Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID properly pursued?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 94 (97869)
04-05-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Stephen ben Yeshua
04-05-2004 12:10 PM


temporary foothills
my adaptation island has a much higher than average fitness
I am glad you have such a high opinion of yourself. Most people do, and many do it by ignoring the mountains around them that they cannot see through the clouds of their bubble filter. Perhaps "sub-optimal" was a little harsh seeming, but only if you consider if possible to be fully optimal on all levels: I don't. I am glad you like the phrase and that it inspires you ... perhaps you will find new heights.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 04-05-2004 12:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 94 (136574)
08-24-2004 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


edited OT
edited OT by addition of text in yellow, in part as result of discussion with ID man, who I would like to thank for making me be a little more specific on this point.
(now in tan to be less obtrusive)
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*30*2005 08:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 94 (204576)
05-03-2005 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


bump for Jerry Don Bauer
This is the thread that I have noted before.
Please stick to science in any replies.
Enjoy.
{{added by edit: use the link to message 1 and reply to that one if you want}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*03*2005 07:01 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 94 (251965)
10-15-2005 12:13 PM


bump for Jeremy
what ID is and what it should be, imho.
Start at first message:
http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 4:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 94 (252233)
10-16-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by bkelly
10-16-2005 4:07 PM


Re: What is the goal of ID?
Excellent.
That depends on your motive and your goals.
IF the {motive\goal\purpose} is purely and unequivocably to determine if there is natural evidence of a designer, then science - all science - is a tool in that endeavor (as is philosophy, natural and cultural history, and our sum total knowledge). No single concept can be pre-determined, no stone unturnable.
In this regard ID becomes agnostic-Deism or Deism-lite, because ID deals only with natural evidence and makes no claim on the supernaturalness of the designer.
(see Deism - Wikipedia for more on Deism.)
IF, on the other hand, there is rejection of one or more scientific findings, theories or fields, then one can conclude that this stated goal {to determine if there is natural evidence of a designer} is NOT being followed purely and unequivocably, but is being subverted to some other motive, goal or purpose.
Any movement for such a purpose would not be to enhance our knowledge of "life, the universe, and everything" but to force it into some boxed preconception that is limited by the rejection of knowledge.
Only when you understand the goal of a movement can you begin to determine if it is being properly pursued.
By the movement followers. There is still the possibility of it being properly pursued by others that are disaffected with the "movement" but not with the concept.
In this regard I see room for discussion of ID concepts outside of science classes and with input from others that are not associated with the "movement" crowd to provide balance and alternative thinking choices. I see this as a social science type class.
This could be a tool to allow people of faith to become more engaged in real science, to engage their wonder and awe in the pursuit of greater knowledge. This could be incorporated into a philosophy of science class.
It could also be a way to introduce people to the faith of many of our founding fathers and the distinctions they drew between their beliefs and those of the more established religions. And this would be more in a history kind of class.
But it must be free of {dogma\idealism\movement} or it is doomed to be subverted.
Hence some of my ambivalence on ID ideas.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 4:07 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 5:33 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 94 (252267)
10-16-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by bkelly
10-16-2005 5:33 PM


Re: What is the goal of ID?
Yes I am familiar with "brights" and have seen Nuggins thead, posted on it early.
The pre-emptive action is to step forward, box them in within their chosen limitations:
Teach both sides of the design controversy (Silly Design)
Teach both sides of the designer question (Deism)
Teach facts (columns that debunk mythperceptions)
I am becoming mare jaded and pessimistic than you and most others.
IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion) the IDist has a different view. The given is that ID is correct and goddidit.
So don't let them have the whole table.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 5:33 PM bkelly has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 94 (467998)
05-26-2008 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Marcosll
05-26-2008 7:37 AM


