Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 10:59 PM
21 online now:
Meddle (1 member, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 136 of 396 (480373)
09-02-2008 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by randman
05-29-2008 2:58 AM


randman writes:

Define supernatural. You insist that IDers are introducting the concept of supernaturalism or some such. What is that concept?

Honestly, randman, you shame and embarrass yourself with this sort of feigned ignorance. You have read the Holy Bible, right? Lots of clear and definitive examples of "supernatural" there, so if you don't know what "supernatural" means, then I assume you have no understanding of the Bible whatsoever.

randman writes:

IDers are looking for physical evidence of a Designer's actions and mechanisms.

I can understand why 3 months have gone by with no reply to this comment of yours, and perhaps I'll come to regret responding to it, but for the moment, I can't help it:

Define "Designer". Can you do that without knowing and using the concept of "supernatural"?


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:58 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by randman, posted 09-03-2008 1:16 AM Otto Tellick has responded
 Message 182 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 1:40 AM Otto Tellick has responded

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 137 of 396 (480379)
09-03-2008 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by VirtuousGuile
05-29-2008 3:01 AM


Re: Real Simple Jump
VirtuousGuile writes:

The leap from Evolution to the Theoretical Evolution is based on the assumption that there is not alot of order in the world.

On the contrary, the assumption is that a relatively small but highly consistent set of principles has been governing the development of life on Earth since the beginning. Perhaps the claim you make is just a matter of how you define "order".

When an unguided and seemingly "accidental" sequence of events over billions of years happens to result in a living species capable of deep thoughts (particularly self-awareness and sensations of intention/purpose), many of the deep thinkers in the species can only assume that there must have been some all-encompassing awareness, intention and purpose that must underlie, motivate and even guide the sequence of events -- for them, that is how the whole thing can be seen as "orderly" (and the intention/purpose, of course, was precisely to create the deep thinkers). This sense of "order" is quite abstract, being based on imagining some sort of creator/controller entity that defies description in any sort of concrete terms; disagreements about the "true" identity, nature and goals of this entity are innumerable, irreconcilable, and quite interminable.

Others (the "scientific thinkers") spend their time looking at how things happen, broadening their experience regarding both ongoing and bygone events, figuring out how things work, and putting together pieces of various puzzles. Eventually, gradually, after many attempts, many mistakes, many partial solutions and many changes of mind imposed by new evidence, they arrive at increasingly concise and accurate descriptive methods that encompass the whole sequence of events, showing it to be a natural outcome arising from combinations of known (observed) materials with known (observed) physical processes. This does not limit, devalue or otherwise damage their capacity for deep thought, and certainly does no harm to their sense of intention and purpose. But it does create a very solid and robust sense of an "orderly" world (and universe), one that is reinforced by everything we experience.

VirtuousGuile writes:

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.

Again, it hinges on what you consider to be "order", and what you think it means for there to be "alot of order in the world". Bear in mind that the assumed "designer" is not entirely "in the world", and is supposed to be the source of all "order". I wonder: would the ID approach, taken to its "logical" conclusion, entail that the physical world (universe) as we know it is fundamentally nothing but chaos? Without the "designer's" constant meddling, nothing could be counted on to be consistent from one moment to the next... What sort of "order" is that?

You are right to point out the tendency for confirmation bias in both camps. The notable difference is: among evos, the bias gets caught and corrected when new evidence becomes available; among IDists, it remains stuck as dogma, with no chartable course for correction -- disagreements about the dogma are resolved by splitting the IDist camp into subgroups having different beliefs, as has always been the case among Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by VirtuousGuile, posted 05-29-2008 3:01 AM VirtuousGuile has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 138 of 396 (480380)
09-03-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Otto Tellick
09-02-2008 11:40 PM


supernatural is not a scientific term
You conveniently didn't answer the question which is a very pertinent question. First of all, answering from a biblical perspective and a scientific perspective are 2 different things. You may argue that God from a biblical perspective is a spiritual or supernatural thing. That has nothing to do with a scientific description of the concept of God. As far as science is concerned, if something is real, it is by definition a natural thing within the confines, at least theoritically, of science though science is limited by technology and creativity. You cannot test something until you figure out a way to do it with existing technology.

