|
Author
|
Topic: How do Intelligent Design People act?
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
Message 10 of 55 (502755)
03-13-2009 7:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
03-12-2009 9:16 AM
|
|
Ah, now im in the picture thumbs up for the links... very interesting article by Dembski. We dont have this issue in australia because australians are not religious people. We like our beer, bbq and sport...all our idols are living and usually hitting a ball of one sort or anther (except for me, i hate sport) It does seem like a political movement but i must say that I like the idea of having something to challenge the theory of evolution. Dembski makes an interesting challenge
quote:
It is another thing to look at the world and find features in it that can be reliably correlated with intelligent agency. In the latter instance, attributing the world to an intelligent cause is no longer simply a faith commitment, but actually constitutes a scientific inference.
Science isnt limited to evolution, it covers a broad field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by principles (rules). We know that almost any kind of knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the scientific method. So what if ID was perused in this method. Is it possible to pursue ID in the scientific method??? The 'scientific method' goes along the lines of... Observe, Theorize, Test, Conclude Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution???
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 9:16 AM | | Stile has replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 12 of 55 (502758)
03-13-2009 8:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Stile
03-13-2009 7:31 AM
|
|
Re: Teaching ID in schools
Stile writes: the problems only start if people begin to think their beliefs are so incredibly absolute, that they must begin forcing others into that belief as well. its strange that you say that in light of Dembski's article which is about a christian school being prohibited from teaching ID in its own science classes
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 7:31 AM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 8:22 AM | | Peg has replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 14 of 55 (502760)
03-13-2009 8:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Modulous
03-13-2009 7:54 AM
|
|
Modulous writes: Not usually by high school teachers, for obvious reasons. However, evolutionary biologists do use this method (though the method you describe is obviously simplified), and some of them teach at university. high school teachers can barely even explain evolution! when i was in Year 10 i asked the teacher why there are still monkeys and she could not give a satisfactory answer... she probably didnt understand it herself...yet she taught it. Now, im interested in what the 'testing' part of evolution is I get the observations, I see how the theory is developed based on thsoe observations... but what is the 'testing' procedures for those theories??? how do they test it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2009 7:54 AM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2009 8:18 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 17 of 55 (502772)
03-13-2009 9:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by Stile
03-13-2009 8:22 AM
|
|
Re: An easy trap to fall into
Stile writes: Either way... if you want one of those two things, you can't just teach "whatever you want" in your school. If you want state recognition for what you teach... you need to teach science in your science class. If you want to use tax-payer's money... you need to teach science in your science class. Is such a "demand" really all that strange? Doesn't it sound kind of... expected... that, if you want to be state-recognized, then you should follow the teaching requirements of the state? yes i see what you're saying there...they have to conform if they want to get recognition. But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline?
Stile writes: If they want to be a privately-funded school... and not have their diplomas recognized by the state... then they're free to teach their kids whatever they'ed like. this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief? This sounds like people are not free to beleive...it sounds like they have no choice. I wonder if this is why the ID movement has become politicized??
Stile writes: ID is exactly the same thing. It's not science... because it has no supporting evidence.
Im not trying to argue here, but im still trying to understand how the 'study of nature' is not considered scientific. (Keeping in mind that i've never read any ID literature, so i dont really know exactly what they say) We agree that the science is the study of many disciplines, why is ID (which seems to be the study of the designs in living things) not considered a science. If they just said 'that is a tree and God did it' and said not more, then i'd agree that its not science. But if they are studying the processes of the tree and determining how the tree functions etc, surely that is a science. Can it be shown otherwise???
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 8:22 AM | | Stile has replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 28 of 55 (502890)
03-13-2009 9:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by Stile
03-13-2009 9:45 AM
|
|
Re: An easy trap to fall into
Stile writes: It's politicized because it's failed everywhere else. The only place left for them to go is to whine to poor, unsuspecting people to see if they can change laws so they will be able to abuse children. Are you sure you want to support such a notion? abuse children??? how does ID amount to abuse???
Stile writes: If you follow the scientific method, it certainly is scientific. If you don't follow the scientific method, then it's not scientific. ok so that brings me back to the question of why the study of nature and the search for design is not scientific. Is it because there is already the presumption that the blade of grass has been designed? if so, could they not study the blade of grass to explain how the design works and what shows that it is in fact designed.?