Re: ID
Hello Marcosll,
Contrary to popular belief (because it's taboo in science) there are many scientific (used in the strict sense of the word) studies that show there is something metaphysical in the human mind occurs and can affect the world around.
Nothing is "taboo" in science except conjectures unsupported by evidence. Look up paranormal studies.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Marcosll, posted 05-26-2008 7:37 AM Marcosll has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 94 (468634)
05-30-2008 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Marcosll
05-30-2008 10:09 AM


Re: ID
Hello again Macosll,
From your link
quote:
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.
In other words, by definition, NOT science.
This does not mean that such ideas are useless or silly, just that they can not be investigated by a scientific approach.
Not everything can. That's life.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Marcosll, posted 05-30-2008 10:09 AM Marcosll has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 94 (515428)
07-17-2009 8:43 PM


traderdrew, traderdrew, paging traderdrew ...
In Message 24 on the "What exactly is ID?" thread traderdrew says:
If you wish to understand Intelligent Design, I would suggest starting with getting rid of any sterotypes you have of what a creationist is because if we were creationists, then we should call ourselves that. I think this sentence will elict laughs from my Darwinist friends on this forum.
You see creationists take issues and work from science and they attempt to shoehorn those issues into a biblical framework. Proponents of ID should not attempt to do this. (At least not all of them do this.) They should look at the natural world from various scientific fields and form hypotheses from them.
From wikipedia:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]
I completely agree with the first part of this definition but what comes after the comma, I do not completely agree with. I think they might be confusing 'natural selection' with 'common descent'. From my point of view, natural selection can be described as a part of chaos. Natural selection is an undirected process but order can be hidden within chaos. Chaos theory is an emerging branch of science. I believe in natural selection and I also believe in common descent as formed by a process I call assemblism.
So where do proponents of ID draw their beliefs from? Very briefly:
1. Molecular machinery inside of the cell. An example would be irreducibly complex systems.
2. Patterns of appearance of organisms in the fossil record.
3. The fine-tuned physics of the universe. Robin Collins is an expert in this.
4. The fine-tuning of our terrestrial environment and our solar system along with the specific "galactic habitable zone" in our galaxy which is also the right type of galaxy that supports life. If any of you doubt me on this, read the book "Rare Earth" which is divorced from any sort of theological framework. The science we have now is different from the era of Carl Sagan.
5. The complex specified information within DNA providing specific functions that helps build organisms. Abiogenesis models typically do not attempt to explain the origin of this information. They also don't account for other crucial details.
I will be investigating a new area next week I could list as a possible #6. I have a strong lead came from a one on one interview I had personally with a biologist who was a secular Darwinist. I never heard of it being advanced by any proponent of ID so I find the propects exciting.
What is important for you to understand is that most of these things were relatively or virtually unknown 20 years ago!!! The trend for ID is up and the gaps in secular evolution are growing. I think we will win.
Don't take what we all say at face value.
"Beware of one one hand clapping."
What is ID to me?
Not only is it a learning process, it is a way of perception. It is a way of seeing through the irrational debate of secular evolutionists with critical analysis. I might make a good philosopher of science.
By the way, if you are impressed with the eruditeness of my post, don't let me fool you. I am an amateur and I have no official crucial scientific training. However, I have a brain and I have a background in other things formed by self-education through some experiences I have had in life. I think this gives me a unique perspective.
If you wish to understand Intelligent Design, I would suggest starting with getting rid of any sterotypes ...
You see creationists take issues and work from science and they attempt to shoehorn those issues into a biblical framework.
The reason for this confusion is creationists that promote ID. There would be no need to confuse them if creationists didn't use ID. Perhaps this is more of their attempt to make reality fit their belief (which we know is a false process).
