Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 226 of 396 (615695)
05-15-2011 7:21 PM


Bumped for marc9000, who claims to have the answer!
In Message 77 of the topic, Support for Louisiana repeal effort, marc9000 claimed to be able to answer the question of the OP of this thread, which no other creationist has been able to respond to. In my response to him (Message 81):
dwise1 writes:
marc9000 writes:
dwise1 writes:
Please, do this for me. Tell me how religion could possibly be integrated into science. Seriously, tell me how. Tell me how science is possibly to work if it were to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses. Seriously, explain it to me, in detail. A hypothesis needs to be testable, so how are we supposed to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? I am damned serious here, brother! Because incorporating religion into science requires us to work with supernaturalistic hypotheses, so if we cannot possibly deal with (ie, test) supernaturalistic hypotheses, then how could we possibly ever incorporate religion into science? Serious question. Absolutely demands an answer. Nobody has yet offered one. Can you?
I can, How about a ‘great debate’ on it? If you can’t or don’t want to for any reason, maybe somebody else will, I don’t care who, as long as it's just one, and not an angry gang of 10 or 15. I’ve looked at the basics of how the Louisiana law originated, and the reasons for it.
The 1980 Louisiana law has nothing to do with my question, so that "rabbit trail" (AKA "red herring") you just tossed out will have to be picked up later (don't worry; In 1981 I virtually cut my teeth on its sister Arkansas law, both of them having been based on a model bill written by respiratory therapist Paul Ellwanger whose stated purpose, admitted as evidence in court, was "... the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."; the court decisions on both the Arkansas and Louisiana laws exposed them for being based on narrowly sectarian religious beliefs, which further exposes the hypocrisy of your Wikipedia quote)
There's no need for any new thread, because there's an existing thread in which I asked the same question. After more than 200 replies, no creationist has ever provided an answer. Now you claim to have that answer that nobody else ever had. Good. Present it.
That existing thread is So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY); I will bump it to the top just especially for you personally. Be sure to read its OP, its Message 1, which explains briefly how the scientific method works and why trying to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses cannot possibly work.
You have taken the affirmative, that they can work. OK, Lucy! 'Splain!
We eagerly await his response. And based on over 30 years of experience, will not be surprised to find it extremely lacking, or even non-existent.

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 227 of 396 (615884)
05-17-2011 9:21 PM


Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
From Message 95:
dwise1 writes:
dwise1 writes:
The 1980 Louisiana law has nothing to do with my question, so that "rabbit trail" (AKA "red herring") you just tossed out will have to be picked up later
Then your question was OFF TOPIC. This thread is about the Louisiana law.
Which makes your red herring EVEN MORE OFF TOPIC (see? We can shout too. But there are far better alternatives to shouting. You should try them sometime.) This thread is about the 2008 Louisiana law, not the 1980 law that was struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard. I was following the flow of discussion, whereas you just plopped that red herring down out of the blue.
To pertain to this thread, your question, how religion could possibly be integrated into science would apply to your beliefs about how the Louisiana law attempted to do that.
No, I asked that question directly from the flow of discussion. You were insisting that religion be integrated into science and in other subjects as well, something which you now decry as being off-topic as long as you think you can point our finger at others. Your hypocrisy is showing.
Imagine that you have a process operating that did non-trivial work with extreme success, that success depending very largely, if not entirely, on the methodology of that process. Now imagine that someone wants you to make a drastic change to the process, one which, as far as you can see, does not belong in that process and which would prevent the process from functioning. Isn't the most natural question for you to ask, "Just how is that supposed to work?"?
Well, you proposed such a change to science, so I quite naturally asked you just how that is supposed to work. You, in reply, claimed to have that answer, so I quite naturally asked for you to present it. Since both of us knew that that discussion would most likely be off-topic, you proposed a new topic for it, whereupon I pointed out that there already exists a topic for that question and I even pointed you right to it as well as bumped it to the top for you. In fact, I'll bump it again for you right now.
