Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 121 of 396 (439573)
12-09-2007 9:05 AM


And now, back to our topic...
This thread is about how practitioners of supernatural-based science would go about their job. To that end, perhaps a brief description of traditional science would help by providing a benchmark against which supernatural-science advocates could point out similarities and differences. So here it is:
Traditional science is natural, replicable, predictive, tentative and focused on building frameworks of understanding around bodies of evidence.
Using this definition, how does supernatural-based science differ from traditional science?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2007 9:26 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 122 of 396 (439574)
12-09-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Percy
12-09-2007 9:05 AM


Re: And now, back to our topic...
I'd say that Buzsaw and Beretta have been demonstrating it for us.
Supernatural "science" is twisting misrepresenting or ignoring the evidence in service to preestablished ideas which are taken as dogmatic fact. That and attacking anyone who sees through the charade as being "blinded" (for refusing to blind themselves).
It's not a pretty sight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 12-09-2007 9:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Buzsaw, posted 09-07-2008 10:52 PM PaulK has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 123 of 396 (439577)
12-09-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Beretta
12-09-2007 1:17 AM


places to go, things to do, topics to discuss
All species are fully formed all the time. All species are also transitional, with the exception of those that go extinct.
That doesn't make the slightest sense to me which is why I require more of an explanation than you obviously do.
You don't understand this because you don't really understand how evolution works, and you have a false understanding that gets in your way. It's really simple: evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and it is a continuous process. This means that the hereditary traits in generation 1 are (necessarily) different from the hereditary traits in generation 2, which are (necessarily) different from the hereditary traits in generation 3. Thus generation 2 is de facto intermediate and transitional between generation 1 and generation 3. In any species, at any time. It's basically tautologous with what evolution really involves: the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
Likewise each individual is fully formed for the species at that time (even those that have birth defects and that die, usually young and usually without reproducing).
If that is not enough explanation and you want to continue this conversation, or you want to see how this leads to (real biological) macroevolution and the diversity of life, we can take it to MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?, as it is off-topic here.
How does one progress from a reptile to a bird without developing wings and feathers and new bones and new circulation and an altered neurological system to support that and so many many other changes without developing these along the way.How would these things have developed fully formed by random mutations without a comprehensive plan?
This sounds like the frog and the prince story - both fully formed in an instant.
Because they did not develop “fully formed in an instant,” and they did develop along the way, in “fully formed” intermediate, transitional stages (see above). Birds - feathered flying dinosaurs (including archaeopteryx and modern birds) - evolved from feathered non-flying dinosaurs that also had hollow bones as well as circulation and neurological systems much like those of modern birds (compared to "reptiles" - birds did not evolve directly from reptiles). Evolution progresses by intermediate steps and transitional stages, not in sudden "large scale changes" that are “fully formed in an instant” in spite of creationist propaganda to the contrary.
If that is not enough explanation or you want to discuss how this happens - how your "large scale change" happens - we can take this to the Dogs will be Dogs will be ???, as it is off-topic here.
you have to convince the scientific community that the designer even exists before you can begin convincing them of his involvement in the changes in life over time
Or conversely why don't you try to explain to me how a leg with scales became a wing with feathers but both were fully formed at all stages.This must be the evidence that the IDcamp has been hiding from me and I need to see it.
See above comments and threads, as this is off-topic here.
The question for you here and now - on this thread - is How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?
Take for example (1): for the sake of argument, let's assume that sudden large scale change occurs: how is this implemented by an ID agent? How can we tell whether such an agent was involved or not? How can we distinguish this from natural but unusual processes?
Take for example (2): we know we can, and have, designed and implemented genetic changes in some species (crop plants, laboratory mice, etcetera), so how can we test for those changes being designed instead of natural? Can we identify intentionally modified organisms and species by some process?
If you cannot distinguish supernatural events from natural but unusual ones, and you cannot distinguish intentionally modified organisms and species, that we KNOW are intentionally modified, from natural ones, then WHAT do you have to teach that is science and not philosophy, or worse, just assumption?
That is the task for this thread. Try thinking inside the box ...
Posting anything else will be taken as the usual evidence of absolute failure/inability/bankruptcy of the concept of ID and the usual shell game of trying to hide that fact.
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 115 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 1:17 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 124 of 396 (439617)
12-09-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 8:50 PM