Another problem is the attacks on evolution by ID when rationally this could be an argument for the fine tuning of life. Once you have discarded creationism, then there is no reason to insist on the creation of kinds and specific life forms, and you are free to consider that the natural laws were established so that (a) life would develop in many places and (b) that life would naturally evolve into complex thinking organisms.
From my point of view, natural selection can be described as a part of chaos. Natural selection is an undirected process but order can be hidden within chaos. Chaos theory is an emerging branch of science.
Chaos could well have been used to make as diverse a universe as possible so that the opportunities for different forms of life in different places could be maximized.
Proponents of ID should not attempt to do this. (At least not all of them do this.) They should look at the natural world from various scientific fields and form hypotheses from them.
Agreed. This is the basis for my thread here - the proper pursuit of Intelligent Design (see Message 1)
I believe in natural selection and I also believe in common descent as formed by a process I call assemblism.
I'm interested in how you define "assemblism" and how you differentiate it from evolution.
I might make a good philosopher of science.
Which is where I conclude that ID could be taught and studied.
... I would suggest starting with getting rid of any sterotypes you have ...
It is a way of seeing through the irrational debate of secular evolutionists with critical analysis.
It would appear that evolutionists aren't the only ones that need to lose their reliance on stereotyped people. At least you state secular rather than atheist, so you get a positive mark for that, unfortunately it is negated by your implication that all evolutionists are irrational.
I'm a Deist, and I consider ID to be an inherently poor version of deism, because it relies too much on a priori concepts, and logical fallacies (such as the argument from incredulity), and it is not self-policing in discarding falsified concepts.
An example would be irreducibly complex systems.
Can you explain what makes IC applicable in your mind?
Consider this example: the Bridge of Ross in Ireland
You may not be able to see this clearly, but this is a naturally formed keystone arch, where the rock has fractured into many small blocks, and they are held in place by the pressure of gravity, there is no cement. You cannot remove a block without the arch collapsing, you cannot build the arch with blocks assembled one at a time with just the structure that is here.
This is an IC system. It formed naturally by sedimentary layers being deposited, lithified into rock, uplifted into an arch and subsequently fractured into small blocks and cleared out by the erosion of the original supporting structure. There is no magic here.
Consider this example: a flying bat
WIthout bones, the wing fails. WIthout a flap of skin, the wing fails. Without muscles to hold the wing out, the wing fails.
Yet we see organisms that evolve skin, then muscles, then limbs, and we see intermediate forms all along the way, right up to several gliding forms where the skin is adapted to become the flight membrane:
There is no magic here.
What convinces you that IC is anything but a trumped up god-of-the-gaps explanation?
4. The fine-tuning of our terrestrial environment and our solar system along with the specific "galactic habitable zone" in our galaxy which is also the right type of galaxy that supports life. If any of you doubt me on this, read the book "Rare Earth" which is divorced from any sort of theological framework. The science we have now is different from the era of Carl Sagan.
Tell me, do you think, now that we have theorized a universe created with maximum diversity via chaos, that life would develop on a planet that was not fit for life? Or would not the seeds of life that we can see liberally spread throughout the universe (prebiotic chemicals in space that can form amino acids), necessarily find fruit on a planet where life can develop? Can you explain how this differs from the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy?
Is the environment "finely tuned" for life as we know it, or has life become "finely tuned" to the environment where it happens to live?
That's probably enough for now - let's focus on these issues before moving on to the rest or any new ones:
1. What is "assemblism"?
2. What is special about IC systems?
3. What is really meant by "fine tuning" of systems?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:42 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 94 (515531)
07-18-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by traderdrew
07-18-2009 10:42 AM