To pertain to this thread, your question, how religion could possibly be integrated into science would apply to your beliefs about how the Louisiana law attempted to do that. As you secretly know, the Louisiana law doesn’t do that, NO law in recent U.S. history attempts to do that.
Bullshit! As already discussed, neither of us was trying to keep that question in this topic, but rather immediately moved to move it elsewhere.
Nor was I trying to claim that the antievolution laws that have creationism taught were attempting to integrate religion into science. Rather, that is what you personally were calling for and to which I was responding directly. And it is also one of the goals of the ID movement, to completely change the nature of science into something emasculated and worthless, into a mere theology. And perhaps a minor goal of the earlier strains of creationism as well (ie, its forms before it assimilated ID), though they were far more concerned with killing evolution, even though their "creation science" ended up being at odds with all branches of science.
That's the reason you fled from the one on one challenge.
I did not flee. I'm still here calling for an answer, the answer that you claimed to have. And I'm still calling for it, even though you present yourself as not actually having that answer and so are trying desparately to backpedal out of it. I work for a living, with long hours. And I have several pressing matters that I need to take care of. I do not have the time for a one-on-one, especially not with someone who so far has displayed no ability nor inclination for any kind of honest discussion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by marc9000, posted 05-18-2011 10:35 PM dwise1 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 228 of 396 (616020)
05-18-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by dwise1
05-17-2011 9:21 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
I work for a living, with long hours.
What a coincidence, so do I!
And I have several pressing matters that I need to take care of.
Amazing! I’m self employed, and sometimes I have to do extensive maintenance that I don’t get paid for. And I’m not going to have time for as much sleep as I need tonight. So I feel your pain.
I do not have the time for a one-on-one, especially not with someone who so far has displayed no ability nor inclination for any kind of honest discussion.
I’ve done one-on-ones before at other forums, and find it less time consuming than facing a group of opponents. But if you don’t want to do a one on one, that’s fine.
So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?
;
There is no one authority that determines just where science stops and philosophy starts. It’s up to an individual to determine that for himself/herself, and each case can be different. ID studies can help an individual make that determination (during science education) by questioning the atheist speculation that is dominant in today’s atheist controlled scientific community. If, for example, it can counter claims that the scientific community will find clear proof for naturalistic origins of life someday, it will have started working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by dwise1, posted 05-17-2011 9:21 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2011 2:23 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 230 by jar, posted 05-19-2011 8:52 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 231 by Taq, posted 05-20-2011 4:02 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 232 by dwise1, posted 05-20-2011 10:39 PM marc9000 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 229 of 396 (616036)
05-19-2011 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by marc9000
05-18-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
The bit you wrote under "So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?" doesn't actually answer the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by marc9000, posted 05-18-2011 10:35 PM marc9000 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 230 of 396 (616064)
05-19-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by marc9000
05-18-2011 10:35 PM


once again
What is the method and model that explains how a designer influences an directs evolution?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by marc9000, posted 05-18-2011 10:35 PM marc9000 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 231 of 396 (616260)
05-20-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by marc9000
05-18-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
There is no one authority that determines just where science stops and philosophy starts. It’s up to an individual to determine that for himself/herself, and each case can be different. ID studies can help an individual make that determination (during science education) by questioning the atheist speculation that is dominant in today’s atheist controlled scientific community. If, for example, it can counter claims that the scientific community will find clear proof for naturalistic origins of life someday, it will have started working.
IOW, ID has no scientific use at all. The only use for ID is as a religious argument against atheism. Have I got this right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by marc9000, posted 05-18-2011 10:35 PM marc9000 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 232 of 396 (616353)
05-20-2011 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by marc9000
05-18-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
There is no one authority that determines just where science stops and philosophy starts. It’s up to an individual to determine that for himself/herself, and each case can be different. ID studies can help an individual make that determination (during science education) by questioning the atheist speculation that is dominant in today’s atheist controlled scientific community. If, for example, it can counter claims that the scientific community will find clear proof for naturalistic origins of life someday, it will have started working.
