Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:23 PM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,172 Year: 9,208/19,786 Month: 1,630/2,119 Week: 390/576 Day: 65/128 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
30NextFF
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
Thor
Member (Idle past 4076 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 31 of 438 (444037)
12-27-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
12-27-2007 6:20 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
What will be the response of the scientific community? Will they send out Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet (Brights???) to further alienate the masses? Is a measured response that makes clear why ID isn't science why this is the ID community's fault within the ability of the scientific community? I'm frankly very worried.

I don't know that there is a real lot that the established scientific community can do that would make much of a difference. They might send out Dawkins et al, or other professionals to speak out, but I can hear Cletus in the audience thinking to himself "Aw heck, I doesn't understand all this science crap these evilutionist guys is talkin! But the Bible says I ain't descended from no goddamn ape!"

Wilful ignorance, misunderstanding of science, propaganda, evolutionist conspiracy theories and a (potentially) popular film may be an unfortunate combination. I just hope it doesn't become very popular.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 12-27-2007 6:20 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5670
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 32 of 438 (444168)
12-28-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taz
12-27-2007 5:59 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
Peer review is a rigorous process. One of my past mentors submitted revision after revision of a paper 4 times before it got published. Not every paper submitted will be published.

Very true. I am aware that it is a difficult process. But it makes it a whole lot harder when people's personal philosophies get in the way of that process. Shouldn't it just be measured on the information available, despite the overtones or (ir)religious implications?

By the way, did you forget to read message 15 by Modulous?

I hadn't read it, no. I've kind of stretched myself thin by being on like 6 different threads. But I will now. Is there something you want me to add to it, or did you just want me to gain a perspective from it?

Ah, but obviously Behe isn't choosing the route of presenting scientific evidence to the scientific community. He hasn't published anything for years. Instead, he's been going around trying to tell people that the god of abraham was responsible for all life on Earth.

No he isn't, because he understands, as I do now, that you can't mix theology with science. Science can't answer those questions, and the Bible, Qur'an, the Vedas, etc, are not science textbooks. They aren't designed to answer those questions, which is why I object to creationism. Creationism puts the cart before the horse, instead of following the evidence wherever it goes.

To me, ID doesn't presuppose any kind of God(s), Goddesses, aliens, robots, flying spaghetti monsters, etc, but rather simply notes that random causes cannot alone deduce the array and complexity of life.

Again, if ID really is valid science, then at least try to make it look like valid science. Instead, we see ID being promoted directly to the general public, the same general public that believe scientists are a bunch of dumbasses.

But they have. And it has been usurped at every chance because they are reticent of battling creationists all over again. I can appreciate that up to a point. But after that point, its just flat out because of the philosophical implications.

Again, why appeal to people who can't place Iceland on an unmarked map or know what the processes of mitosis involve?

You make it seem like they are specifically targeting "dumbasses." They present their information on the web. Anyone can click on the link and make the deduction for themselves. You are obviously undaunted by it, and that's fine. That's your right. But they have a right to put that information out there. It is also a right to combat "bad science," by putting up rebuttals. They have done that too. But it has gone deeper now in to a smear campaign. Truth will prevail in the end. Whatever the truth is, it will unfold.

By the way, I'm a physicist not a biologist. That link of yours I don't feel I have the expertise to comment on. Since you're all-knowing in every field of science known to man, perhaps you'd like to outline to me what that paper says?

I just posted it so you could critique it. I wasn't expecting you to pour all of your heart in to it. You seemed to have thought that ID was so completely inept that they use cartoons for illustrations and say things E = JesusluvsU4eva2!


“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 12-27-2007 5:59 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 3:14 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 33 of 438 (444195)
12-28-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2007 2:02 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
Nem writes:

You make it seem like they are specifically targeting "dumbasses."


But they do target a bunch of dumbasses in regard to science. The general public has this view that they understand the bulk of scientific knowledge by reading a single article from a popular magazine. You don't know how frustrating it is for someone like me at times to have to answer to questions like "if gravity is real how come rocks don't orbit mountains?" and "if the big bang happened how come there are retrograde planets?" The answers to those questions are quite simple, but you must first have a background to understand the answer. When they see me hesitate to give a single sentence answer, they assume I'm just another dumbass physicist.