Re: traderdrew, traderdrew, paging traderdrew ...
Hi traderdrew,
One thread at a time please. If you really want something from me here, then let me give you what came off the top of my mind.
I thought you would appreciate my take on ID, what it is, and what it could\should be.
How does the squirrel or the glider (a marsupial?) develop the very first stages of flight before they actually fly? What spurs the initial stages of this development? I'm sure neo-Darwinism has an answer for it. I think hopping from branch to branch would account for it. But what types of random mutaions would account commence the thin membranes to form?
The normal explanation is that genetic variation resulting from mutations means that some skin forms small webs between arm and side, and this slight difference allows a squirrel to jump a little further, leading to increased access to food and increased ability to evade some predators.
I would think Lamarckism would be a more plausible explanation.
How does one acquire a webbing of skin by use?
How does this trait get passed to following generations?
The reason that Lamarckism has been discarded, is that there is no known mechanism to pass a developed trait to your offspring. Developing muscles, for instance, does not change your DNA, and the development is not conveyed to your sperm\eggs.
How does neo-Paleyism explain the similarity of the sugar-glider to the flying squirrel?
If there is a design element directing certain aspects of evolution, then would not there be evidence of this in the patterns of evolution?
Why would convergent evolution be necessary?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : spling

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 10:42 AM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-15-2009 1:14 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 94 (539441)
12-15-2009 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Bolder-dash
12-15-2009 1:14 PM


Re: traderdrew, traderdrew, paging traderdrew ...
Hi Bolder-dash,
This is one of the kinds of explanations that evolutionists make about how complex features could have formed, that is the most unsatisfying to me.
In your scenario the creature obtained a small mutation (I assume it must be quite small, because we don't see many of these gross mutations forming in all of our observations of animal populations).
There are two problems with this: (1) this thread is not about what is wrong with evolution, but about what is wrong with ID -- IS ID PROPOERLY PURSUED -- and (2) variation is common.
Variation in the amount of skin on a body makes some slightly loose skinned compared to others, and we see this in all kinds of animals and even in humans.
-- The animals that preceded this mutation apparently were finding food just fine, so were they really that handicapped compared to this new mutant?
And they don't need to be for the mutation to survive and spread, so this is no argument against this process.
--The mutation would have had to have been exactly symmetrical on this mutants body to be of any use at all.
Nope, it just needed to be symetrical enough, as the animal with a larger flap on one side can compensate by folding the arm or by adjusting the tail position in the same way that flying squirrels steer.
--How much further could a squirrel with a little flap of skin jump compared to one with none, a few inches?
A few inches is sufficient to have a survival differential in some cases, and that is sufficient for natural selection to keep the mutation in the population and weed out the lesser flapped animals in the population.
--Were there other mutations also going on within the population that were giving other individuals advantages, that the one with the flap of skin didn't have?
That would cause a divide in the population that could result in speciation where both beneficial mutations evolved on different paths, and in any event this does not prevent the skin flap development from proceeding to be selected for the survival advantages.
--This zero point mutant (the original) gives birth to a second with a similar mutation. Once again, this small advantage is trumping all other advantages within the population,
Nope, it does not need to "trump" all others, it only needs to be passed on. Initially this can be by neutral drift where the small difference in skin tightness is neither beneficial nor detrimental.
--How many generations do you want to continue down the line of this squirrels ancestry before the next mutation that improves upon this one occurs?
Irrelevant. Either there is a selective advantage that is then part of the normal traits around which variation in the degree of development is subject to selection or it isn't. Evolution does not require a direction. With variation in degree of expression\development and active selection, the ones with larger flaps will continue to be selected. Much of the development in organisms is just variation in how much certain parts are done, making part X and making more of part X is not a major genetic shift and can be regulated by hormones, hormones that the parents being skin flap individuals would have more than non-skin flap individuals.
--Could the descendant of this squirrel get a different mutation, like say better camouflage which could help it to survive, ...
It could, and then it would take a different evolutionary path if it was beneficial, from descendants that did not have any different mutation, and so this too would not stop the evolution of flying squirrels.
--While we are sifting through these generations upon generations of selecting, are the needs for survival staying constant?
Doesn't matter. Either the trait continues to be selected by survival advantage or it doesn't. When we see an organism with a development like the flying squirrel it is apparent that selection still gives them an advantage. The selection pressure can change but the trait can still provide a slight advantage in the changing ecologies. Certainly traits that allow prey to avoid predators will always be under selection pressure to some degree.
--Did the guy who got the first beneficial mutation (beneficial mutations don't happen very often right, much less often then detrimental ones, correct?) also happen to be born with a parasite in his intestine which caused him to die before he could reproduce?
--Or was he at the wrong place at the wrong time and happened to have gotten picked off by an eagle when he was only 6 months old?
--If the first zero mutant of such good fortune didn't happen to get picked off by the eagle, but his son did, we are right back to the same problem again right?
Amusingly this would mean that the mutation would never have been passed on. Perhaps a tree fell on him, or the sky. So?
--Can we list ANY examples of beneficial mutations that we have observed in nature as a starting point, that has the potential to give one individual a bio mechanical advantage which could lead to the creation of a new trait? ONE? Ever?
Sadly this is irrelevant to the discussion of how mutations can build up in a species.
Now I honestly believe I could go on and on with the logical difficulties your theory faces, but the problem is that your side wants to brush EVERYONE of these difficulties aside, and claim it is the ID's or creationists who are living in a faiy land void of empirical evidence.
And yet, amusingly, not one of the things you listed is any kind of real problem, they are just ad hoc imagination scenarios that avoid the issue of natural selection operating on variation in populations. You have provided:
(1) no reason why evolution cannot work
(2) no reason why ID would provide a better answer
Now that we have dealt with your irrelevant rant against evolution let's get down to the issue of whether or not ID is properly pursued. Message 1:

What it should be
The concept of ID properly pursued to it's logical end, would use all the available evidence of all the available sciences in the search for evidence of the Designer. The concept of ID properly pursued, would include (but not be limited to) all the actual factual evidence for: physics (from sub-atomic particle, to cosmic inflation and string theories, to a 13.7+ billion year old universe, to the questions of the reality of dark matter and energy), geology (of a 4.55 billion year old earth formed from the stellar debris of previous cosmically generated materials, with layers of material organized by age and distribution by the forces of preceding tectonic, volcanic, sedimentary and other processes), paleontology (the organization of fossils found by the time and lineage relationships, the layered development that builds from single cells 3.5 million years ago to the vast complexity of modern life and finally to the many varied hominid lineages and relationships, to the array of branches of taxonomy and why they are branches and not a web of some kind), archaeology (the world wide variety and diversity of culture and artifact and development from the first humans to present day modern man and the complete absence of any evidence of hominid existence below the iridium layer that covers the earth from the impact event 65 million years ago ending the age of the dinosaurs, to say nothing of the lack of evidence of any "modern" humans before 10 million years ago), genetics (the study of genes, how they work and the genetic trees of life relationships they show), evolution (the documented changes of life with time from those first single cells to modern complexity, the phylogenic trees of life relationships, the process by which life changes, tries new features, adapts to new needs), xenobiology (considering the possibilities and possible variety of extraterrestrial life) ... as well as all the other disciplines of science, and including how all these sciences relate to and confirm one another even though they are based on different sets of data (the genetic tree matching the phylogenic one, the geological age matching the physics and cosmological age, etc.).
Do you disagree with this argument? Have you read the opening post? If you haven't read the opening post, then how do you know what the topic is about?
You will say to the ID side, well how do you account for this, and for that, and so on...and yet you can't account for any of these issues, let alone all of them. But you STILL claim to have science on your side.
Let's dispose of a misconception. My beef is that ID is NOT being properly pursued, and that it is - as commonly used - a poor cousin of the original argument from design. I am a Deist, and this means I support a properly pursued ID investigation AND all of science. There is no conflict: science is used in the proper pursuit of [Deism\ID], not the other way around. Properly pursued, [Deism\ID] is a religious philosophy based on reason and logic and the scientific knowledge of reality.
If you have problems with evolution, it isn't because it is in any necessary conflict with ID per se, as both evolution and ID can be true. This holds for any scientific theory or study.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-15-2009 1:14 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 8:01 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 94 (539544)
12-16-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Bolder-dash
12-16-2009 8:01 AM