That actually looks like some thought had been put into it. Heads and shoulders above the bullshit you've been posting so far. I have to work to resist the temptation to ask you where you cribbed it from.
There are a few things in there that should be discussed, but unfortunately it's totally off-topic. Your "reply" does nothing to answer nor respond to the question.
But it does nothing answer the question! To remind you of the question, again, here it is, again, from Message 77 of the other topic:
marc writes:
dwise1 writes:
writes:
Please, do this for me. Tell me how religion could possibly be integrated into science. Seriously, tell me how. Tell me how science is possibly to work if it were to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses. Seriously, explain it to me, in detail. A hypothesis needs to be testable, so how are we supposed to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? I am damned serious here, brother! Because incorporating religion into science requires us to work with supernaturalistic hypotheses, so if we cannot possibly deal with (ie, test) supernaturalistic hypotheses, then how could we possibly ever incorporate religion into science? Serious question. Absolutely demands an answer. Nobody has yet offered one. Can you?
I can, How about a ‘great debate’ on it? ...
Now, did you see that? You stated that you can answer the question. Now, let me present that question to you again with emphasis added:
dwise1 writes:
writes:
Please, do this for me. Tell me how religion could possibly be integrated into science. Seriously, tell me how. Tell me how science is possibly to work if it were to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses. Seriously, explain it to me, in detail. A hypothesis needs to be testable, so how are we supposed to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? I am damned serious here, brother! Because incorporating religion into science requires us to work with supernaturalistic hypotheses, so if we cannot possibly deal with (ie, test) supernaturalistic hypotheses, then how could we possibly ever incorporate religion into science? Serious question. Absolutely demands an answer. Nobody has yet offered one. Can you?
Clearly, your "reply" does not even begin to address the question, let alone make anything close to an attempt to answer it.
I really shouldn't need to paint a picture for you, so I'll just repost, again, from the OP, Message 1:
dwise1 in OP writes:
Here is basically how science currently works. We observe the natural world and form hypotheses to try to explain what we observe. Then we test those hypotheses by using them to make predictions and then either conducting experiments or making further observations. Those hypotheses which prove correct are kept and subjected to further testing, while those that don't pan out are either examined for what's wrong with them and they either get discarded or a correction is attempted which is then subjected to further testing. Out of this process we develop a bundle of hypotheses which are used to develop a theory, a conceptual model of the natural phenomena in question and which describes our understanding of what that phenomena are and how they operate. That theory is used to make predictions and it is tested by how good those predictions are; thus the theory undergoes further testing and refinement and correcting. And that testing is not performed solely by the developers of the theory, but also by other members in the scientific community who have a vested interest in finding problems in that theory because they may be basing their own research on that theory -- if that theory turns out to be wrong, then they want to know that before they start their own research based on it.
Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck.
Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt.
And at the end of the same post:
dwise1 writes:
's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science.
The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science. A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. Certainly their ID idols have already provided them the answer. And if even they haven't come up with a description of how their brave new science will function, then why not?
Try it again. Please make an honest attempt this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by marc9000, posted 05-18-2011 10:35 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2011 3:43 PM dwise1 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 233 of 396 (616466)
05-22-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by dwise1
05-20-2011 10:39 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
dwise1 writes:
marc9000 writes:
There is no one authority that determines just where science stops and philosophy starts. It’s up to an individual to determine that for himself/herself, and each case can be different. ID studies can help an individual make that determination (during science education) by questioning the atheist speculation that is dominant in today’s atheist controlled scientific community. If, for example, it can counter claims that the scientific community will find clear proof for naturalistic origins of life someday, it will have started working.
That actually looks like some thought had been put into it. Heads and shoulders above the bullshit you've been posting so far. I have to work to resist the temptation to ask you where you cribbed it from.