The general public is the worst crowd for scientists to have to deal with, especially since we live in an age when everyone has an opinion on everything. Just the other day, I heard someone rant on and on how quantum physics is a bunch of crap. I had to bite my tongue to prevent myself from saying anything. When he saw me didn't say anything, he thought he was right and continued to give me a load of horseshit on why quantum physics is "scientifically proven false over and over".

Try to see this from our perspective. You wouldn't want someone like me to tell you how to hold a gun, do you? Why appeal to the general public in hope that they would dictate what ought to and ought not to be science?

But they have. And it has been usurped at every chance because they are reticent of battling creationists all over again. I can appreciate that up to a point. But after that point, its just flat out because of the philosophical implications.

Perhaps you missed our discussion about the Dover trial.

During the trial, they looked through the drafts and earlier versions of pandas and people. The earlier versions of this book, instead of having the words intelligent design, had the word creationism. Instead of having the words design proponent, it had creationist. Only the latest version did they change creationism to intelligent design and creationist to design proponent.

And during the trial, they were able to find a "missing link" between intelligent design and creationism. They found the word cdesign proponentist. Get it? They probably did it in a hurry so they only highlighted "reation" and left in "c ist".

And you're trying to tell me intelligent design has nothing to do with biblical creationism?

I just posted it so you could critique it. I wasn't expecting you to pour all of your heart in to it. You seemed to have thought that ID was so completely inept that they use cartoons for illustrations and say things E = JesusluvsU4eva2!

Nem, in the academic world, we try to stay close to our field as much as possible.

We're not like you where we feel like we have the right to comment on every subject known to man. I was trained in physics, math, and chemistry. I'm not going to pretend like I could accurately critique a biology paper.

This is another thing that the general public seems to have a problem understanding. People generally don't understand what it means to be a specialist.

Some years ago, I went to see a debate between an astronomer and a creationist preacher. The preacher attacked the astronomer by spouting out all kinds of lies about geology and asking the astronomer random questions about geology... even though the topic was astronomical evidence for an old universe. The astronomer wasn't that good of a public speaker or debater, so he simply said geology wasn't his field of expertise. You know what happened? The crowed cheered for the preacher, thinking he was way smarter and more knowledgable than the astronomer. Regular people don't understand that in academia we don't pretend to know something that we don't know. Creationists and cdesign proponentists have done well to take advantage of this public ignorance.

Again, try to see it from our point of view. We know how ignorant the masses can be. By appealing straight to the masses, cdesign proponentists are simply taking advantage of the ignorant masses for their own religious agenda.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 2:02 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 7:23 PM Taz has responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 438 (444226)
12-28-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taz
12-27-2007 6:36 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
Taz

Well, we always have Canada to immigrate to if push comes to shove.

I used to worry about the takeover of Canada by the US one day if they got desperate enough for our resources.Now I know the likelihood is they could not find the place if they were told to just head north and keep going.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 12-27-2007 6:36 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 5:27 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 35 of 438 (444230)
12-28-2007 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by sidelined
12-28-2007 5:01 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
I'd hardly call a bunch of arctic archipeligos valuable resources.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by sidelined, posted 12-28-2007 5:01 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5670
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 36 of 438 (444251)
12-28-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taz
12-28-2007 3:14 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
But they do target a bunch of dumbasses in regard to science. The general public has this view that they understand the bulk of scientific knowledge by reading a single article from a popular magazine.

Is targeting anyone who will listen tantamount to targeting "dumbasses?"

You don't know how frustrating it is for someone like me at times to have to answer to questions like "if gravity is real how come rocks don't orbit mountains?" and "if the big bang happened how come there are retrograde planets?" The answers to those questions are quite simple, but you must first have a background to understand the answer.

You are blaming ID'ists for questions like this???? Are ID'ists claiming that rocks orbit mountains? If not, then why do you lay blame against them?

The general public is the worst crowd for scientists to have to deal with, especially since we live in an age when everyone has an opinion on everything.

Well, everyone had to start somewhere. Try and have a little more patience with these people (are they kids or something?). You have to crawl before you can walk. At one time you crawled.

Try to see this from our perspective. You wouldn't want someone like me to tell you how to hold a gun, do you? Why appeal to the general public in hope that they would dictate what ought to and ought not to be science?

