Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   "Creation Science" experiments.
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 396 (583466)
09-27-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by jar
09-27-2010 10:11 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
jar writes:
ID can be included in science as soon as you present sufficient evidence that there is an Intelligent Designer and place that Designer on the lab table so that we can test both its existence and its intelligence.
I think you are overstating the requirements for ID to be considered science when you require that the Designer be placed on the lab bench. Even indirect, circumstantional, material evidence for a designer ought to be sufficient as long as it leads logically, and nearly inevitably to the existence of the designer. What is important is that ID lead to predictions that can be verified by experiment.
Scientist know that stars are formed when the heat generated by gravitational collapse starts is sufficient to start hydrogen fusion. But nobody has ever collapsed a cloud of hydrogen in a lab.
My opinion is that ID is non scientific primarily because no methodology is given for identifying the designer's work other than the marvel or incredulity of the ID proponent. IDists simply adapt Justice Stewart's, "I know it when I see it" approach to identifying obsenity to identifying design work.
IMO, there is nothing wrong with believing things for non-scientific reasons. Only a few people have any real interest whatsoever in ID being considered science. Even most YECs accept that creation was a supernatural event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by jar, posted 09-27-2010 10:11 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by hooah212002, posted 09-27-2010 3:34 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 238 by jar, posted 09-27-2010 5:21 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 396 (583487)
09-27-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by hooah212002
09-27-2010 3:34 PM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
hooah212002 writes:
We have witnessed stars being born. What we have not witnessed, however, is a human or any other object created ex-nihilo, which is what IDists/creationists claim this designer can do.
You are setting a standard that many branches of science cannot meet.
I don't believe anyone has ever witnessed the process of a protostar becoming a star. The process simply takes too long. Instead we have observed many protostars and gas clouds in various pre-star states. In addition the process of star formation has been modeled on computers programmed with our understandings of how molecular clouds and plasmas behave. There is surely enough evidence supporting the scientific explanation of star formation, but it is all indirect evidence.
While we have not witnessed a human being created ex-nihilo, neither have we ever seen a human evolve from a non-human ancestor. All of the evidence for such evolution is indirect, but nevertheless convincing. In my opinion ID's failure to be science is not that it is not evidenced by direct observation, but that it is not empirically evidenced at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by hooah212002, posted 09-27-2010 3:34 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by hooah212002, posted 09-27-2010 7:09 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 396 (584147)
09-30-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Just Real writes:
If we can observe apc then we know for sure based on observation it was designed.
Isn't this just a circular argument? Doesn't APC really means complexity that must have been designed by intelligence? Under that definition, your statement that observing apc indicates design is inescapable. The real hypothesis in question here is found in your definition of APC. How is that tested? What experiments or observations would falsify that hypothesis? I believe your methodology for reolving that issue will go far in establishing that your version of ID is science. Or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by frako, posted 09-30-2010 3:52 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 304 of 396 (584522)
10-02-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Just being real
10-02-2010 4:44 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Your argument is circular because you make no serious attempt to define APC. From your post it seems you are well aware of the points you are taking heat about. Your response seems to be to attack the theory of evolution. That does your position no good. You need either a definition or a methodology that identifes APC and not mere skepticism about evolution.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 321 of 396 (584916)
10-04-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Just writes:
Using this method for measuring information communicated in the DNA strand we can see that it is indeed abstruse information, but there is another element to understanding information in DNA
And if you applied the same method to the digits of irrational transcendental numbers such as e or pi, what would you conclude? When these numbers show up in our analysis of objects, do we conclude that the objects are designed? Are raindrops designed? Is radioactive decay evidence of design?
On the other side how many bits of information does it take to represent a pointy stick?
quote:
One example that I have found useful that I picked up was that of tourists standing and observing Mount Rushmore. They recognize the faces from independent patterns (pictures from history books) which in turn initiate a specific response (recognition).
I do not see how this supports your theory. It's just an analogy that may or may not stretch to being able to distinguish designed objects from evolved objects. Perhaps all biological objects are evolved and apc correlates with some other aspect.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024