So from a science perspective, the concept of God means by definition God is natural, or put another way, if God is real, then God is natural just like any other thing.....from a scientific perspective.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-02-2008 11:40 PM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2008 2:06 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 140 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-03-2008 4:49 AM randman has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14754
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 139 of 396 (480382)
09-03-2008 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by randman
09-03-2008 1:16 AM


Re: supernatural is not a scientific term
quote:

As far as science is concerned, if something is real, it is by definition a natural thing within the confines, at least theoritically, of science though science is limited by technology and creativity.

That is more like scientism. Science does not deny the possibility of things that are beyond scientific investigation. Your claim is true only to the extent that science cannot say that such things ARE real. Which is very different from saying that they are NOT real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by randman, posted 09-03-2008 1:16 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 140 of 396 (480387)
09-03-2008 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by randman
09-03-2008 1:16 AM


Re: supernatural is not a scientific term
randman writes:

You conveniently didn't answer the question ["Define supernatural"]...

Rather, I gave you a convenient reference where you could look it up. But you are still pretending to be stupid, so I'll play along and try to spell it out clearly. Let's try an explanation based on a relevant example:

A doctor and a preacher witness a couple being married in a religious ceremony; later they observe this same couple attending church. Within a few months, they see that the woman is pregnant. The preacher asserts, based on being a spiritual guide for the couple, that the pregnancy is a gift given to the couple by the deity they have been worshipping. The doctor asserts, based on deduction from knowledge about similar events -- and on the basis of seeing the woman as his patient -- that the couple has had sexual intercourse and the man's sperm happened to encounter a viable egg, which subsequently began to develop as a fetus in the woman's womb. In due time, the baby is born with a serious disability that proves fatal within days. The preacher asserts that this was either a punishment or a test of faith and resolve, visited on the couple by the deity. The doctor asserts that the husband and wife both carry genetic traits that, when combined in conception, produce the fatal ailment.

The preacher's explanations are "supernatural", because the influence of the deity is not directly observable or confirmable by any clear-cut means of factual discovery. His explanations are also prone to be categorically wrong, except in the eyes of those he can convince to believe him. Basing future actions and expectations on the preacher's explanations is likely to be problematic, whereas basing them on the doctor's explanations is much more likely to avert future problems.

Anyway, now let's look at how you tried to answer my question [define "designer"]:

randman writes:

So from a science perspective, the concept of God means by definition God is natural, or put another way, if God is real, then God is natural just like any other thing.....from a scientific perspective.

The only things that are meaningful by definition "from a scientific perspective" are the numeric digits, arithmetic operators, values like pi, e, i, the basic units of measure, and the basic properties that are measured (distance, volume, mass, time, speed, force, etc). Everything else must be observable in order to be meaningful. It is possible (and always a good idea) to define terms that apply to observable things, and such definitions, in order to be meaningful, must ultimately include the stuff that is "meaningful by definition" -- that is, refer to the rigid numeric and logical conventions for measuring observable things.

So if God is real, and granting that God is not comprised solely of digits, arithmetic operators, special numeric values, and/or basic units/properties of measure, then in what way should God (or maybe just the "effects of the designer") be observable and measurable? There is still no answer to my request for a definition of "designer" in terms that are not supernatural. This is the crux of the OP: how is this "concept of God" supposed to work "in a scientific perspective"?

If you're saying it's just a matter of time before we figure out what technology is needed and how to use it in order to make the necessary measurements, well, I'm not holding my breath for that, but any further reply along that line should include some details, don't you think?

Of course, if someone ever does propose a detailed method for measuring or otherwise observing the effects of a designer -- that is, a prediction can be made of an outcome that would support this hypothesis -- there's a chance that the actual observation would come out negative, yielding no support.

You have introduced the phrase "supernatural is not a scientific term" as a subtitle, which I quite agree with, and you have posed the conditional premise, "If God is real..." Will you be ready to accept the consequences of a negative result and move on from there? Every scientist must be prepared for that sort of outcome: a given hypothesis finds no supporting evidence, so move on to other hypotheses.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by randman, posted 09-03-2008 1:16 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by randman, posted 09-03-2008 9:46 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 141 of 396 (480401)
09-03-2008 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Otto Tellick
09-03-2008 4:49 AM


Re: supernatural is not a scientific term
Wrong. If God exists, then He is part of reality and so the concept of God is actually natural from a scientific perspective. You can blather on about no way to test or whatever, but that's just your opinion. You have absolutely no evidence to support your claim that we cannot ever come up with some way to test for God's presence or activity or an aspect of God. In fact, there are scientists like Tipler who believe as he argues in his book, The Omega Point, that we absolutely do have scientific and mathematical evidence for God.