No one can lay claim to the best technique for holding a firearm. Some things work better for other people. And I'm never adverse to shooting tips since there is so much more to it than just aiming and squeezing the trigger. But, I understand your analogy. I just don't see this as being a threat. What is going to become of the world should people see design in nature? Is it going to change any physical law?

And during the trial, they were able to find a "missing link" between intelligent design and creationism. They found the word cdesign proponentist. Get it? They probably did it in a hurry so they only highlighted "reation" and left in "c ist".

And you're trying to tell me intelligent design has nothing to do with biblical creationism?

There is little question that creationists have latched on to the idea of Intelligent Design as a way to piggyback off of its success (which is hardly no success at all, but moreso than creationist literature). And it is also probably true that the majority of ID'ists are in fact Bible-believing Christians. But is that something that someone is supposed to apologize for?

I can tell you that I honestly don't like creationism because it emasculates scientific inquiry. Trying to find any reason to have nature conform to a theological text is just not science. I want nothing to do with it for probably the exact same reasons you don't. But I believe they have every right to speak about it. That's their right. And I also believe that ID is vastly different from creationism.

ID is theologically neutral. It just says that it seems possible that the universe was intelligently designed, as opposed to nothingness creating everything. Heck, in my mind, is the greater alternative. But, I digress. We don't need to drag this OT.

Nem, in the academic world, we try to stay close to our field as much as possible.

We're not like you where we feel like we have the right to comment on every subject known to man. I was trained in physics, math, and chemistry. I'm not going to pretend like I could accurately critique a biology paper.

This whole forum is full of people who inject their own beliefs in to any given thing based on their level of expertise or understanding of any given topic.


“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 3:14 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 39 by sidelined, posted 12-29-2007 11:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 37 of 438 (444269)
12-28-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2007 7:23 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
{Main bulk of this message has been hidden by moi. Read below for reason.}

Nem writes:

Is targeting anyone who will listen tantamount to targeting "dumbasses?"


But clearly they're just not targeting anyone. They're targeting church going know-it-alls.

You are blaming ID'ists for questions like this???? Are ID'ists claiming that rocks orbit mountains? If not, then why do you lay blame against them?

Well, yes actually. Why? Cdesign proponentists and creationists alike have been advocating the following concept to the general public for years, that scientific concepts like gravity and evolution can be explained in a few short sentences. When someone like me hesitates to answer a stupid question, it's not because I'm a dumbass who doesn't know the answer. It's because while the answer is relatively easy, to give the answer to untrained ears is little better than to give the answer to deaf ears.

Well, everyone had to start somewhere. Try and have a little more patience with these people (are they kids or something?). You have to crawl before you can walk. At one time you crawled.

Um, no. The guy that tried to tell me quantum physics has been disproven by science over and over was in his 30s.

And let's not forget the organized church bus trips to these debates between scientists and christian preachers.

Again, try to see it from our perspective. People like myself have seen plenty of ignorant masses cheering for bullshit diarrhea from christian preachers. This documentary will pretty much be like what these christian preachers have been doing for years, appealing to the ignorant masses for support.

What is going to become of the world should people see design in nature? Is it going to change any physical law?

But this is exactly the crux of the matter. Regular people aren't capable to decide about this. This is why people like myself have such a problem with this so-called documentary.

Again, would you take my advice on how to handle a firearm? I've never touched a real gun before in my life. Trying to rally the support of the general public for ID is like asking me for advice on how to handle a firearm. Personally, I'd keep my mouth shut. But as you are demonstrating to us right now, obviously the general public will not refrain from sharing their opinion on what should and shouldn't be considered as science.

There is little question that creationists have latched on to the idea of Intelligent Design as a way to piggyback off of its success (which is hardly no success at all, but moreso than creationist literature). And it is also probably true that the majority of ID'ists are in fact Bible-believing Christians. But is that something that someone is supposed to apologize for?

Huh? How much more proof do you need that ID is creationist motivated agenda?

First, they wrote a book for creationism. Then, having upon realizing that it would never sell because of the law, they went back and changed all the words "creationism" and "creationists" to "intelligent design" and "design proponent". I mean, is this the twighlight zone where information like this somehow gets lost from the screen to your eyes?

I can tell you that I honestly don't like creationism because it emasculates scientific inquiry. Trying to find any reason to have nature conform to a theological text is just not science. I want nothing to do with it for probably the exact same reasons you don't. But I believe they have every right to speak about it. That's their right. And I also believe that ID is vastly different from creationism.

