, but in this you succeeded. It also isn't easy for a true expert to convince said nudnik that he really is a true expert, or at least knows much more than said nudnik, and in this you also succeeded.
Percy, you're not a nudnik. Evolution isn't particularly user-friendly. We go through years of school to understand it. It's not that hard per se, but it's very subtle and that gets folks in trouble. And there's more mis-information out there than information (which of course is a huge part of the overall problem with creationists (their own constant false statements not withstanding)). How evolution works and how we study it isn't usually communicated well to the non-specialist, nor is it well communicated that science isn't a static collection of facts but rather evolves constantly (I have, myself, made a couple of the papers I've published, totally outdated before they even came out). Unless it's very carefully explained (and this takes lots of words), evolution can be a bit of a minefield to try and negotiate. That sucks for a process that so many folks have issues with, but unfortunately for our society, nature couldn't really care less what we think.
And so I now understand that the preponderance of scientific opinion is that Archaeopteryx is a bird. A very primitive bird, but still a bird.
Bingo.
I still feel very uncomfortable with the "Archaeopteryx is a bird" statement, though. I think that in the presence of creationists this should never be stated without immediately noting how different it is from modern birds with many dinosaur traits that modern birds do not possess.
I'm with you; your concern is valid. This is why you might notice that my points are often long and so full of qualifiers as to be annoying. It's to try and bulletproof the point against invalid criticism (goes back to how non-user-friendly evolution is). I think part of the solution is to not rely so heavily on Archaeopteryx when discussing bird origins. Again, there are other, better datapoints out there.
Perhaps a mention might also be made of the somewhat arbitrary nature of classification systems, though this might go over their heads.
The classification system isn't that arbitrary, although I do have numerous issues with the rigor of cladistics. This of course leads into PaulK's message #68:
If we use cladistic terminology then birds ARE feathered dinosaurs and that may be the simplest approach to take.
I sort of did this in my previous comment, and this is the way to do it, but of course this will probably require us having a long drawn-out discussion on how phylogenetic systematics works. Ugh. We could have that thread if people want it, but man...grab the caffeine if we're gonna go there...
PaulK then continued:
The alternative, ignoring cladism, is to point out that the bird/dinosaur distinction is binary and that any "intermediate" would be classified as a bird-like dinosaur or a dinosaur-like bird. Archaeopteryx is over the bird side off the line so it's classified as a bird - although it's close to the dinosaurs than any modern bird is. Just what we'd expect of an intermediate.
which is how I set up my reply to Percy. I set it up that way to try and make it as clear as possible, but unfortunately, setting it up as binary, while great for this discussion, isn't really accurate as to how we think things truly work. I figured it would work for addressing Percy's concerns, and it looks as though it did, but again, if go want do get more "real" in the mechanisms, then we have to get into a long knock down about cladistics in general. It's like when you take the first class in physics. They tend to initially discuss mechanics as though there is no such thing as friction. This is of course not how the universe works, but it helps to let us understand something of what the heck is going on as a starting point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 7:47 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 71 of 396 (438587)
12-05-2007 11:49 AM


Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
We still need the ID's answer to the question of how we are supposed to test the supernaturalistic hypotheses that they and you want to force on science.
In other words, the unanswered question (even the crickets dare not speak) of just how the hell ID's supernatural-based science is supposed to work?

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by TheWay, posted 12-07-2007 5:27 PM dwise1 has not replied

TheWay
Junior Member (Idle past 5844 days)
Posts: 27
From: Oklahoma City, Ok
Joined: 08-21-2007


Message 72 of 396 (439197)
12-07-2007 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by dwise1
12-05-2007 11:49 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
We still need the ID's answer to the question of how we are supposed to test the supernaturalistic hypotheses that they and you want to force on science.
First depends on what definition you are using and under what context when employing "science." As this forum, IMO, is all consumed with contextual semantics...even to the point of absurdity. However, let me define it for now:
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
From Dictionary.com
Now we need a definition of supernaturalism:
2. the quality of being attributed to power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
From Dictionary.com although should be attributed to Wordnet.
I chose the above definition, as I felt it describes the "breaking" of natural laws of which our "science" is conducted upon.
From the outset it becomes obvious that *if* supernaturalism were true, or a force that could transcend known physical laws or constants, reality might not be as consistent as prior envisaged. Although I do not understand how it would ultimately matter if a Being could break or bend known natural laws.
I would cautiously add that ID, as a movement, seems less inclined towards supernaturalism per se but rather focused on explanations of order in a consistent reality. Which is a logical assessment as opposed to desultory biogenesis. However, it seems what is focused on primarily is the theological and philosophical implications of such an opinion.
As far as scientific methodology, (as to avoid derision, Go Here ), testing for supernaturalism is possible, if it is possible to control a Being that can break known natural laws. If a Being even exists. Most "supernatural" events by nature of there occurrence would be hardly repeatable without consentual participation of said Being. So the reality of a supernatural event would not fall under the guidelines of scientific inquiry, therefore making scientific inquiry into supernaturalism futile.
Science, therefore should have no opinion on supernaturalism and does not rule out supernaturalism. *thanks to jar for the clarification.
In other words, the unanswered question (even the crickets dare not speak) of just how the hell ID's supernatural-based science is supposed to work?
I don't really see this as a fair assessment of an Intelligent Designer's position. I don't believe that ID proponents invoke supernaturalism as would a Christian fundamentalist. ID seems to be a logical explanation where no (reasonable) explanation had previously been given. Godidit, really wouldn't work here as the factor for variability would be remarkably higher than an Old Testament literal reading. An Intelligent Designer would be an open minded person as opposed to the decayed corpse of the irrational naturalism-as-god religious type.
Misrepresentation. Becoming a fast classic here at the Evc.
Edited by TheWay, : Jar's insight.
Edited by TheWay, : No reason given.

