Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
36 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (5 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,376 Year: 22,412/19,786 Month: 975/1,834 Week: 45/430 Day: 0/45 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 3309 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


(3)
Message 1 of 142 (574761)
08-17-2010 5:10 PM


I think that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience based on the objective measures (definition of science, requirements of a theory, methodology, etc) and I address these in other posts. This post is admittedly much more subjective: there are many aspects of Intelligent Design that have the "earmarks" of being simply a Trojan Horse for Creationism. These are particularly evident when compared to countless examples in history when an unpopular and unaccepted theory became mainstreamed.

1. The push into public schools.
Even if Discovery Institute now claims that it has no interest in teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, it cannot be denied that this was a primary goal during the early Intelligent Design movement. Many legal cases have occurred directly addressing whether it is acceptable to teach ID in public schools.

Compare this to the Theory of Continental Drift, which, just like ID, was unpopular and unaccepted when it was first proposed. It gained acceptance by publishing in peer-review literature, and by convincing other scientists first. Alfred Wegener certainly never proposed teaching this theory in public schools before it gained a scientific majority. Why didn't he?

2. The Wedge Document
Whether you consider the Wedge Document outdated or unofficial, it is still a clear statement by the leading organization supporting Intelligent Design that Design Theory is to be used as a tool to change the philosophical views of Americans. The document sets out certain goals to be achieved (number of books to be written, a number of papers to be published, etc) in order for ID to achieve its goal.

Compare this to the discovery of Dark Matter by Vera Rubin. With her work originally dismissed by peers, Vera Rubin's suggestion was able to win over advocates until it is fairly widely accepted today. But Dark Matter doesn't have a document like the Wedge document: spelling out a 'strategy' to gain acceptance.
Why doesn't it?

3. Impressing the Public
Intelligent Design organizations hold seminars and debates. They run a podcast and tend to focus more on publishing books for the layman rather than scientific research. That's all well and good, but real science tends to follow a different pattern:

Compare this to the original suggestion that the mitochondria is actually the remnant of a bacterial symbiotic relationship, popularized by Lynn Margulis. Although this hypothesis is not yet quite in consensus, it is certainly much more widely held than when first proposed. And yet, Lynn Margulis did not participate in public debates, give public seminars, or write (to my knowledge) layman-level books in support of the idea.
Why not?

Why does Intelligent Design have these aspects about it while these other cases of unpopular theories gaining reputation do NOT use these tactics?

Edited by Fiver, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 08-20-2010 5:57 AM Fiver has not yet responded
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 08-20-2010 7:04 AM Fiver has not yet responded
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 08-20-2010 11:03 AM Fiver has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 8:54 AM Fiver has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3911
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 142 (575466)
08-20-2010 4:54 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Intelligent Design vs. Real Science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 142 (575480)
08-20-2010 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
08-17-2010 5:10 PM


A very good point. I think the thing to remember is that science goes out of it's way to regect the hypothesis and accept the H0.

Creation science works to accept the H1 and regect the H0.

Creationism has a vested intrest in reaching a priori conclusions so is inherently biased towards it's a priori assumptions.

Edited by Larni, : Spellink


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 5:10 PM Fiver has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 4 of 142 (575499)
08-20-2010 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
08-17-2010 5:10 PM


A few comments:

1) Your point here is probably understated. As was revealed in the Dover trial Intelligent Design began as a relabelling of creationism specifically to get around a court ruling keeping it out of science classes.
Dembski once wrote an article alleging that Intelligent Design must be taught in schools to recruit people to do the research to back it up which seems to be a pretty clear case of putting the cart before the horse.
(So far as I can tell this essay is no longer online).

2) The DI asserts that the Wedge document was a draft fund-raising document. Which rather suggests that it accurately describes their aims - otherwise it would be fraudulent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 5:10 PM Fiver has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2535 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 5 of 142 (575534)
08-20-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
08-17-2010 5:10 PM


Compare this to the discovery of Dark Matter by Vera Rubin. With her work originally dismissed by peers, Vera Rubin's suggestion was able to win over advocates until it is fairly widely accepted today. But Dark Matter doesn't have a document like the Wedge document: spelling out a 'strategy' to gain acceptance.
Why doesn't it?