Just curious. If tomorrow an alien race land on Earth and proclaim that they were the intelligent designer you've been talking about and they have irrefutable proof, would you be willing to admit that aliens and not the god of abraham who's the intelligent designer? If not, then what you are talking about isn't science.

ID is theologically neutral.

No, it's not. Again, ID started out with a bunch of people writing a book for creationism. Upon realizing that they couldn't sell this book because of the law, they highlighted and changed all the words "creationism" and "creationist" to "intelligent design" and "design proponent". It's not theologically neutral.

This whole forum is full of people who inject their own beliefs in to any given thing based on their level of expertise or understanding of any given topic.

Yes, but when it comes to it we leave the decisions to the real experts. What this documentary will do is try to rally support from people who don't know squat about science and create a political force out of this ignorant mass to insert a theologically based belief into the science classroom.

Look, if ID is really science, can you name a few ways in which we can disprove the "theory"? This is one of the criteria for being a valid scientific theory. You have to be able to disprove it.

In fact, I'm going to hide the rest of this post. Just name a few ways we can do to disprove this ID theory.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 7:23 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 10:57 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2007 12:53 PM Taz has not yet responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 2223 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 38 of 438 (444413)
12-29-2007 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taz
12-28-2007 7:51 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
what about existance, taz?

to make existance a valid discussion, we must assert that it has a reason for debate in the scientific community.

can you assert, that in physics, understanding elements is the reason for the science? and that by asking where the elements came from has established the big bang theory? and that by asking where existance fits is not against scientific enquiry, since it would be a debate based on science of what is, and attemtping to discover through scientific logic, in what way elements asserted "being"?

Edited by tesla, : elaberated


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 7:51 PM Taz has not yet responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 438 (444419)
12-29-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2007 7:23 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
Nemesis
Juggernaut

ID is theologically neutral. It just says that it seems possible that the universe was intelligently designed, as opposed to nothingness creating everything

AH but there lies the rub NJ. In the fields of science you must appreciate that the point is not whether something is possible or not but whether it is going on or not.
Since intelligence is claimed science requires that it not simply be possible but that it is shown to occur in fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 7:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5670
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 40 of 438 (444432)
12-29-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taz
12-28-2007 7:51 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
Just name a few ways we can do to disprove this ID theory.

I have heard the claim that ID cannot be falsifiable and therefore cannot be considered a science. The irony, as you can imagine, is the swarm of criticism attempting to falsify it.

Since ID is precipiced on complexity, one has to consider how easily or difficult it is to prove. The very thing that would prove ID is the very thing that, in reverse, would destroy all of its credibility.

It is no different than what Darwin concluded -- that if it can be demonstrated that no new species come about by successive modification, his theory would breakdown absolutely.

So if it can be shown that there is no specified complexity, then there is no reason to assume that an evolutionary algorithm is at work through unguided processes.

But see, there is no way to ever discount the possibility of God, or any other intelligence. The intelligence could want it to look as if it were just through happenstance. Evolution could easily fall in that category.

But why place it there unnecessarily? Its the same with specified complexity. If we know the 1050 is considered absolute zero (a chance so unlikely that it is basically referred to as impossible) then raising the stakes at 10150 (which is Universal Probability Bound) will really do the trick.

All one has to do is to turn the table around on the initial claim and it is effectively dismantled. That is how you can falsify ID. ID is specifically precipiced on the notion of specified and irreducible complexity.

Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo


“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 7:51 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 12-29-2007 1:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 1:32 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 41 of 438 (444433)
12-29-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2007 5:16 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
Have you ever honestly read a piece written by an avowed ID'ist? Its not exactly idiotic.

Nobody seems to have given an adequate response, so I am dropping back in after a long inactive period.

I cannot see anything in the cited article other than a "God of the gaps" pleading.

My summary: The author sees an apparent gap, and so chooses to plunk god (as the intelligent designer) in that gap.

Okay, I am not myself a biologist. It is my impression that most biologists don't agree that there is any real gap. The area pointed to is a topic of investigation, and some of the citations in the article demonstrate this.

