|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design vs. Real Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
You made an observfation that lots of peoples teeth hurt so you decide to look into the matter you take a look at the teeth of the people in pain and note your observations (damaged teeth, caries, inflammation of the gums....), How would you proceed if you wanted know where the peolple and their teeth came form, so and so forth, backwards and backwards. Since you have horribly misrepresented IDs approach in your example of the Red hot poker, there is very little reason to respond to an example that is way off base Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Since you have horribly misrepresented IDs approach in your example of the Red hot poker, there is very little reason to respond to an example that is way off base Well no i think i hit the nail on the head idists and creos have their silly idea and are working their way backwards to find observations and evidence to support it conveniently ignoring the evidence that is contrary to their idea and if someone brings that evidence up its the evidence that is wrong because their idea can never change.
How would you proceed if you wanted know where the peolple and their teeth came form, so and so forth, backwards and backwards. Well given that evolution is an established fact (yes it is evolution happened and is happening) your best bet would be to dig trough the fossil record and look for signs of how the teeth developed, like this dude did it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...1594990/pdf/joa_1991_0153.pdf Now i know saying a magic man did it would be simpler for your little mind to grasp bot there is no evidence of a magic man or magic for that matter introducing an unknown to understand an unknown is illogical and plain silly and watch this please Edited by frako, : No reason given. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Well no i think i hit the nail on the head idists and creos have their silly idea and are working their way backwards to find observations and evidence to support it conveniently ignoring the evidence that is contrary to their idea and if someone brings that evidence up its the evidence that is wrong because their idea can never change. Well no, the only nail you hit was the happy land called 'assertion'. restating that IDst do this or that is not the same as showing me how in some rational form, that starting with the natural world, just like you do, observing its order and law, just like you do, testing its properties, just like you do, formulating a hypothesis, just like you do, testing that hypothesis, just like you do, testing the hypothesis over andover again against different properties, just like yiou do, is STARTING WITH A CONCLUSION hey look thats the very samething you do, I believe its called science, not conclusions What evidence that you posesess could possibly be contrary to the idea of design. You see frako, your still mixing up conclusions with processes. Even if Evo were true it would have nothing to say about whether it were designed or not, speaking strickly about change and natural selection. However when we add the obvious order and law in, that is apart of the same scientific investigation, it brings design to light, as much as it would anyother PROCESS, that is stickly scientific its this small, yet vitally important point, that is the debarkation in these legal processes. So it appears, when given the misguided veiw presented by "scientist", that ID is in contrast to evo, which of course it is not. It is this misguided veiw that misrepresents the scientific approach to the process of ID. Which is nothing more than a physical evaluation of the physical world, thats supports, in logical and physical form, both positions. this is also why most of these fellas wont meet you publically in debate, because when these simple facts are presented, it shows the complete fallacy of the misguded veiw of "scientist" concerning ID and it shows the secular fundamentalist humanists veiwpoint in a unfavorable light Such is life Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2357 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
The Wedge Strategy Scientists don't want design taught because it is not science. It's that simple. It is dogma pushed by PR flacks and lawyers, such as those at the Dishonesty Institute using the corrupt methods exposed in the Wedge Document. Perhaps you could post a few of the points that demonstrate this from the Wedge document. Im going to bet, it or them have nothing to do with the process or rational behind ID and creationism. Atleast not in its realistic sense Anywho lets see it Highlights:
INTRODUCTION The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences. Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology. Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions. Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth. Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. See much science there? Any use of the scientific method? Any attempt to go from data gathering to hypothesis to testing and finally to theory? No? It's just PR and apologetics, using the fraudulent ID "science" as a cover to push a particular religious belief. The Wedge Document was an internal fund raising paper that leaked out and gave the whole sordid mess away. But the Dishonesty Institute has gone ahead and tried to con folks anyway. No shame, I guess. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Well no, the only nail you hit was the happy land called 'assertion'. restating that IDst do this or that is not the same as showing me how in some rational form, that starting with the natural world, just like you do, observing its order and law, just like you do, testing its properties, just like you do, formulating a hypothesis, just like you do, testing that hypothesis, just like you do, testing the hypothesis over andover again against different properties, just like yiou do, is STARTING WITH A CONCLUSION First show me some of those tests id did not start from observing the natural world or it would have come to the conclusion that evolution was responsible for the diversity of life it started from creationism being non acceptable in schools so they cut the word god and replaced it with intelligent designer then they went back and found stuff that could be evidence of an intelligent designer ignoring the FACT that we have already figured out how the EYE formed how the FLAGELLUM formed and all where natural processes
hey look thats the very samething you do, I believe its called science, not conclusions Ok show me the observations made, THE TESTS MADE, AND THE NULL HYPOTHESIS.