I think there’s a way you can check for a word-for-word copy on the internet, though I don’t know how to do it. Copyscape or something like that. Good luck! A lot of people share worldviews with me, so you may find something close. But they’re my words, I don’t have to prove that to anyone.
To expound on that, here’s an example of how ID studies (supernatural based, as you call it) science works. The following is a William Dembski example that he used in a slightly different context, but it works here. Suppose we have a combination lock with a 0 to 39 numbered dial, and is turned in three alternating directions to be opened. 40X40X40, so the chances are 64,000 to one that it can be opened by someone closing their eyes and turning the dial three times. (that can be comparable to Darwin’s understanding of the simplest forms of life) Contrast that with another, more complex combination lock, it is turned in five different directions to be opened, and the dial is numbered 1 to 99. 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 — someone closing their eyes and turning that dial 5 times has a 1 in 10 billion chance in opening it the first time. (that could be comparable to what we now understand about the simplest forms of life.) While atheists close their minds and insist that something came about by unguided natural processes no matter how increasingly complex science finds it to be, those without closed minds can see a difference in a 64,000 v 10 billion mathematical likelihood. And it can inspire exploration of different paths in biology. Michael Behe and others have described those paths. While those who control science don’t find those paths to be useful or important and can find all kinds of ways to shout them down, they can’t make a case that searches for naturalistic origins of life that they are currently studying are any more useful or important.
So that answers your question. It works by encouraging exploration of new paths, by encouraging open inquiry, by challenging the evolution/atheist establishment, by encouraging students interested in it to think for themselves, not telling them what to think, what paths to explore.
There are a few things in there that should be discussed, but unfortunately it's totally off-topic. Your "reply" does nothing to answer nor respond to the question.
There we go, if we were in a one on one, you wouldn’t have Dr Adequate to give you ideas, would you? You have asked two different questions, that are only slightly related to each other. Let’s look at both of them, and try to clear up some of the confusion that you're so bent on creating;
quote:
So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?
That’s the question from THIS THREAD, which I answered above. Your dishonest lack of reference to the question I was answering above speaks volumes.
quote:
Please, do this for me. Tell me how religion could possibly be integrated into science
That’s from the OTHER THREAD. Doesn’t it make sense that I should address that one in the other thread? If this thread could help enlighten you on it that’s fine, but this is the rabbit hole you sent me down. If you want a specific answer to the other question, why shouldn't it be kept in the other thread? Your attempts to confound and confuse aren't fooling as many people as you think.
This thread's question was about (your term) supernatural based and how it should work, and the other is a when are you going to stop beating your wife type of question. I don’t advocate integrating religion into science.
I really shouldn't need to paint a picture for you, so I'll just repost, again, from the OP, Message 1:
So you repost something from this thread, while mixing it with the question from the other thread?
Let's stay on this thread's topic. I understand your c/p about how science is supposed to work, I've seen it many times, and the double standards that go along with it, concerning abiogenesis and ID. But this question leads to another question of you;
The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science.
Wouldn’t a better place to start be for evolutionists to prove that ID would kill science, if it were admitted to the public scientific realm? Is the Wedge Document — written by one man — all you’ve got? Here’s how Dembski describes what Intelligent Design can do;
quote:
Intelligent Design continues to look for function where nonteleological approaches to evolution attribute clumsiness or incompetence. Because Intelligent design adds rather than removes tools from the biologists tool chest (supplementing material mechanisms with intelligent agency) intelligent design can subsume present biological research. Even efforts to overturn the various criteria for detecting design are welcome within the intelligent design research program. (That's part of keeping the program honest) Intelligent Design can also function as a heuristic for guiding research, inspiring biologists to look for engineering solutions to biological problems that might otherwise escape them.