You can disagree with him and his evidence, but to pretend it's not based on science would be silly. Not saying he is right or wrong, but it is science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-03-2008 4:49 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Granny Magda, posted 09-03-2008 10:08 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 09-04-2008 9:04 AM randman has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 142 of 396 (480406)
09-03-2008 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by randman
09-03-2008 9:46 AM


Re: supernatural is not a scientific term
Hi randman,

In fact, there are scientists like Tipler who believe as he argues in his book, The Omega Point, that we absolutely do have scientific and mathematical evidence for God.

For a start, Tipler is talking about a state of infinite-capacity computation, that he identifies with God. That is very different to the idea of God that most people have in mind. Besides, Tipler's book is conjecture and his theory depends upon various factors that may or may not come to fruition, such as intelligent life continuing to exist for long enough to develop the necessary processing power.

It is also worth mentioning that even an MIT educated professor of mathematics and physics is capable of creating pseudo-science. Having letters after ones name is no guarantee of producing only proper science.

By the way, I have to ask; do you consider God to be omnipotent?


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by randman, posted 09-03-2008 9:46 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18313
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 143 of 396 (480529)
09-04-2008 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by randman
09-03-2008 9:46 AM


Re: supernatural is not a scientific term
randman writes:

In fact, there are scientists like Tipler who believe as he argues in his book, The Omega Point, that we absolutely do have scientific and mathematical evidence for God.

I couldn't find a book by Frank J. Tipler called The Omega Point. Do you perhaps mean The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God, and the Resurrection of the Dead. While poking around I saw a couple indications that he may have introduced the concept of the Omega point in this book.

I think you have to understand that a strong distinction must be drawn between the speculations of people who happen to be scientists versus peer reviewed science. A speculation isn't even a hypothesis, let alone evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by randman, posted 09-03-2008 9:46 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Mylakovich
Junior Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 20
From: Cambridgeshire, UK
Joined: 08-29-2008


Message 144 of 396 (480544)
09-04-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by VirtuousGuile
05-29-2008 2:51 AM


Re: We teach whats infront of our eyes. Either way.
Both the Theories of Intelligent Design and Evolution are theories.

This is incorrect. In scientific terminology, a theory is a testable model, one that has reached a very reliable level of sophistication. The Theory of evolution has reached that level because of hundreds of years of research and thousands of fossil and biological evidence that supports it. Intelligent Design is not a theory in the scientific sence because it is not founded on any empirical evidence, makes no predictions, and in no way leads to an informed understanding of the natural world. It is incorrect to use the term 'theory' for what is actually a different philosophical position.

I agree that the central difference between ToE and ID are perspectives and worldview. If someone believes that wonderment and marvel and fervent wishing are a valid basis for establishing models of understanding, then they are more than welcome to exist in their own circles. However, to impose this viewpoint into the realm of Science accomplishes nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by VirtuousGuile, posted 05-29-2008 2:51 AM VirtuousGuile has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3310
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 145 of 396 (480558)
09-04-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by VirtuousGuile
05-29-2008 2:51 AM


Re: We teach whats infront of our eyes. Either way.
Guile is guile, regardless of whether its user calls it "virtuous". Though it is appropriate, given the fundamentally deceptive nature of "creation science" and its more recent incarnation of "intelligent design".

You did not answer the question, which you lifted out of context, apparently out of guile; here it is with the part of the sentence you left off:
"Without the ability to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses, how could ID science possibly work?"

The full question, re-submitted to Beretta (who has also never answered it, nor responded to my presentation of the transitional characteristics of Archaeopteryx in response to his facetious remark about it) reads as follows:

dwise1;Msg 54 writes:

But back to the topic: you still have not addressed the question. ID wants to reform science to include supernaturalistic explanations. Just how do you propose that we test supernaturalistic explanations? Because if we are to be expected to use supernaturalistic explanations, then we will need to test them. Because if we are unable to test the hypotheses that we advance, then science will not work.