What evidence that you posesess could possibly be contrary to the idea of design. You see frako, your still mixing up conclusions with processes. What evidence do you have that could possibly be contrary to the pink unicorn creating everything yesterday the way it was yesterday. The evidence i present is evolution and natural processes, introducing unknowables as gods and theories like the one above serve NO purpose and DO NOTHING to advance the knowlage of mankind. If for every unknown man has encountered so fare throughout history was answered by god did/dose it we would still be swinging from treas and primarily eating bananas
Even if Evo were true it would have nothing to say about whether it were designed or not, speaking strickly about change and natural selection. However when we add the obvious order and law in, that is apart of the same scientific investigation, it brings design to light, as much as it would anyother PROCESS, that is stickly scientific Where are your EXPERIMENTS and TESTS that prove that ORDER AND LAW cannot acure naturally and NEED A DESIGNER, and what is the NULL hypothesis of your hypothesis that law and order need a designer.
its this small, yet vitally important point, that is the debarkation in these legal processes. So it appears, when given the misguided veiw presented by "scientist", that ID is in contrast to evo, which of course it is not. It is this misguided veiw that misrepresents the scientific approach to the process of ID. What is the process of id what does it explain, how does it explain certain mechanisms. The inteligent designer did it does not give much information of how when .... It is about as useful as the a bomb was made by man statement is actually useful in discerning what an a bomb actually is how it works how it was made by man the history of the a bomb ....
this is also why most of these fellas wont meet you publically in debate, because when these simple facts are presented, it shows the complete fallacy of the misguded veiw of "scientist" concerning ID and it shows the secular fundamentalist humanists veiwpoint in a unfavorable light No most of these fellas are tired from laughing at ridiculous arguments creationists and ides make. If evolution where true:- then why are the monkeys in the zoo not evolving in to man - then where are all the white and the black monkeys that white people and black people evolved from - then you can act as a monkey an go on about killing people - we would see a dog give birth to a cat once in a while - we would find life in peanut butter - because it is just a theory Creationism is true:- because god says so - because there is evidence of whales on the moon that where shot up form the earth cracking open at the start of the flood - because we found dinosaurs living today, recent past.. - nothing can come from nothing (except when god dose it, and the big bang was not nothing it was a singularity) ID is true:- because complicated things need a designer - because the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved - because the eye could not have evolved - because you have law and order and someone has to make that - because the world looks like it was designed Statements like, and the LACK OF PAPERS awaiting peer review do not encourage scientists to go and have formal debates whit those people it probably only encourages them to fight for better education of those morons and you had your shot at the Dover trial remember the trial where most of the experts on intelligent design WOULD NOT support it under oath, The trial where ID lost so bad you did not go further along the legal process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 663 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn bertot writes:
"Law" is a conclusion, not an observation. ... starting with the natural world, just like you do, observing its order and law, just like you do, testing its properties, just like you do, formulating a hypothesis, just like you do, testing that hypothesis, just like you do, testing the hypothesis over andover again against different properties, just like yiou do, is STARTING WITH A CONCLUSION If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 90 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Order is a conclusion as well.