Stick to the topic and not your personal peeves.: Is ID being properly pursued or not
Hi Bolder-dash, having another tantrum? Getting banned for bad behavior again?
This topic absolutely must deal with how well the ToE is able to prove its own points, before they should have the right to be making any criticism about what ID can and can not prove.
Absolutely categorically undeniably false. If ID is valid, or done in a valid way, the theories of evolution in specific, and science in general, are irrelevant. ID, if done as science, lives or fails by how well it actually does testable repeatable science, no matter what other theories are around, no matter what other concepts are around.
There is no valid theory that depends on the failure of another theory for validation -- NOT ONE.
If you don't understand this, then you do not understand what science is, and what ID needs to be if it wants to be science.
If it wants to be philosophy, then it does not matter what science is, it only matters what is true. This of course means what science says is true as well.
These things need to be understood and accepted in order for ID to be pursued in a valid and proper manner.
I specifically asked for your proof in my first thread, and you gave me finches with varying beak sizes, peppered moths that are sometime abundant and sometimes not, and a tribe in New Guinea that appeared to develop a drug resistance with a few short decades.
You specifically asked for examples of natural selection being tested. When you got answers to that, you then complained that it was not what you were looking for, and the rest of the thread was cluttered up with you (a) making complaints that people were not providing what you wanted, and (b) not defining what you wanted. You talk about moral authority but all you demonstrated was a complete unwillingness or inability to be honest about what you really wanted to discuss. You also never cited your source so that we could understand where you came from.
if that is what your side calls proof, then you don't have much moral authority to criticize ID.
Again, my side is the Deist side, the side that originally started the whole vast argument from design. YOU, and your creationist friends, are the interloper/s in this area, adopting bits and pieces, and using only half vast arguments, ones with wings clipped to fit your creationist preconceptions, to make a screen to hide behind, a straw man version, rather than the real thing, so when you talk about moral authority you do not have a leg to stand on.
Deism has been around for centuries, "ID" has only been around since 1998 when Phillip Johnson and his charlatan cohorts formed a covert group to: overturn the methodological naturalism of the scientific method ...through what they later called the "wedge strategy": the stated objective of this group is not to do science, but to undo science.
In other words, ID is an upstart false idol, run by creationists pretending to be something else, when instead it is a charade, a false facade, a scam. Don't talk to me about moral authority.
And I agree, there is no conflict in using science to pursue ID,...
Evolution is science.
... but most evolutionists refuse to even grant this, to such an extent that even the mention of it would (and does) get even one of the most qualified scientists of their profession disallowed their tenure because of it.
Please start another thread to discuss this issue of suppression, it does not belong here.
When I tell you to read the first post, Message 1, then you need to read the first post before responding further on what YOU want to talk about.
When I tell you that problems with evolution have nothing to do with whether ID is properly pursued or not, then you will not talk about the problems of evolution on this thread, but about the issue of whether ID is properly pursued or not, OR you will be in violation of forum guidelines and I will let the moderators know.
This thread is about whether ID is properly pursued or not. My position is that the current use of ID in the US is not the proper approach to the question of whether or not evidence of design can be discerned and clarified as evidence of a designer, because it is far too cluttered up with false preconceptions.
My position is that there is an opportunity to take this concept away from the charlatans and open it up to proper pursuit of the question of design -- with a skeptical but open mind, discarding religious preconceptions in the process, and focusing on what science can determine, and what science cannot determine.
Care to tackle that issue? Care to discard your preconceptions?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 8:01 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 2:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 94 (540577)
12-26-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Briterican
12-17-2009 2:25 PM