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by dwise1, posted 12-05-2007 11:49 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 12-07-2007 6:16 PM TheWay has not replied
 Message 74 by molbiogirl, posted 12-07-2007 6:53 PM TheWay has not replied
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2007 7:20 PM TheWay has not replied

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


Message 73 of 396 (439200)
12-07-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by TheWay
12-07-2007 5:27 PM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
Hi Way!
In terms of how observation and experiment should be conducted as part of good science, I think we're all in agreement here. You differ with us in believing that an intelligent designer should be acceptable as a proposed scientific explanation. That doesn't seem too much to ask, so I think I'll agree with you that that is a reasonable request.
But given that only 1% of the scientific community is convinced by the ID answer, and far less of the biological subset of that community, your task becomes one of persuading them that an intelligent designer is not only an acceptable explanation, it is the best explanation supported by the evidence.
You see, the objection to an an intelligent designer isn't that he is inherently unscientific, but rather that there is scarce scientific evidence for him. You have to convince the scientific community that he exists before you can begin convincing them of his involvement in the changes in life over time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by TheWay, posted 12-07-2007 5:27 PM TheWay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Beretta, posted 12-08-2007 9:19 AM Percy has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 74 of 396 (439212)
12-07-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by TheWay
12-07-2007 5:27 PM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
One quick point.
I don't believe that ID proponents invoke supernaturalism as would a Christian fundamentalist.
Horse feathers.
To wit, cdesign proponentists.
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”
Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”
Page not found · GitHub Pages
ID = creationism.
Period. Full stop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by TheWay, posted 12-07-2007 5:27 PM TheWay has not replied

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


Message 75 of 396 (439217)
12-07-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by TheWay
12-07-2007 5:27 PM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
From Dictionary.com
Now we need a definition of supernaturalism:
2. the quality of being attributed to power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
From Dictionary.com although should be attributed to Wordnet.
Or Natural science - Wikipedia
quote:
In science, the term natural science refers to a rational approach to the study of the universe, which is understood as obeying rules or laws of natural origin. The term natural science is also used to distinguish those fields that use the scientific method to study nature from the social sciences, which use the scientific method to study human behavior and society; and from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, which use a different methodology.
and Supernatural - Wikipedia
quote:
The supernatural (Latin: super- "above" + natura "nature") pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained from the laws of the natural world. Religious miracles are typical of such “supernatural” manifestations, as are spells and curses, divination, the notion that there is an afterlife for the dead, and innumerable others. Supernatural themes are often associated with magical and occult ideas.
I chose the above definition, as I felt it describes the "breaking" of natural laws of which our "science" is conducted upon.
From the outset it becomes obvious that *if* supernaturalism were true, ... reality might not be as consistent as prior envisaged. Although I do not understand how it would ultimately matter if a Being could break or bend known natural laws.
The question is not whether it could be done by supernatural action, but how it would look if it was due to supernatural action: how would it be different? What would we expect to see in the fossil record and in the genetic record?
Let's assume for the sake of the argument that there is an IDer: what can we expect evidence to look like?
Most "supernatural" events by nature of there occurrence would be hardly repeatable without consentual participation of said Being. So the reality of a supernatural event would not fall under the guidelines of scientific inquiry, therefore making scientific inquiry into supernaturalism futile.
So if we assume that there is an IDer, then we could expect that any supernatural action would not be duplicated in replication studies, and therefore any study that is reproducible shows natural action? Isn't this what science already distinguishes by insisting on replication of studies? If science can do this AND explain all the evidence is there a problem with what science does explain?
I don't really see this as a fair assessment of an Intelligent Designer's position. I don't believe that ID proponents invoke supernaturalism as would a Christian fundamentalist. ID seems to be a logical explanation where no (reasonable) explanation had previously been given. Godidit, really wouldn't work here as the factor for variability would be remarkably higher than an Old Testament literal reading.
Yeah, it's known as the god of the gaps argument, that any area of ignorance MUST be evidence for IDing because of the lack of scientific knowledge. (Note this basically admits that there is no evidence that is actually FOR any type of ID action, and one wonders why there can't be evidence FOR this concept if it is true).
The real question is how ID would work. In evolution we have several observable mechanisms that have been documented in operation - mutation, natural selection, speciation, genetic drift, sexual selection - and there is a direct relationship between mechanism and possible results.
What is the mechanism that ID proposes?
If it proposes that mutations are caused by an ID agent, then we should see some purpose behind mutations, some objective of design. Instead there is a random pattern. We do not see what we would expect by this assumption.
If it proposes that natural selection is influenced by control of the environmental factors, then we should see some purpose behind environmental changes, some objective of design. Instead we see another random pattern. We do not see what we would expect from this assumption.
If it proposes that natural catastrophes are used as a control on undesirable forms of life, then we should see some purpose behind natural catastrophes, some objective of design. Instead we see another random pattern and one that bears no relation to the duration of certain forms of life (dinosaurs existing for 200 million years between extinction events). We do not see a pattern consistent with this assumption.
Is there some other mechanism by which the operation of ID is actually implemented. It is one thing to have a design, a design without implementation is the same as no design.
Am I missing something?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 72 by TheWay, posted 12-07-2007 5:27 PM TheWay 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