Will that kill science? Why all the conspiracy theories? How will anything like that prevent atheist scientists from doing what they’ve always done?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by dwise1, posted 05-20-2011 10:39 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Coyote, posted 05-22-2011 4:02 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 05-22-2011 5:09 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2011 7:18 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 238 by Taq, posted 05-23-2011 2:50 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 240 by dwise1, posted 05-24-2011 10:06 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 243 by dwise1, posted 05-25-2011 4:06 PM marc9000 has replied

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


(1)
Message 234 of 396 (616467)
05-22-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by marc9000
05-22-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
To expound on that, here’s an example of how ID studies (supernatural based, as you call it) science works. The following is a William Dembski example that he used in a slightly different context, but it works here. Suppose we have a combination lock with a 0 to 39 numbered dial, and is turned in three alternating directions to be opened. 40X40X40, so the chances are 64,000 to one that it can be opened by someone closing their eyes and turning the dial three times. (that can be comparable to Darwin’s understanding of the simplest forms of life) Contrast that with another, more complex combination lock, it is turned in five different directions to be opened, and the dial is numbered 1 to 99. 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 — someone closing their eyes and turning that dial 5 times has a 1 in 10 billion chance in opening it the first time. (that could be comparable to what we now understand about the simplest forms of life.)
So this is how ID science works, eh?
By misrepresenting how evolution actually works and beating a strawman about the head and shoulders?
To explain your error we'll use dice. The task is to roll 25 dice and get all sixes.
Your example throws 25 at a time, repeating endlessly, until you get 25 sixes. Don't plan on doing anything else for a few centures.
The way evolution actually works is akin to throwing those 25 dice and then rethrowing only those that are not sixes. You'll be done in a few minutes.
So every time you are tempted to use those impossibly large numbers, ask yourself if those numbers actually apply to the case at hand.
(In a slightly different approach a creationist on another website kept telling us the odds against evolution were 1720 against. He never did figure out why we were laughing at him.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2011 3:43 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 4:21 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 244 by marc9000, posted 05-27-2011 11:12 PM Coyote has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 235 of 396 (616468)
05-22-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Coyote
05-22-2011 4:02 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
Coyote writes:
To explain your error we'll use dice. The task is to roll 25 dice and get all sixes.
Your example throws 25 at a time, repeating endlessly, until you get 25 sixes. Don't plan on doing anything else for a few centures.
The way evolution actually works is akin to throwing those 25 dice and then rethrowing only those that are not sixes. You'll be done in a few minutes.
So every time you are tempted to use those impossibly large numbers, ask yourself if those numbers actually apply to the case at hand.
Clever analogy, high five.
Of course ID proponents won't get it, they believe the laws of probability only work if the dice is loaded.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Coyote, posted 05-22-2011 4:02 PM Coyote has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 236 of 396 (616473)
05-22-2011 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by marc9000
05-22-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
marc9000 writes:
To expound on that, here’s an example of how ID studies (supernatural based, as you call it) science works. The following is a William Dembski example that he used in a slightly different context, but it works here. Suppose we have a combination lock with a 0 to 39 numbered dial, and is turned in three alternating directions to be opened. 40X40X40, so the chances are 64,000 to one that it can be opened by someone closing their eyes and turning the dial three times. (that can be comparable to Darwin’s understanding of the simplest forms of life) Contrast that with another, more complex combination lock, it is turned in five different directions to be opened, and the dial is numbered 1 to 99. 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 — someone closing their eyes and turning that dial 5 times has a 1 in 10 billion chance in opening it the first time. (that could be comparable to what we now understand about the simplest forms of life.) While atheists close their minds and insist that something came about by unguided natural processes no matter how increasingly complex science finds it to be, those without closed minds can see a difference in a 64,000 v 10 billion mathematical likelihood. And it can inspire exploration of different paths in biology. Michael Behe and others have described those paths. While those who control science don’t find those paths to be useful or important and can find all kinds of ways to shout them down, they can’t make a case that searches for naturalistic origins of life that they are currently studying are any more useful or important.
Enumerating the fallacies:
  1. You didn't say anything about how ID works as a science. You made an argument against evolution.
  2. Your argument against evolution just repeats the ancient creationist misapplication of probability to their own caricature of evolution. Evolution is change over time. No one in science thinks that life or species come about in sudden events. That's why they call it evolution instead of "sudden poofing."
