Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does intelligent design have creationist roots?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 46 of 151 (506692)
04-28-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Metascience
quote:
I don't trust the people who disseminate science to the public.
WOW!!!!!!
Because it is too dangerous? Because the public may question their beliefs? Because it takes power away from religion?
Your comment distills exactly what scares me about the fundamentalist, creationist, IDer mind set. The desire for a group of elites is so prevalent in that whole group. Guess we got to keep the masses ignorant in order to preserve our way of life.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:01 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:47 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 47 of 151 (506693)
04-28-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:26 AM


Re: Metascience
We can debate the epistemological obligations of science but I can't see how science can explain everything when it MUST dismiss any and all supernatural possibilities.
You can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, faked moon landings, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, a flat or hollow earth, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, crop circles, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, geocentrism, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, televangelists, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff. You can have it all, and knock yourself out!
I'll stick to science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:26 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:42 AM Coyote has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 48 of 151 (506694)
04-28-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Coyote
04-28-2009 11:32 AM


Re: Metascience
I agree. I can use my reasoning abilities if I wish to dismiss any of that other stuff.
May your science serve you well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Coyote, posted 04-28-2009 11:32 AM Coyote has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 49 of 151 (506695)
04-28-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
04-28-2009 11:31 AM


Re: Metascience
Dear Theodoric,
I strongly suggest that you use start to utilize your best judgement because there are people out there who want you to hear what they want you to hear. I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 04-28-2009 11:31 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 04-28-2009 12:00 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 52 by Michamus, posted 04-28-2009 1:08 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 55 by onifre, posted 04-29-2009 12:54 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 59 by RDK, posted 04-29-2009 7:06 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 50 of 151 (506696)
04-28-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Metascience
I don't trust the people who disseminate science to the public.
And I don't trust the people who disseminate 2000-3000 year old mumbo-jumbo, ie. the Bible, as law, history or as science.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:01 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 51 of 151 (506697)
04-28-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Metascience
I will leave science to the scientists. That is my best judgement. In science they have what is called peer-review. They usually don't just make shit up. If they do there is the peer review process.
Now in your mumbo-jumbo world, people can just say anything they want and say it is based on scripture. YOu expect me to balance science with mumbo-jumbo? I might as well just go down to the tarot card reader.
Science is based on facts. That other stuff is based upon people having faith. I will take facts over misguided faith anyday.
quote:
I strongly suggest that you use start to utilize your best judgement because there are people out there who want you to hear what they want you to hear.
Evangelists? Politicians? Faux News?
Oh BTW quit being condescending. You do not have any more answers than anyone else. If I want your advice I will ask for it. Oh, I won't be asking.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:47 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 52 of 151 (506704)
04-28-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Metascience
traderdrew writes:
I strongly suggest that you use start to utilize your best judgement because there are people out there who want you to hear what they want you to hear.
Has anyone ever not wanted someone to hear what they wanted them to hear? This is dribble.
traderdrew writes:
I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them.
Exactly! We should get our information from where they get their information, the universe. That's the beauty of scientific inquiry, you can always check someone's claim against the real world. If it doesn't measure up, then it is easily dismissed.
I certainly hope your other sources don't receive their information from a source YOU can't directly test. If that's the case, then they sound like the typical con man who's only evidence for their claim is "Just trust me".
Edited by Michamus, : typo, geesh, one of those nights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:47 AM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Phage0070, posted 04-28-2009 3:01 PM Michamus has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 151 (506717)
04-28-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Michamus
04-28-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Metascience
Michamus writes:
This is dribble.
I think you mean "drivel". Both imply a flowing liquid, but only the latter includes meaningless talk.
Michamus writes:
I certainly hope your other sources don't receive their information from a source YOU can't directly test. If that's the case, then they sound like the typical con man who's only evidence for their claim is "Just trust me".
On a personal note that was the first argument that my father used when I told him I saw no reason to be a Christian.
I think that a guiding line when getting your information is if the source of your information wants you to alter your behavior. When a scientist tells me that they found a new type of bird on an island that has adapted to its environment in an interesting way I tend to believe them. When a preacher tells me I will burn forever if I curse I tend not to believe them. If they want something out of you there is a clear motivation to lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Michamus, posted 04-28-2009 1:08 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Michamus, posted 04-29-2009 12:11 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 54 of 151 (506778)
04-29-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phage0070
04-28-2009 3:01 PM