Stile writes: Of course it would be. But they're not doing this. They've never done this. Can you show that they do this? No one ever has so far. That's why the judge ruled against them in court, because they don't do this. It's really rather simple. ok well as i said, i've never read any ID books.... so i'll go to the book store today and find a book on ID to see what its all about... when i've done so i'll come back and tell you what i think. Does anyone have any suggestions on a book to start with? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Stile, posted 03-13-2009 9:45 AM | | Stile has replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
Re: An easy trap to fall into
GM writes: ID is politicised for the same reasons that other forms of creationism are politicised; some people just can't handle the challenge that evolution presents to their religious beliefs. I believe that the first law to mention evolution in the US was the Tennessee law that banned the teaching of evolution and eventually led to the Scopes "Monkey Trial". That was religiously motivated and the history of creationism and evolution in the US courts has followed this same pattern. thats unfortunate really they are only threatened by it because they dont understand the bible enough to be able to defend it. The problem I see is that they've become so tangled up in dogma and bad interpretation and bad translating that their understanding is completely out of harmony with known facts ie, 24hr creative day, earth at center of universe etc then when science provides evidence to the contrary, rather then adjusting their understanding and reexamining their translations, they put up a fight and make themselves look like raving lunatics.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2009 9:45 AM | | Granny Magda has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by Larni, posted 03-15-2009 7:36 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
Re: An easy trap to fall into
GM writes: Take Behe's blood clotting argument for example. He claims that the "irreducible complexity" of the human blood clotting cascade presents a difficulty for evolutionary theory. And he's right to an extent; a gap in our explanatory framework is undesirable to say the least. But does Behe attempt to close this gap, by working out how the cascade might have evolved? No. He simply throws up his hands and says "No! I can't work out how it evolved, so therefore it didn't evolve.". A real scientist would attempt to close gaps in our knowledge im not taking sides here, but if he was able to determine this why couldnt evolutionists determine this AND if behe is unable to find the gap, and evolutionists are unable to find the gap, then doesnt this put the evolutionary theory in doubt? and if so, why are evolutionists teaching the conclusion before finding the gap? That is not really the scientific method at work.
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 32 of 55 (502894)
03-13-2009 10:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by lyx2no
03-13-2009 10:04 AM
|
|
Re: An easy trap to fall into
lyx2no writes: ID is a bit troublesome in that regard because it is certainly religious in nature, and narrowly religious at that. That makes it's rightful place a narrowly tailored, religious class, which requires the government to support some religions over others. an even bigger dilemma is that the bible is not a science book and does not teach the subject...sure there are a few instances where the bible touches on science indirectly, such as the creation account/the water cycle/matters of geology etc, but it doesnt provide any specific details so to try and apply the bible in science is like trying to apply a cooking book to agriculture
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 10:04 AM | | lyx2no has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 38 by Taz, posted 03-16-2009 8:07 PM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 43 of 55 (503256)
03-17-2009 4:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
03-16-2009 9:19 AM
|
|
Re: An easy trap to fall into
Percy writes: Creation science and ID proponents want views taught that are way outside the scientific mainstream, and they're trying to achieve this not by the quality of their research but by the strength of their political efforts before school boards and state legislatures. No other science has ever entered the classrooms of this country through political mandate, and hopefully we all agree that what gets taught in science class should be legitimate science. ID does appear to be a refutation to evolution... personally i think it is always good to keep opposing views on the table but once politics enters into any debate it becomes corrupted.
Percy writes: When creation scientists and/or ID scientists begin producing scientific advances then they'll start persuading large groups of scientists and will become part of the mainstream. But that hasn't happened yet, so teaching creation science or ID in science classrooms would not be legitimate at this point. Im inclined to agree. I would like to see them do more in the area of ID because i think it would be pretty fascinating ... not that i think they will find the creator thru their research...but it will certainly give us an good insight into his creative mind. I did look in a book store for an ID book, but they didnt have any...i got a steven hawking book instead and its an amazing read. (A Briefer History of Time0 Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by Percy, posted 03-16-2009 9:19 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by Percy, posted 03-17-2009 5:35 AM | | Peg has replied |
|
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: 11-22-2008
|
|
|
Message 45 of 55 (503263)
03-17-2009 5:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
03-17-2009 5:35 AM
|
|
Re: An easy trap to fall into
Percy writes: It is only when it comes to the evolution of what he terms irreducibly complex microbiological structures like the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade of biochemical reactions that he believes an intelligent designer must have played a role. well here's a question, if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion so why is his study & research not considered science? is it because he draws a conclusion (designed by intelligence) without physical evidence of a designer?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Percy, posted 03-17-2009 5:35 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2