But the real issue is the one that Dawn has always avoided addressing and only claimed he doesn't have to address. Currently science has found and demonstrated the method and mechanisms, the model, that explains the evolution of the variety of life we see today. Dawn has consistently refused to address the method and the mechanism, the model, that explains how his imagined designer influences and interferes to create the variety of life we see today. Dawn simply has nothing and has never talked sense. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
[qs]Speaking of the wedge document he provided Coyote writes:
See much science there? Any use of the scientific method? Any attempt to go from data gathering to hypothesis to testing and finally to theory?
@No? Of course not and that is exacally what I predicted, it would be. remember me saying it would not represent the design argument accurately, so I was correct, correct? What you quoted is and was not meant to be an argument, but a statement concerning the affects of humanistic doctrine, not a formal argument @ It's just PR and apologetics, using the fraudulent ID "science" as a cover to push a particular religious belief.
@No its not apologetics, its a formal statement on the affects of humanistic doctrine and its 100 percent correct, in that respect. Does the Wedge document have something of a formal argument concerning design you wish to take issue with The Wedge Document was an internal fund raising paper that leaked out and gave the whole sordid mess away. But the Dishonesty Institute has gone ahead and tried to con folks anyway. No shame, I guess.
@Unless you could produce something in it that accurately reflects the position od ID as inaccurate as I have presented it ,then Ill let you have your issues with this paper and its exponents. @ Dawn Bertot@ Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
First show me some of those tests
@Not a problem. But to understand the nature of the test you need to understand what science is and to be able to understand a scientific approach to the natural world. @ Since I have now given you several illustrations and you have simply ignorned them and refused in an argument form, to break it down and show why its PROCESS in not science, Ill try and be a bit more specific and see if you will answer the question directly, given the nature of an accredited scientist. @ Ignoring Behes conclusions, how could one ignore his status and his completely scientific approach to the natural world. he is a scientist, he uses scientifc methods to understand and evaluate the natural world Even if you disagree with his conclusions, can you deny his approach? @ that being the case and ignoring any conclusions as to how and why he thinks things are here, how would you begin to deny that his process or his approach is not science. @ Do you see your immediate problem. To begin to attack the idea that ID is not science, you need to attack a scientists approach and method, which are clearly the same as yours to even beign to intimate our method is not science @ To carry the argument even further, lets assume there is some scientist out there that agrees with your conclusion and process of evolution and all its tenets, but he says in an academic way, I dont see how that affects the idea that it could have been designed to evolve by a process of order and law. @ I think you are starting to see the fallacy of conjoining IDs conclusions with its processes I think y ou aee starting to see the fallacy of conjoining religious or the supernatural with the methods of the design process
id did not start from observing the natural world or it would have come to the conclusion that evolution was responsible for the diversity of life it started from creationism being non acceptable in schools so they cut the word god and replaced it with intelligent designer
@Ill try and be patient here because I dont think you even at this point are aware of the mistake you are making. Ive presented it numerous times and you refuse to deal with it. the design principle has very litle to do with evolution, they are not opposites @ Ill put it in question form for you. Could things have been designed to progress or as you call it evolve. yes or no. Where are your EXPERIMENTS and TESTS that prove that ORDER AND LAW cannot acure naturally and NEED A DESIGNER, and what is the NULL hypothesis of your hypothesis that law and order need a designer. You clearly have not learned the difference between evidence and proof, nobody is indicating that things could not be a process of natural causes. What however the evidence (process) suggests, is that because very definable order and law exists and because it is not possible to determine either conclusion absolutely, both are very real conclusions determined by very real processes. consider the following from your own rules and principlesfrom wiki Principle Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the data are, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data are very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then no conclusion is made. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion. The null hypothesis is a tool that would apply to the process, which in this instance, is certainly more than 5% to establish that order and law, exist. It would not apply to your or my conclusions. Now watch the opposite of your point. If the null has to apply in all instances and it can not be demonstrated that things are NOT a product of a designer, which would would be the application of the null hypothesis to your conclusion, then it would follow that your position is not science and you are not using your own SM, becuae you cannot falsify that it was not created by a designer, correct? The null hypo would only apply to your process. The null hypothesis is just a tool, it does not apply in all instances. The process that ID uses passes the test for the Null evaluation Bertot writes: its this small, yet vitally important point, that is the debarkation in these legal processes. So it appears, when given the misguided veiw presented by "scientist", that ID is in contrast to evo, which of course it is not. It is this misguided veiw that misrepresents the scientific approach to the process of ID. frako writes [qs]What is the process of id what does it explain, how does it explain certain mechanisms.