  3. Scientists are not atheists. Scientists come from all religions, countries and cultures. It is true that some scientists are atheists.
  4. Evolution is not unguided. The environment provides some pretty severe constraints to the path evolution can follow.
  5. Fallacious arguments will not inspire any successful "exploration of different paths in biology."
  6. Michael Behe and others have not described any such paths. If you think they have then describe them for us here.
  7. No one controls science. This is reflected in the incredible amount of bad research that manages to find its way into technical journals and conferences.
  8. It makes no sense to argue that ID science isn't supernatural, and then argue that exploring naturalistic explanations won't work.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2011 3:43 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2011 7:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 245 by marc9000, posted 05-27-2011 11:41 PM Percy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 237 of 396 (616482)
05-22-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by marc9000
05-22-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
I don't think anyone's commented on this bit of egregious stupidity yet:
Contrast that with another, more complex combination lock, it is turned in five different directions to be opened, and the dial is numbered 1 to 99. 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 — someone closing their eyes and turning that dial 5 times has a 1 in 10 billion chance in opening it the first time. (that could be comparable to what we now understand about the simplest forms of life.)
Now, whatever the first life was, which you do not know, and under whatever circumstances it arose, which you do not know, and whatever the chances of it doing so, which you do not know, it is breathtakingly dumb to compare it to the probability of some unlikely event happening "the first time", as though life could only have arisen at one particular moment and in one particular spot, and if it didn't do so then the Earth must have remained perpetually sterile.
To overlook so elementary a consideration is a failure not merely of scientific reasoning but also of the capacity to grasp the bleedin' obvious.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2011 3:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 238 of 396 (616611)
05-23-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by marc9000
05-22-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
So that answers your question. It works by encouraging exploration of new paths, by encouraging open inquiry, by challenging the evolution/atheist establishment, by encouraging students interested in it to think for themselves, not telling them what to think, what paths to explore.
What we are asking is how one explores these paths in a scientific manner. For purposes of this thread, you can even assume that evolution is false. So how does ID science work? How do scientists apply this theory to research?
That’s the question from THIS THREAD, which I answered above.
No, you didn't. All you said is that you first throw evolution out. We want to know what the second step is. What is next?
Wouldn’t a better place to start be for evolutionists to prove that ID would kill science, if it were admitted to the public scientific realm?
You are doing a great job of demonstrating this for us. You are completely incapable of describing how ID science is done.
Dembski writes:
Intelligent Design continues to look for function where nonteleological approaches to evolution attribute clumsiness or incompetence. Because Intelligent design adds rather than removes tools from the biologists tool chest (supplementing material mechanisms with intelligent agency) intelligent design can subsume present biological research. Even efforts to overturn the various criteria for detecting design are welcome within the intelligent design research program. (That's part of keeping the program honest) Intelligent Design can also function as a heuristic for guiding research, inspiring biologists to look for engineering solutions to biological problems that might otherwise escape them.
So where have these tools been put into practice in order to discover new functions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2011 3:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 239 of 396 (616870)
05-24-2011 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Percy
05-22-2011 5:09 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
I'll wait a few days to see if dwise1 has anything to add, then I'll respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 05-22-2011 5:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 240 of 396 (616891)
05-24-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by marc9000
05-22-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
From Message 239:
I'll wait a few days to see if dwise1 has anything to add, then I'll respond.
As I already told you, I work for a living and I work long hours. Plus, this as a duty weekend. I just have time to begin to respond.
Back to the message this is a reply to:
I think there’s a way you can check for a word-for-word copy on the internet, though I don’t know how to do it. Copyscape or something like that. Good luck! A lot of people share worldviews with me, so you may find something close. But they’re my words, I don’t have to prove that to anyone.