Employing ID's supernatural-based science would require us to test supernaturalistic hypotheses. How are we supposed to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses? Without the ability to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses, how could ID science possibly work?

Science works extremely well, but you want to replace it with ID. Haven't you, or any ID proponent for that matter, given any thought to how that replacement of yours would work? Or even whether it would work at all?

Well? Aren't you even going to try to answer the question? For anyone to even begin to consider implementing ID's changes to science, that question must first be answered.

Rather, it is clearly ID's intent to sacrifice science on the altar of their pathetic little "God of the Gaps". Since their false "God of the Gaps" must forever live in mortal fear of science, unlike a true "Sovereign over Nature" God.

Edited by dwise1, : concluding paragraph.

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by VirtuousGuile, posted 05-29-2008 2:51 AM VirtuousGuile has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2008 12:14 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 146 of 396 (480566)
09-04-2008 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by dwise1
09-04-2008 11:49 AM


Re: We teach whats infront of our eyes. Either way.
Rather, it is clearly ID's intent to sacrifice science on the altar of their pathetic little "God of the Gaps". Since their false "God of the Gaps" must forever live in mortal fear of science, unlike a true "Sovereign over Nature" God.

Creation "science" and its illegitimate stepchild, ID, are not promoted with the idea of furthering science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2008 11:49 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 396 (480947)
09-07-2008 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by PaulK
12-09-2007 9:26 AM


Re: Badmouthing Creationists MO
PaulK writes:

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.

Yah sure, PaulK, like citing the evidence of the Exodus in the region of Aqaba, questioning the properties of space capable of two ends of a perfectly straight rod connecting themselves without bending, questioning where and when the BB occured, having had no space nor time existing for the event to have happened etc.

Who's going to bring up these things for debate if we don't? And when are we going to get substantive believable answers for some of these things? When are the secularist archeologists and researchers going to go in and refute the Exodus evidence we've cited?

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2007 9:26 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2008 1:22 AM Buzsaw has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14754
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 148 of 396 (480954)
09-08-2008 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Buzsaw
09-07-2008 10:52 PM


Re: Badmouthing Creationists MO
quote:

Yah sure, PaulK, like citing the evidence of the Exodus in the region of Aqaba, questioning the properties of space capable of two ends of a perfectly straight rod connecting themselves without bending, questioning where and when the BB occured, having had no space nor time existing for the event to have happened etc.

In other words claiming to have evidence that you refuse to produce and attacking science you don't understand.

quote:

Who's going to bring up these things for debate if we don't?

Nobody, I hope. Since all three are complete wastes of time.

quote:

And when are we going to get substantive believable answers for some of these things?

When you set aside your prejudices and learn to accept truths you don't like.

quote:

When are the secularist archeologists and researchers going to go in and refute the Exodus evidence we've cited?

When you come up with some evidence worth investigating. See Message 116.

And before you answer read Message 120.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Buzsaw, posted 09-07-2008 10:52 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2008 8:40 AM PaulK has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 396 (480972)
09-08-2008 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by PaulK
09-08-2008 1:22 AM


Re: Badmouthing Creationists MO
PaulK writes:

In other words claiming to have evidence that you refuse to produce and attacking science you don't understand.

PaulK, if you understand how space has the ability to reconnect the two ends of an absolute straight bar without bending the bar, perhaps it's time for a new thread on just that one alleged property of space so that you can explain to the www what property of space allows for this to happen.

That space allegedy has the property of curvature does not explain the magic of how it allegedly would reconnect the bar's ends without bending the bar. What model has science concocted to show that to be possible?

Until you or someone can answer that question, the Buzsaw Hypothesis relative to infinite unbounded space stands unrefuted.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2008 1:22 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by NosyNed, posted 09-08-2008 9:20 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 160 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2008 1:38 PM Buzsaw has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8839
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 150 of 396 (480980)
09-08-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Buzsaw
09-08-2008 8:40 AM


bent bars
That space allegedy has the property of curvature does not explain the magic of how it allegedly would reconnect the bar's ends without bending the bar. What model has science concocted to show that to be possible?

General Relativity. And it works very, very, very well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2008 8:40 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2008 10:34 AM NosyNed has responded

Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019