The fact is most scientific theories were met with outright rejection or at least a large dose of skepticism. The main difference between all of these and ID, is research. Plate Tectonics, originally called continental drift, originally was rebuked by science since there was no known mechanism to move continents, through research it was found that the earths crust consists of plates which move by magma pushing at plate boundaries moving plates apart and at other boundaries, one plate move under another. (italics simplified events)


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 1 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 5:10 PM Fiver has not yet responded

  
mosassam
Junior Member (Idle past 3256 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 6 of 142 (578862)
09-02-2010 9:52 PM


Life
Can anyone - evolutionist, creationist or intelligent designer - explain exactly what they mean by the term LIFE?

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 09-02-2010 10:00 PM mosassam has not yet responded
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 09-02-2010 10:33 PM mosassam has not yet responded
 Message 15 by dennis780, posted 10-29-2010 7:24 AM mosassam has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31798
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 7 of 142 (578866)
09-02-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mosassam
09-02-2010 9:52 PM


Re: Life
No more than the SCOTUS can describe pornography.

There are things that we can say are definitely alive, like most family, and things we can say are definitely not alive, like rocks, but at some point the difference is so small and subjective that we cannot say definitely or can only say that at times the thing is alive and at other times it is not.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mosassam, posted 09-02-2010 9:52 PM mosassam has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4788
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 8 of 142 (578872)
09-02-2010 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mosassam
09-02-2010 9:52 PM


Re: Life
The problem is "LIFE" is a human construct subject to variable definition. We can tell the difference between rocks and frogs, for sure, but in the finer details like between viruses and prions, there will be disagreement.

For my own purposes, I use complex chemistry in continuous action as one definition which is wholly inadequate, but I like it none the less.

BTW, there is no real difference between a creationist and an IDist. They are exactly the same thing except that one wears a false mustache to try and hide its identity. For the biblical creationists the "Life" thing is rather easy. It is the woo-majik their version of a god breathes into clay figurines. Get breathed on, you're a frog. Don't get breathed on, you're a rock. Simple.

Edited by AZPaul3, : spelin

Edited by AZPaul3, : more spelin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mosassam, posted 09-02-2010 9:52 PM mosassam has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by wayforward, posted 09-24-2010 12:47 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 16 by dennis780, posted 10-29-2010 7:34 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
wayforward
Junior Member (Idle past 3279 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 09-24-2010


Message 9 of 142 (583047)
09-24-2010 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by AZPaul3
09-02-2010 10:33 PM


Re: Life
Fiver, I agree with the points you have made. I am a member of the facebook group Intelligent Design vs Darwin and there is a usually a good discussion on here that you might be interested in. The link is:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Intelligent-Design-vs-Darwin/131435156895062?ref=ts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 09-02-2010 10:33 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 09-24-2010 1:20 PM wayforward has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4788
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 10 of 142 (583055)
09-24-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by wayforward
09-24-2010 12:47 PM


Re: Life
Hi wayforward. Welcome to EvC.

You hit the "reply" button on my message 8. Note that Fiver's message 1 also has a "reply" button.

It can be a bit confusing for a newbie but in this forum you can reply to any specific individual message within the thread by hitting the "reply" button on that specific message.

Welcome, again.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by wayforward, posted 09-24-2010 12:47 PM wayforward has not yet responded

  
Reveal
Junior Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 3
From: Crestview, FL
Joined: 10-28-2010


Message 11 of 142 (588890)
10-28-2010 9:50 PM


So were here by chance? accident?
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are10^40:1
[according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981].

This implies that the coding and structure of DNA was carefully assembled and put together by a designer; an intelligent Creator.
There dosent seem to be anything that accurately explains "accidents" and "just because" that seem believable.
Is it possible for biotic life to emerge from abiotic life?

Did we invent Artificial intelligence by accident? the CPU by accident? Even if we did we were THERE to make it happen, even if by accident.

There are seven days in a week, seven colors in a rainbow, seven layers of the atmosphere, seven continents, seven seas, seven miracles that Jesus Christ performed in the gospel of John. Seven seems to be God's favorite number since He rested on the seventh day.

Living breathing organisms have DNA, a double helix; rocks do not.

Our world is so beautiful, it was created for us. We have dominion over every living thing on this planet. The sky is blue and the trees and herbs are green. Those two colors, pyschologically, are the two most soothing colors to the eye(in the visible spectrum)

Any thoughts/arguments?


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 10:08 PM Reveal has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 10-28-2010 10:15 PM Reveal has not yet responded
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 10-28-2010 10:41 PM Reveal has not yet responded
 Message 18 by dennis780, posted 10-29-2010 8:04 AM Reveal has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 142 (588893)
10-28-2010 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Reveal
10-28-2010 9:50 PM


Re: So were here by chance? accident?
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are10^40:1
[according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981].