The inteligent designer did it does not give much information of how when .... It is about as useful as the a bomb was made by man statement is actually useful in discerning what an a bomb actually is how it works how it was made by man the history of the a bomb .... Again this is not the position of ID, creation or how evidence is established, as you have just witnessed using one of your own principles Bertot writes:this is also why most of these fellas wont meet you publically in debate, because when these simple facts are presented, it shows the complete fallacy of the misguded veiw of "scientist" concerning ID and it shows the secular fundamentalist humanists veiwpoint in a unfavorable light frako writesNo most of these fellas are tired from laughing at ridiculous arguments creationists and ides make. Well, now that you have heard it as it really is and needs to be presented, perhaps you laughter will turn into, Hmmmmm? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
"Law" is a conclusion, not an observation. there are none so blind, than those that will not go by thier own rules and guidlines. If change and order are both observable and testable, then it would follow that order is not a conclusion, but a process actually taking place. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But the real issue is the one that Dawn has always avoided addressing and only claimed he doesn't have to address. Jar, if you feel you can address the conclusion of evolution, that things are here as a result of soley natural causes, prove that, then do a null hypo on it, knock yourself out However, I have to many times now demonstrated that the prodess of ID or model is nothing but science, its conclusions aside And isnt that what we and you are on about, whether its science? Show me how Behes for example, just his approach and methods are not science. You couldnt do it if you wanted to. it would be an logical impossibilty for you to evern attempt it. if you dont believe just try
Currently science has found and demonstrated the method and mechanisms, the model, that explains the evolution of the variety of life we see today. By implication here you are overstepping your bounds. Your implication is that you know for a fact that its a result of itself. What you have actually discovered is how it works.
Dawn has consistently refused to address the method and the mechanism, the model, that explains how his imagined designer influences and interferes to create the variety of life we see today. Of course anyone paying any attention knows this is lie. What you have failed to do is address my simple questions that would clear up so much Hows bout it, Jar give it a rea attempt Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 90 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Method and model Dawn, what is your method and model;.
Until you present that claiming ID is science is simply bullshit. What is the method and model that the designer uses to influence and direct evolution? Method and model Dawn, what is the method and model. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Method and model Dawn, what is your method and model;. Until you present that claiming ID is science is simply bullshit. What is the method and model that the designer uses to influence and direct evolution? Method and model Dawn, what is the method and model. Jar actually read the post extract the arguments in that connection, then repeat yourself if you wish. Ignoring the arguments is not debating Jar. If you dont Ill assmue, either you dont know how to debate or you dont know how to respond. here it is again in a question. Is what Behe is doing, his conclusion aside, his method and model, is it science, Yes or No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 663 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Order is not an observation. It's a convenient way of describing our observations. Do you understand the difference between a thing and a description of that thing? You can ride a horse but you can't ride a description of a horse. If change and order are both observable and testable, then it would follow that order is not a conclusion, but a process actually taking place. The order in graphite and the order in diamond is just the way we describe the arrangement of the carbon atoms. It isn't a "thing" in itself. Similarly, a law is a convenient description of a process. Newton's Laws of Motion describe how we observe things moving. The laws are not processes themselves. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 90 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Method and model Dawn, what is your method and model;.
Until you present that claiming ID is science is simply bullshit. What is the method and model that the designer uses to influence and direct evolution? Method and model Dawn, what is the method and model. And No, when it comes to ID Behe is not doing science. So you are answered now ... Method and model Dawn, what is your method and model;. Until you present that claiming ID is science is simply bullshit. What is the method and model that the designer uses to influence and direct evolution? Method and model Dawn, what is the method and model. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024