A research paper should be informative as a guide to future researchers. The trouble with ID is that it tends to see mystery (i.e. gaps) as themselves an explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 5:16 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2007 4:45 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2007 6:59 PM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 42 of 438 (444434)
12-29-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2007 12:53 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
I have heard the claim that ID cannot be falsifiable and therefore cannot be considered a science. The irony, as you can imagine, is the swarm of criticism attempting to falsify it.

No, they are demonstrating that it is not science. That's not the same as falsifying.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2007 12:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 43 of 438 (444439)
12-29-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2007 12:53 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
I have heard the claim that ID cannot be falsifiable and therefore cannot be considered a science. The irony, as you can imagine, is the swarm of criticism attempting to falsify it.

There are two broad fronts here:
1) The correction of the criticism of evolutionary science, and the pointing out of the dishonesty of repeating known errors.
2) The correcting the idea that certain concepts such as irreducible complexity can give any indications of a "designer".

The reason it is unfalsifiable is because intelligent agents are capable of hiding evidence of their existence.

So if it can be shown that there is no specified complexity, then there is no reason to assume that an evolutionary algorithm is at work through unguided processes.

Correct. That is why evolution doesn't rely on disproving specified complexity, but in gathering positive evidence for the hypothesis.

But see, there is no way to ever discount the possibility of God, or any other intelligence. The intelligence could want it to look as if it were just through happenstance. Evolution could easily fall in that category.

There is no reason to think that an entity with no motivation might be motivated to manufacture evidence to cover up its own existence. Indeed there is much evidence that evolution has happened. Of course we could say that the intelligent designer manufactured the evidence to look like evolution happened - but that is unfalsifiable.

Evolution doesn't have 'desire' so it cannot 'want' to make it look like an intelligent designer did it.

Now - an intelligent designer could have made all of this happen and done so 'using' the mechanism of evolution. This is unfalsifiable and unparsimonious. An intelligent pusher could be keeping us on the planet, in a way that appears to be due to the warping of the geometry of space/time. That contains the same amount of weight as a hypothesis. I didn't do it, the fact that I am on film doing it only proves how devious my enemies are to create the appearance of me being a criminal!

All one has to do is to turn the table around on the initial claim and it is effectively dismantled. That is how you can falsify ID. ID is specifically precipiced on the notion of specified and irreducible complexity.

And yet, when they are falsified as links to a designer - ID remains - how?

Irreducible complexity was shown as not only a bad indicator of design, but (in its biochemical form) as a prediction of evolution! That the mathematics developed regarding specified complex information came from irreducible complexity leaves CSI as equally unfounded. The best part of the whole thing: Dembski was shown a pattern and was asked to determine if it had CSI. He said that evolutionary algorithms were capable of producing the 'appearance of complexity'. He has never to my knowledge given a way to discriminate between the appearance of complexity and actual complexity.

Thus the following hypotheses:

Irreducible Complexity demonstrates the necessity of an intelligent agent.
and
Specified Complexity demonstrates the necessity of an intelligent agent.

Have both been falsified.

"ID" can never be falsified since it refuses to describe the agent, or its methodology for implementation: and thus we are not able to know what it is capable of. It could be capable of hiding evidence of its own existence. Plenty of statements made by ID proponents can be falsified since they do make empirical claims, and when they do - they are often erroneous.

As soon as we get a 'how' that would leave a certain type of evidence that cannot be explained better by some other theory...ID will have itself a theory that might lend itself to actual falsification. However, we still find 'a designer did it' is unfalsifiable. We need 'designer x with properties y designed life using methodology z at time a' before we get anywhere near a scientific theory with the possibility of falsification.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2007 12:53 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 1:45 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2007 8:29 PM Modulous has responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 2223 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 44 of 438 (444444)
12-29-2007 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
12-29-2007 1:32 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
creationism that implies motives to a devine being is not science, its religeon.

science has avoided attempting to explain the very thing that religeon is based on: existance.

anyone on this thread care to debate existance on the basis of science?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 1:32 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by nator, posted 12-29-2007 1:51 PM tesla has responded
 Message 46 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 1:53 PM tesla has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 438 (444450)
12-29-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by tesla
12-29-2007 1:45 PM


OK, enough already
"divine" not "devine"

"religion" not "religeon"

"existence" not "existance"

Please, please, please learn to use your computer's spell check function.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 1:45 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 1:55 PM nator has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
30NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019