What's the basis for this calculation? What were the beginning assumptions and how does the math go?

If it's like most of these types calculations, all it is doing to calculating the odds of the various bits of DNA all coming together at once to form a functioning DNA molecule. Since no scientist believes this is how it was formed, such a calculation is meaningless.

There are seven days in a week, seven colors in a rainbow, seven layers of the atmosphere, seven continents, seven seas, seven miracles that Jesus Christ performed in the gospel of John. Seven seems to be God's favorite number since He rested on the seventh day.

Most of these figures are arbitrary or wrong. For example, there are not seven colors in a rainbow. A rainbow is literally a continuous spectrum of different colors shading from what are commonly called red to violet. Any appearance of distinct colors is an illusion.

Have you ever heard of a PRATT? You've given us a fairly common collection.

Are you here for college credit? If so, please stop in at this thread and say hello.

And welcome! May you find your time here educational and informative.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Reveal, posted 10-28-2010 9:50 PM Reveal has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 451 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 13 of 142 (588894)
10-28-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Reveal
10-28-2010 9:50 PM


Re: So were here by chance? accident?
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are10^40:1
[according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981].

This implies that the coding and structure of DNA was carefully assembled and put together by a designer; an intelligent Creator.

The problems with those calculating odds against some form of evolution are many. First, mathematics can be used to prove anything, but is only meaningful when it is attached to the real world in some way. And Fred Hoyle, as a biologist, was a good astronomer.

Here is another of the problems: if you have to roll the dice and get 50 sixes, how would you do it? Mathematicians would tell you that you'd be there for centuries. A biologist just might roll all 50 dice, then roll any that didn't show a six. He'd be done by lunch with plenty of time for a long mid-morning break.

This seems to be more of the way evolution works. As such, I don't pay a lot of attention to those posting such huge odds. Especially since there was one creationist on another website who kept posting the odds against evolution as 1720. He couldn't understand why those of us who had studied some science were laughing at him.

There dosent seem to be anything that accurately explains "accidents" and "just because" that seem believable.
Is it possible for biotic life to emerge from abiotic life?

It looks like that is possible. There is some evidence that points in that direction. On the other hand, there is as of yet no scientific evidence for supernatural creatures. Every claim for the supernatural that has been successfully tested has concluded that nature could suffice. Examples: Thunder created by Thor's hammer, disease caused by evil spirits, and the earth being the center of the universe.

Did we invent Artificial intelligence by accident? the CPU by accident? Even if we did we were THERE to make it happen, even if by accident.

Bad analogy. Has no meaning in the real world.

There are seven days in a week, seven colors in a rainbow, seven layers of the atmosphere, seven continents, seven seas, seven miracles that Jesus Christ performed in the gospel of John. Seven seems to be God's favorite number since He rested on the seventh day.

Means nothing. You also have the trinity, and 40 days used in a lot of places.

Living breathing organisms have DNA, a double helix; rocks do not.

Again, meaningless.

Our world is so beautiful, it was created for us. We have dominion over every living thing on this planet. The sky is blue and the trees and herbs are green. Those two colors, pyschologically, are the two most soothing colors to the eye(in the visible spectrum)

Again, meaningless.

You are letting religious belief cloud your thinking to such a degree that you are ignoring real world evidence.

As a test, what is your position on a global flood about 4,350 years ago and the age of the earth? Your answers to these questions could confirm my thoughts in the above sentence.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Reveal, posted 10-28-2010 9:50 PM Reveal has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5587
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 14 of 142 (588901)
10-28-2010 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Reveal
10-28-2010 9:50 PM


Re: So were here by chance? accident?
shadow71 writes:
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are10^40:1
[according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981].

You chose a good day on which to post that. Larry Moran has just shown how silly it is, on a post to his blog:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-plays-bridge.html


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Reveal, posted 10-28-2010 9:50 PM Reveal has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3121 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 15 of 142 (588919)
10-29-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by mosassam
09-02-2010 9:52 PM


Re: Life
quote:
Can anyone - evolutionist, creationist or intelligent designer - explain exactly what they mean by the term LIFE?

It is too general a question, but I could muster a general answer. Life would be the internal ability of an organism, or group of organisms to be self sufficient, reproduce, in order to distinguish itself from dead organisms and inorganic objects.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mosassam, posted 09-02-2010 9:52 PM mosassam has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019