Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What difference does evidence of ID make?
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 20 (46221)
07-16-2003 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Parasomnium
07-16-2003 5:32 AM


quote:
evidence of intelligent design would only prove what they already believe to be true in the absence of evidence.
This is the fundamental tautology of Intelligent Design Creationism. It assumes that a phenomenon is designed, as if that somehow relieves IDC of the burden to prove the hypothesis true.
The IDC Shell Game is one we've discussed before. The claim that something must be designed because it's so complex has many problems that are never fully addressed. Is it complex because it's intelligently designed or because of the millions of years of evolution? Wouldn't true intelligence create something with minimum complexity? Is an artifact whose function ceases if even one part is removed really a sign of intelligence?
The IDC proponents are confident that they know how to discern evidence of intelligent design from evidence of design by purposeless processes. However, it seems that literally any criterion is sufficient to discern evidence of intelligent design, and in contrast no evidence is sufficient to falsify the conclusion of their analysis.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Parasomnium, posted 07-16-2003 5:32 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 07-16-2003 9:00 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 8 of 20 (46345)
07-17-2003 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
07-16-2003 9:00 PM


quote:
I agree with Newton
You're not alone in your respect for Newton. Of course, I doubt that you realize how many works on astrology and numerology he produced. His scientific achievements (the Principia and Optics) are monumental in that he set forth a model for empirical evidential inference, the basis of today's scientific method: we understand everything in terms of the regularity of physical laws, and our inquiry can only focus on causes we can verify. I fail to see how this makes him a poster boy for creationism, which relies on supernatural causes and miraculous interventions.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 07-16-2003 9:00 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 20 (46370)
07-17-2003 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peter
05-28-2003 6:56 AM


quote:
It seems to have elluded some people that science says nothing
about the nature and/or existence of any God ... it simply attempts
to uncover the 'rules' that nature appears to follow.
The existence or non-existence of God is in no way connected to the existence or non-existence of a naturalistic mechanism for evolution. This is where IDC conflates the accepted guidelines of scientific inquiry with ontological naturalism (i.e. atheism).
Intelligent design creationism has never announced the standards according to which their science would proceed. How their experiments would demonstrate consistency or repeatability without the traditional naturalistic constraint has never been explained.
IDC's charge that science has been unfairly monopolized by methodological naturalism sounds like postmodern relativism. However, its core constituency of fundamentalist Christians would be more likely to agree with the objectivism inherent in IDC's assertion that there exists absolute Truth that science is too blindfolded by atheistic assumptions to recognize.
Can IDC possibly be both? Can anything?
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 05-28-2003 6:56 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2003 4:13 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 16 of 20 (46422)
07-18-2003 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Warren
07-17-2003 8:34 PM


quote:
ID doesn't argue that non-teleological evolution is impossible.
Then who needs teleology? If you accept that certain biological structures have in fact evolved through naturalistic mechanisms, then you agree non-teleology has demonstrated greater power in nature than Intelligence, which has never produced a natural organism or structure thereof.
quote:
And what is the difference between God of the Gaps and naturalism of the gaps?
Nothing, unless you count all the naturalistic mechanisms that have previously filled gaps in scientific knowledge. Are we wrong to think that naturalistic, non-teleological mechanisms have been found to account for heredity? Origin of disease? Embryology? Adaptation of organisms to their environment? Please give us an example of any teleological or non-naturalistic mechanism that has provided such a detailed account for something previously missing in our scientific knowledge.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Warren, posted 07-17-2003 8:34 PM Warren 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