Re: Explanations are being pursued - if they point to ID, great, but they don't
Hi Briterican, sorry to take so long, but the chemo sessions wear me out.
My problem with this is that "pursuing ID" is like coming to a conclusion (things were designed by some intelligent agent) without evidence first, and then looking for evidence that might support that conclusion. Now that may not always be a bad strategy, but when the evidence doesn't point to the idea you started with, you need to be prepared to rethink that idea.
Yes, this is what I consider the kaleidoscope problem - look in one end and see a pretty pattern, look in the other and see jumbled bits and pieces - where there seems to be a pattern in certain evidence, but that it is the result of a natural process.
In the case of ID, I have not yet heard of any research that even in the slightest way points to an intelligent agent having designed things. As we have seen many times before in many threads, "irreducible complexity" is hogwash. Meanwhile there is a theory that provides for slow gradual change (ToE) which can explain the things that creationists call "intelligently designed"
Indeed, IC is a falsified concept as far as demonstrating that intelligence must be involved. Of course most the average IDologists don't appear to understand the concept of falsification, and cling to their preconceptions.
I think we should pursue the evidence and let it take us where it may. On first glance many things may appear designed, but we have learned that a remarkable appearance of design can come about in things that were nonetheless a result of naturalistic processes which did not rely on the direction of an intelligent agent.
One of my other threads may put some balance on this aspect: if we assume a designer then what can we deduce from the designs - see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
So to answer the question posed in the original post - "Is ID being properly pursued?" - I would say that the possibilty of intelligent design is being pursued every day in every bit of work that biologists do, whether they realise it or not: In other words, they are looking for evidence that will provide explanations of how things came to be the way they are - and they are finding evidence of naturalistic origins and a complete lack of evidence of any divine intervention.
Which brings me back around to the opening post on this thread, where all science is used to investigate the universe as it is, including evolution, where science explains how things happen, but leaves open the question of why they are the way they are.
Certainly we see that the use of evolutionary algorithms in computer models demonstrate the power of a simple system of variation plus selection to accomplish designs that we are not capable of by our own intellect, and that it would be easy to create a universe in which this process is used to develop intelligent sentient beings - whether they are people or some other form.
For ID to be properly pursued, in my opinion, means that one must discard all preconceptions of what can and what cannot occur, how things can occur and what we can know from science and what we cannot know.
This is where I think philosophy takes over from science, because answers for why things occur are not able to be answered by science, and this leaves us with logic and reason, perhaps with the differences in personal opinions to spice the discussions up.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 2:25 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 8:12 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 69 of 94 (540700)
12-27-2009 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Briterican
12-27-2009 8:12 AM


The proper pursuit of ID == the proper pursuit of knowledge, unhindered by biases
Thanks Briterican,
Sorry to hear that, and I wish you the best.
It's year four so far. See Cancer Survivors for more details, and ...
quote:
If you want to help, you can sign up to World Community Grid and let your computer work on solving cancer among other problems confronting human life on this planet.
See HIV Cancer Diabetes MDA and more - Solve on your computer for details:
quote:
More info (if you need it) at:
../projects_showcase/viewResearch.do
To join go to
World Community Grid
After you join as a member, join our team by selecting "join a team" and then go to {T section page 3} to pick "Team EvC" to join ("Team" is part of the team name, so we are the Team EvC Team).
To download the BOINC agent go to
World Community Grid
I recommend the BOINC agent over the standard UD agent, as that one can cause jerky mouse action unless throttled down, and the throttle mechanism is not that good.
We could use some new members.
I've seen this thread in bits and pieces. Perhaps it's time for me to review the entire thing.
I'm looking for contributions.
I like the way you've phrased this statement. I would add that because philosophy brings with it logic and reason, it is better equipped to pick up where science leaves off than is religion.
And this has been one of my continued interests - what can we know or posit about reality once the resources are science are exhausted, or where they cannot apply?
For me, it has to involve the pursuit of knowledge for it's own purpose, unhindered by any bias or precoception -- it is the love of knowledge at it's purest. Of course, this means being an open minded skeptic.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 8:12 AM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 70 of 94 (600605)
01-15-2011 2:14 PM


bump for Aaron
See Message 8 of Animals with bad design.
For Aaron or anyone else interested.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024