Re: How do you present the evidence
quote:
What is your response to the specifics of my message 91 relative to your questions?
I didn't see any specifics in message 91.
All you said was that there was someone who made a video that made a lot of claims, and then complained that the scientific community isn't doing somersaults over it.
The questions remain:
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 102 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 8:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 125 of 396 (439618)
12-09-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Beretta
12-09-2007 1:17 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
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 115 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 1:17 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 12-09-2007 3:31 PM nator has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 126 of 396 (439620)
12-09-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by nator
12-09-2007 3:20 PM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
I've been interpreting the focus of this thread as more on supernatural-based science rather than ID, but RAZD mentioned genetically engineered genomes versus evolution produced genomes, and this seems like an excellent idea for ID research.
It would work like this: in a double blind study involving bacteria, ID scientists could compare the genomes of two laboratory produced child species of a single parent species. One of the child species would be created naturally through evolution of many generations in a petri dish, while the other would be created through genetic engineering, i.e., laboratory manipulation of genes. ID scientists would then apply their criteria (which as far as we've been told so far is, "If it looks designed, it was designed") to determine which genome evolved and which was designed.
Naturally the experiment would have to be repeated a number of times in order to produce statistically valid results. If ID'ers correctly identify the genetically engineered species roughly 50% of the time then their criteria are a bunch of hooey.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by nator, posted 12-09-2007 3:20 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2007 4:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 128 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2007 6:41 AM Percy has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 127 of 396 (439632)
12-09-2007 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
12-09-2007 3:31 PM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
(which as far as we've been told so far is, "If it looks designed, it was designed")
Another test could be using the claim that information can only decrease by evolution, so if they can (1) measure information then they can try to show\document that (2) the natural evolutionary change only shows decrease while the human designed change only shows increase in this measured quantity.
I await the results.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : PS - This was originally holmes' idea

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 126 by Percy, posted 12-09-2007 3:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 128 of 396 (439730)
12-10-2007 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
12-09-2007 3:31 PM


Percy's proposed test
Hi Percy,
I think your bacteria challenge is a bit too fuzzy, partially because the delineation of bacterial species is fuzzy.
Is the idea to just let the bacteria diverge or to overcome a specific environmental challenge? Are the human experimenters trying to make their bacteria appear to be naturally evolved? There are certainly many genetic manipulations that would be pretty substantially suggestive of intervention provided the cultures were kept in controlled sterile environments, i.e. introduction of exogenous genetic material such as plasmids. Is the idea that the experimenters just do some small in-del or singe base substitution mutations? You probably need a lot of that sort of mutation to generate something divergent enough to be considered a new species, even in bacteria. Are the experimenters trying to make their changes look random? Do you mean species just in terms of a strain or population rather than as in a biological species?
As it stands I can see a number of scenarios such as you suggest where the manipulated genotype would be readily identifiable depending on exactly what the experimenters did.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : changed subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 12-09-2007 3:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 8:09 AM Wounded King has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 129 of 396 (439733)
12-10-2007 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 6:38 PM


Re: Supernatural Not All That Mysterious
Hello Buz,
Can't help feeling that you've missed my point.
Buzsaw writes:
Evidence of the supernatural relative to science must of necessity be above the example you've given.
What is that supposed to mean? It makes zero sense.
Unless you can tell me how a situation where my hypothetical angel really was there would differ observably from a situation where there was no angel, involving your list of "sciences" just muddies the waters. If you cite archaeological evidence, I can simply say that the immortal angel planted or destroyed that evidence, and so on.
As for ID being kept out of classrooms, it is up to you to prove the case in ID's favour. First though, you are going to have to define how supernatural science would function. Solving my angel conundrum might go some way toward that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 6:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 130 of 396 (439739)
12-10-2007 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 6:38 PM


Re: Supernatural Not All That Mysterious
Am I the only one who sees the irony in that subtitle: "Supernatural Not All That Mysterious"? If it isn't mysterious, what's supernatural about it?
Buzsaw writes:
It must involve the sciences of archeology, exploration, physical observation and historical research etc. It may as well include mathmatical probabilities, statistics, geneology, verifiable prophecy fulfillment and such.
All of that is very natural. No wonder it isn't mysterious.
What you're not telling us is how you make the jump from natural observations to supernatural explanations.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 6:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by VirtuousGuile, posted 05-29-2008 3:01 AM ringo has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 131 of 396 (439740)
12-10-2007 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Wounded King
12-10-2007 6:41 AM