Wasn't accusing you. It was just highly uncharacteristic. Kind of had the same effect as when Eleanor Abernathy (AKA "Crazy Cat Lady") who normally yells gibberish and throws cats at passers-by suddenly stops for a moment and makes a lucid and even insightful statement.
To expound on that, here’s an example of how ID studies (supernatural based, as you call it) science works. {followed by standard creationist claim}
Yes, you are correct. What you presented was an excellent example of how ID works, which incidentally is the way that creationism has been working all along. Like so many other deceptive creationist arguments, that argument is based on false assumptions about how evolutionary theory says that evolution works. It's yet another strawman argument (YASA), false, misleading, intended to deceive its audience. A prime example of what ID has to offer us!
Have you ever wondered why IDists refuse to "do science"? Why they refuse to conduct any actual research? Why they refuse to publish their work in the scientific community? Well, Dembski's reply is supposed to be that he's making too much money writing books for you to buy that he doesn't want to waste any time published any research. But other than that, obviously they refuse to publish research because the scientific community is the last audience they would ever want to have read their stuff. Because the scientists would be able to immediately see their the IDists' charade. IDists would much rather only present their nonsense to the general public who are much easier to bullshit and to deceive. Of course, another reason why they don't publish is because they never conduct any actual scientific research. The only way that any ID nonsense could ever qualify as science is if the IDists can deceive enough non-scientists into passing laws that would arbitrarily change the nature of science.
Also, why should they make assumptions about evolutionary theory when all they have to do is to learn what evolutionary theory actually says. Only by addressing what evolutionary theory actually says can they ever begin to hope to defeat evolution. Of course, if they were to tell you what evolutionary theory really says, then all their arguments would crumble away.
BTW, if you want to gain an understanding of how probabilities work in evolutionary theory, read the first half of Chapter Three of Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. It's the difference between single-step selection, which is the make-or-break, start-each-time-from-scratch method that Dembski describes and cumulative selection, which is what life uses to produce each new generation. It's truly amazing how different they are.
So that answers your question. It works by encouraging exploration of new paths, by encouraging open inquiry, by challenging the evolution/atheist establishment, by encouraging students interested in it to think for themselves, not telling them what to think, what paths to explore.
So what's stopping them now? Do you think that students are being taught only science and nothing else? Assuming the same kind of schedule I had in both junior and senior high, science is only one of six different subjects they take every day. Do you think that they're not allowed to go home to be influenced by their families? Do you think they're not allowed to read or watch TV on their own? That they're not allowed to talk about new ideas with others? That they're not allowed to be involved with their family's own choice of religion? If their religious community is one that promotes creationism and its new guise, ID, then they're already being exposed to those lies. Why are you just singling out science? Because you don't understand it? Science only has one short part of their day during which it has a lot of subject matter to teach. Why take any of that time away for religion that they're getting on the side anyway and for much more of the day?
Also, that religious material, of a Protestant subset, you want brought in is not universally accepted by all students. What about the Catholic students? Or the Jewish and Islamic students? Buddhists are pretty flexible, but what about the Unitarian students? Religious instruction of children is the prerogative of the parents. Why do you want the state to take that away from the parents?
Again, science is neutral about religion. It is the same for everyone regardless of what their religion or religious beliefs are. You cannot possibly introduce religious instruction into the science classroom and make it fit all. And what each scientist's beliefs are depends on the entire person, not just the scientist within him.
You have asked two different questions, that are only slightly related to each other.
Bullshit! My question was specifically about how supernaturalistic hypotheses are supposed to operate within the scientific method!
Even if you want to claim that your response of "let them pick other paths of inquiry and we'll still call it 'scientific'" were true, it still begs the question of just how the scientific method is supposed to accommodate supernaturalistic premises and hypotheses. You're just trying in vain to stave off that most fundamental question that demands to be answered. And that no creationist or IDist has answered.
You claimed that you could. We're still waiting.
This window of free time is now closing. Gotta run.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2011 3:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Percy, posted 05-25-2011 8:50 AM dwise1 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024