Re: Metascience
Phage0070 writes:
I think that a guiding line when getting your information is if the source of your information wants you to alter your behavior.
What about a cardiologist saying you should eat less salty, fatty foods?
I see where you are coming from, but in my above mentioned scenario, you would be able to independently obtain the data on the effects of salty, fatty foods on your cardiovascular system. This is what defines the difference as you ACCEPT what independently verified information there is on the subject, rather than simply believe your cardiologist's claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phage0070, posted 04-28-2009 3:01 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 04-29-2009 6:11 PM Michamus has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 55 of 151 (506813)
04-29-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Metascience
I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them.
I agree that many sources of information may, given their credibility, help one form a much broader sense of what's right or worng. The point being made however, is that anyone is welcome to carry on any type of experimental analisis on the date collected. BUT, and this is of the upmost importance, those cunducting these inqueries MUST follow certain guildlines for how evidence and conclusions are rendered.
In science it is refered to as the Scientific Method:
quote:
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
So, given that anyone has the right to conduct any such investigation on their own, would you agree that the above method is the best way to do so, and, is the best way to verify that the conclusions are based on actual, observable evidence?
If you can agree to the above question, then I see no reason why you would be skeptical of science, or scientist, since they are held to the rigors of having to follow the scientific method, and any scientist not doing so will feel the effects of not doing his/her work properly.
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you see as a problem with modern science?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:47 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by traderdrew, posted 04-30-2009 12:08 PM onifre has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 56 of 151 (506835)
04-29-2009 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:26 AM


Re: Metascience
I.D. doesn't necessarily start out with the answers. At least I haven't looked at it only from this perspective.
Then you should take a second look.
Let's look at the poster child of ID: Irreducible Complexity. Let's even say that Behe is right for the sake of argument. These structures can not evolve through known evolutionary pathways. So what next?
The designer did it.
Where did that come from? How do you get from "not evolution" to "the designer did it" if you don't already start with the notion that the designer did it?
This is what we mean by starting with the conclusion. The push of ID is to disprove evolution so that their preconceived conclusion is left standing alone (and unsupported by evidence too boot). ID proponents know that they can't win a scientific argument so they try to rig the game so their opponent loses. From this perspective ID is no different from it's predecessor, Scientific Creationism.
We can debate the epistemological obligations of science but I can't see how science can explain everything when it MUST dismiss any and all supernatural possibilities.
We have a separate thread dealing with this topic, but suffice it to say that no one has shown us how the supernatural can be included in science. How does one set up experiments so that supernatural mechanisms can be tested?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:26 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 57 of 151 (506836)
04-29-2009 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:31 AM


Re: Metascience
I think it explains the evidence.
When I think of the word "explanation" I think of something that is exclusive in nature. That is, only under certain circumstances would my explanation be right.
For example, I think that micro-organisms cause infectious diseases. I think that germs explain the evidence. So what do I do? I test the idea. This brings us to one of the classic experiments, the Koch Postulates. These postulates make up a hypothesis, and if the conditions of the postulates are fulfilled then the explanation is right.
So how does the designer explanation live up to this standard? It doesn't. There is nothing that can not be explained by a designer. Nothing. An explanation that explains everything explains nothing. That is the problem with ID as it stands right now. It can not say what one should or should not find if ID is true. It can not describe the genetic markers that one should or should not see if ID is true. ID can not say what fossils one should or should not see.
In the end, ID is an attempt to add on scientific sounding words to a faith based belief that can not be tested nor falsified.
I am not criticizing evolution. I just don't believe in neo-Darwinism.
The first hurdle you must overcome is understanding that scientific theories are not beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:31 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 58 of 151 (506837)
04-29-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Michamus
04-29-2009 12:11 AM


Re: Metascience
deleted. Should have read the rest of your post. Sorry.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Michamus, posted 04-29-2009 12:11 AM Michamus has not replied

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 5269 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 59 of 151 (506847)
04-29-2009 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Metascience
I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them.
...so somehow gathering interpreted information from an even larger number of sources suddenly makes it okay?
Wouldn't that just increase the probability that the said source is putting its own spin on it? It would save you tons of time if you just looked at the evidence yourself.
There's a difference between getting a second opinion and going to an alternative medicine quack just on the basis of opinion "diversity".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 11:47 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 60 of 151 (506933)
04-30-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by onifre
04-29-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Metascience
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you see as a problem with modern science?
It would be quite a process if you wished to explain everything you encounter with science. Try explaining the people you need to deal with with science. Science doesn't explain everything in terms as though it is the truth. It gives the best explanation that fits the evidence until another theory comes along.
Consider the theory that the universe is a hologram and that it contains holograms within it of various sizes. So far, as strange as this theory may seem I have not encountered any evidence that refutes it. Maybe I have not dug deep enough. But there seems to be legitimate scientific evidence to support it. There also seems to be pseudo-scientific evidence that supports it. Where do you draw the line if there is scientific evidence that supports it and none that proves it wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by onifre, posted 04-29-2009 12:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Perdition, posted 04-30-2009 12:23 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 64 by Larni, posted 04-30-2009 12:57 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 65 by onifre, posted 04-30-2009 1:38 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 05-01-2009 4:02 PM traderdrew has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024