Re: Percy's proposed test
I wasn't concerned about species boundaries, thinking of it more as just a convenient label for describing the experiment. Since species boundaries, especially for bacteria, have a significant arbitrary component, it's really only necessary that the child species are some minimum genetic distance from the parent species so as to be identifiably distinct.
I wasn't thinking at the level of detail you describe, but it did became apparent to me later last night that if the experiment were carried out as I described that it would be a trivial matter to identify the evolved species from the genetically engineered one. Assuming that the evolved species took a large number of generations, there would be a large number of mutational differences scattered about the genome, while the genetically engineered species which would be very nearly identical to the parent species, except for the gene insertion/modification/whatever-it-was.
Designing experiments that tell you something useful is a challenging puzzle requiring thinking both forwards and backwards through potential implications and anticipating pitfalls, so given that it was offered off the top of my head I'm not surprised that my proposed experiment wouldn't really work.
So I guess the real point is to ask a question: Why aren't IDists designing experiments like this? Certainly experiments showing that they could identify when human intervention played a role in a species' evolution would go a long way toward making their point. For instance, is there something systematic in the dog genome that is different from, say, the coyote genome that says dogs were the subject of a breeding program and did not evolve in the wild? If there is, while I wouldn't describe this as evidence of a designer, it is at least a baby step, and the IDists have to start somewhere. Their problem is that they haven't yet started anywhere. Before they've done any a science they've already taken their case public and cried foul.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2007 6:41 AM Wounded King has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 132 of 396 (440382)
12-12-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 10:24 PM


Re: How do you present the evidence
How are we going to get anywhere in this discussion aside from first establishing that evidence is out there which is supportive to a higher realm of intelligence as in intelligent design. That's where we must begin, is it not?
We can't just assume it Buz. The question is how design is implemented.
My question to you is if it's all a hoax, what secularists have even made an effort to go out there and prove it to be such?
For one, this is not about evidence for the bible, but about how design is implemented.
Second, how many creationists go out to prove the Paluxy Human Footprints are a hoax? Clean your own house, get rid of all the lies and falsehoods and intentional misrepresentations, the con artists and the scams, THEN if anything is left we can discuss it.
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 109 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 10:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

VirtuousGuile
Junior Member (Idle past 5781 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 05-28-2008


Message 133 of 396 (468347)
05-29-2008 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by dwise1
12-02-2007 8:35 PM


We teach whats infront of our eyes. Either way.
How could ID science possibly work?
How does Evolutionary Theory work?
The theory of evolution makes assertions on the basis of the fact of evolution. The fact of evolution being; the observation of change in the hereditary traits of populations from generation to generation.
The theory of evolution asserts that the changes in population from generation to the next are foundamentally random.
Intelligent Design too has its factual basis. It has an observable basis also. It is evident whenever you act to do something. A dog does not act randomly, it acts on a desire to filful something. If it is hungry it does attempt to attack and kill a tree and eat a tree does it. The fact is that cars, electronics, woven clothe even, are products of human design.
The Theory of Intelligent Design is that just as we design things the world was designed. It appears that elements of the naturalistic world display to much compleixty to be random chance even if the quantifier was infinite. Or perhaps so extremely unlikely to be considered impossible.
The only thing on debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design is the attributes of cause. Science identifies facts. Evolution and Intelligent Design both have factual elements to them. The issue of cause is subjective according to worldview.
For example saying that there is no God is going to disagree with those who hold God's existence as a basic assumption of reality. While those who hold that God does not exist (Atheists, not Agnostics) will disagree with those who do. Both the Theories of Intelligent Design and Evolution are theories.
Science can provide knowledge but the interpretation of these facts enters the realm of conjecture. Both persepctives have valid intellectual positions. Both perspectives are intellectually sound according to different worldviews. And people of both positions with fight for them due a need for an integrity of belief.
So how does this relate to 'how could Intelligent Design science be possible?' Simple an emphasis that nothing exists that is not complex which can be seen as a basis for design. For example the atomic charts show structured reasons for why deferent elements are how they are. Which could also show evidence for an unstructured world if you see that why.
Teaching both the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Intelligent Design seems to be the respectful thing to do. Both are reasonable philosophical perspectives.
Personally it seems that a scientific epistomology should have no trouble offer an understanding of a fact from the perspective that it was designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 12-02-2007 8:35 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 10:11 AM VirtuousGuile has not replied
 Message 145 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2008 11:49 AM VirtuousGuile has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 134 of 396 (468350)
05-29-2008 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dwise1
11-27-2007 2:39 PM


Define supernatural. You insist that IDers are introducting the concept of supernaturalism or some such. What is that concept?
In reality, IDers are looking for physical evidence of a Designer's actions and mechanisms.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 2:39 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-02-2008 11:40 PM randman has replied

VirtuousGuile
Junior Member (Idle past 5781 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 05-28-2008


Message 135 of 396 (468351)
05-29-2008 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by ringo
12-10-2007 7:55 AM


Real Simple Jump
What you're not telling us is how you make the jump from natural observations to supernatural explanations.
The leap from Evolution to the Theoretical Evolution is based on the assumption that there is not alot of order in the world. The rest is confirmation bias.
The leap from Intelligent Design to the Theory of Intelligent Design is based on the assumption that there is alot of order in the world. The rest is confirmation bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 12-10-2007 7:55 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-03-2008 12:56 AM VirtuousGuile 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