... , they simply do not say that those are the only ways to gather Facts, ...
Let's dispense with the fallacy. Science does not gather facts, the facts exist whether science understands them or not. Facts exist in the objective reality that science tries to understand, but science does not create facts. The facts that validate relativity did not come into existence because of the logic of the argument, they exist independent of how complete our understanding of the universe is.
Nor does science claim to have a lock on understanding reality. The only thing science does is test our understanding of reality against the objective evidence - against the facts of reality.
... as I have demonstrated to the contrary. You can of course demonstrate the science of ID outside of your very narrow and monopolized definition of science by the simple definiton and explanation of an axiom and the application of logic directed twords axioms.
Except that you have demonstrate nothing except an unwillingness to look at the evidence that says you are wrong, and an ability to confuse concepts and meanings, to equivocate.
If it is true (as you assert) that Facts are not really facts even after we discover them.
If you stopped inventing false arguments to rail against you'd waste less time.
Then it would follow that nothing that yopu provide from the so-called scientific method is reliable or dependable either.
(1) science only claims to be tentative, that it is the best understanding of reality that we have at present.
(2) being able to identify facts by some other unidentified methodology would not invalidate a single element of science, it would still be just as sound as it was before.
In other words, the way I am establishing the validity of ID is as valid a method as yours according to your own definitions and explanations,
Except that you don't use the same definitions or explanations, you consistently refuse to use the same ones. All you have established is a confusion of terms and equivocations on meanings. Two molecules coming together and creating life don't become a supernatural creator.
It is science just not your definition of science.
Well we clearly mean empirical science, science that uses the scientific method and not the science of packing a suitcase:
We mean the science where we test our conclusions against the evidence of reality, the facts of reality, so if you mean some other science you mean something that is NOT tested against reality.
Somehow I don't think the world of empirical science is threatened by a superior ability to pack a suitcase ....
No, not here. I’ve been talking about Gravity in the simplistic Newtonian sense Which is an extremely good approximation, good enough in fact to determine most of the orbits in the solar system. However gravity can be better, and more precicly expressed as the effect on the curvature of space and time. JB referred to the gravitational field. That’s only a mathematical model, there is no field of gravitons, they’re only theoretical. Just like a Circle and Pi and Randomness they don’t exist in nature, they are theoretical concepts created by scientists as tools to assist in explaining other phenomena.
You mention Relativity. This is a good point and why the Euclidian axiom that states that two points can be joined by a straight line holds true ONLY in 2 dimensional Euclidean Space. Of course Euclid had no idea of Relativity. Try drawing a straight line on a tennis ball.
But back to the point of this forum.
Axioms must be irreducible and unambiguous. They are used to build systems such as “Field Theory” , “Group Theory”. They are in fact a set of rules which encapsulate the boundaries of the Space of examination. Without them mathematics is useless. (Although some say this regardless).
I claim that ID requires at least one instance of a Designer and the ToE requires at least one, random mutation.
Both fail miserably in being axiomatic. And I further claim that on this basis neither ID or the ToE can be proved on the basis of Logic alone.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : exchange the word cannot with can
Science does not gather facts, the facts exist whether science understands them or not. Facts exist in the objective reality that science tries to understand, but science does not create facts. The facts that validate relativity did not come into existence because of the logic of the argument, they exist independent of how complete our understanding of the universe is.
An excellent point, to be sure, that facts exist independently from our desire. However, if no one is there to discern the fact from the fiction, then isn't it similar to another crux?
We've all heard the one about if a tree falls in a forest, but there is no one there to hear it, if it makes a sound? Our intuition says that a tree would generate sound waves independent and irrespective of whether or not our ears were there to have those waves hit our eardrums.
But at the same time, isn't noise only understood in the context of the sound waves in conjunction with our ability to hear it?
Likewise, aren't "facts" pointless unless we are aware of them?
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
Random mutation isn't an axiom, it's a conclusion from observation and experiment. Surely you realize that?
I just can't get my head around it. Tell me crashfrog, when you observe a random mutation, how do you know it's random? If you mean that it is very unpredictable, so is radioactive decay but it doesn't mean that it is random(without cause).
Consider this: If I add an integer to an integer I get an integer. It's closed under addition and the algebraic axioms requires this. The operator is addition and needs no explanation.
Now I take a set of genes and apply a random mutation operator..Hmm how do I do this? Maybe just select one, that's not random it's just arbitrary. Pick one out of a hat, that's not random either because I actually decided to do it. Write an algorithm? sure, give me all the processing power in the whole world and a couple of hundred billion years and I'll get pretty close, but no cigar. You just can't incorporate randomness into a structured system. On the other hand if by random you mean unpredictable, that's a different kettle of fish this works but then you've created a creator hat or Me the creator or Supercomputer creator.
So what does random mutation mean, a smoke screen?
Hi Lucy, I think the point about randomness that is relevant here is more that there is no predetermined outcome and no deliberate causal agency making a decision. Mutation is random but that doesn't mean that it has no cause. I'm no expert, but I think I'm right in saying that free radicals hitting the body can cause mutations. It is random, but there is still a cause. Random does not mean without cause. Hope this helps.
I claim that ID requires at least one instance of a Designer and the ToE requires at least one, random mutation.
Both fail miserably in being axiomatic.
That's an original angle, Lucy, but as Crashfrog has pointed out, random mutations aren't an axiom, but a conclusion based on observation. The I.D.ers will claim the same for their designer(s), and in order to make the claim that I.D. is science, they have to.
And I further claim that on this basis neither ID or the ToE can be proved on the basis of Logic alone.
I agree entirely.
I don't know if I'd use the word "prove", though.
They require evidence in order to become theories, and lots of evidence in order to become strong theories. ToE has succeeded on both counts, but I.D. seems destined to remain an expression of the desires of its advocates, as the quantity of evidence is stuck at absolute zero.
Logic is one of the tools of science, but it gets nowhere on its own.
quote:That is not what I said. What exactly do you mean by smokescreen? Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy or something? —Granny Magda
I'm sorry Granny I didn't mean to be rude. Can you give me then Granny, a ball park figure on how much of the randomness of a random mutation is actually random(without cause)?
Echo what Bluegenes says. I can only reiterate that no random mutation is without cause. I mentioned free radicals as one cause, maybe better qualified members can provide a fuller explanation. Randomness does not imply immunity to cause and effect.
I claim that ID requires at least one instance of a Designer and the ToE requires at least one, random mutation.
Random mutation not only doesn't require a designer, it would take a massive effort on the part of any supposed designer to keep it from happening. Reproductive events require copying of the DNA, and the copying is almost never perfect. Imperfect copying is what causes random mutations.
You phrase this next part as rebuttal as if you thought we disagreed with you:
LucyTheApe writes:
Both fail miserably in being axiomatic. And I further claim that on this basis neither ID or the ToE can be proved on the basis of Logic alone.
As you stated elsewhere in your post, axioms belong to mathematics. Random mutations belong to science, and I think everyone here except Dawn Bertot would agree that logic alone can not provide much if any support for random mutations. Science requires evidence. Within science logic is only a tool to assist in the analysis and interpretation of evidence.
Can you give me then Granny, a ball park figure on how much of the randomness of a random mutation is actually random(without cause)?
We probably don't want to go down this rathole in this thread. Entire threads have been devoted to what random really means. Whether random means uncaused or not is not the topic of this thread.
All random means in this context is that information making it possible to predict what would happen is not available to the observer. It doesn't mean to imply whether or not such information actually exists. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but whatever the case it isn't relevant to this thread.
™ Version 4.2
