Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/0


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)
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

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

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

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


Message 244 of 396 (617364)
05-27-2011 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Coyote
05-22-2011 4:02 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
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.
"Rethrowing only those that are not sixes"? How was that decision made? Who made it, nature? Nature can't plan for future function. I looked at Dawkins book that dwise1 instructed me to, and am not convinced that cumulative selection is a single event, but a summary of events, a lot of one-step-at-a-time events. It looked more like atheism, than it did testable, repeatable, observable science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Coyote, posted 05-22-2011 4:02 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2011 11:42 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 248 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2011 11:57 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 252 by Coyote, posted 05-28-2011 12:20 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 258 by Scienctifictruths, posted 05-30-2011 10:53 AM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 245 of 396 (617366)
05-27-2011 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Percy
05-22-2011 5:09 PM


You didn't say anything about how ID works as a science. You made an argument against evolution.
The phrase as a science wasn’t in the O/P. Since it’s not, I took the question to apply at least as much to philosophy, or education. For example, the PAH World Hypothesis ‘works’ in that it’s a point of interest for atheists, but it doesn’t scientifically work one bit better than ID does.
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."
Their own caricature is often asking questions, or thinking about things that atheists prefer not to think about. Life is complex, the cell has information, and biological systems are orderly. And, life is fragile.
Scientists are not atheists. Scientists come from all religions, countries and cultures. It is true that some scientists are atheists.
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
quote:
The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever almost total.
The TOP natural scientists (leaders, political activists) are atheists, "almost total".
quote:
As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"[5]. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.
If most evolutionists are religious people, they fall in line behind the atheist leaders, there is plenty of evidence that their religion becomes secondary to them.
Evolution is not unguided. The environment provides some pretty severe constraints to the path evolution can follow.
A constraint is not a guide. Constraining something doesn’t guide it. Evolution is complex order, achieved with no purpose.
Fallacious arguments will not inspire any successful "exploration of different paths in biology."
And they won’t successfully shout down ID.
Michael Behe and others have not described any such paths. If you think they have then describe them for us here.
quote:
Behe; To decide borderline cases of design will require the experimental or theoretical exploration of models whereby a system might have developed in a continuous manner, or a demonstration of points where the development of the system would necessarily be discontinuous.
Future research could take several directions. Work could be undertaken to determine whether information for designed systems could lie dormant for long periods of time, or whether the information would have to be added close to the time when the system became operational. Since the simplest possible design scenario posits a single cell — formed billions of years ago — that already contained all information to produce descendant organisms, other studies could test this scenario by attempting to calculate how much DNA would be required to code the information (keeping in mind that much of the information might be implicit) If DNA alone is insufficient, studies could be initiated to see if information could be stored in the cell in other ways — for example, as positional information. Other work could focus on whether larger, compound systems (containing two or more irreducibly complex systems) could have developed gradually or whether there are compounded irreducibilities.
This is from Darwin’s Black Box, so it’s about 15 years old, and reams of paper have been piled up by the scientific community to shout it down. So I’m sure you have many sources on how to refute it. I’m not a scientist, so I’ll look at your response the same as any parent of a science student would, to see if I detect actual science in it, or if I detect atheism. As Dembski points out, many evolutionary biologists are satisfied with a very undemanding form of ability or capacity — namely conceivability. So long as they can conceive of a Darwinian or other material pathway to irreducible complexity, material mechanisms trump design. Behe and the ID community, by contrast, require a much more demanding form of ability or capacity in assessing whether the Darwinian mechanism, and material mechanisms generally, can produce irreducible complexity.
There's also the A.C. McIntosh paper on top-down or bottom-up development, another path that has been described.
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.
I don’t see how that proves anything. What does bad mean? The immediate, incredible amount of hostility and rage towards Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" is a very strong indicator of who controls science.
It makes no sense to argue that ID science isn't supernatural, and then argue that exploring naturalistic explanations won't work.
ID, as a challenge to some aspects of evolution, or as a scientific inquiry of its own, doesn’t focus on any characteristic of the supernatural, it only attempts to determine whether certain features of the natural world exhibit signs of having been designed by an intelligence. This intelligence could be E.T. or a telic principle immanent in nature or a transcendent personal agent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 05-22-2011 5:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-28-2011 12:05 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 251 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2011 12:10 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 05-28-2011 8:45 AM marc9000 has replied

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


Message 247 of 396 (617368)
05-27-2011 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by dwise1
05-25-2011 4:06 PM


Re: Bumped for marc9000 again, as he tries to reneg
And just what do you call wanting to have religion injected into the chemistry and English curricula?
You know I never said or implied that. I'm done with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by dwise1, posted 05-25-2011 4:06 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by dwise1, posted 05-28-2011 12:02 AM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 255 of 396 (617569)
05-29-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
05-28-2011 8:45 AM


What we're wondering is how one does supernatural ID science.
The same exact way that billions-of-years-ago-naturalism is done as science. Show me something the PAH World Hypothesis can do, and I believe I can show you something comparable that ID can do. Show me something that ID can’t do, and I believe I can show something comparable that the PAH World Hypothesis can’t do. I’m not talking about volume of research, (one is politically blocked by the courts and the other is not) I’m talking about basic one on one comparisons.
Your example of evolution being wrong because life couldn't possibly have come together as a single event is a well known creationist caricature, and we are in complete agreement with you that life or species coming about in single events is wildly improbable. But neither abiogenesis or evolution proposes any such thing.
Not a single event, but single steps. The cumulative selection claim enters the philosophical realm. It’s made, or trickily implied, to be a single event, but that ‘s not what it is, it’s a summary of events that still all happen one step at a time, and there are a lot of them.
I never claim "evolution is wrong because", if evolution is defined as change over time. There is a big difference between "change over time" and "Genesis is wrong".
Your Behe quote provides no clues about how supernatural ID science might work. What he proposes is just standard science and are precisely the kinds of things science already looks for.
But it doesn’t look for everything equally/hard enough. Naturalists gloss over complexities that may inspire more and more questions about naturalism.
What Behe really wants is different answers, supernatural answers.
For some things there are only two answers, supernatural ones, or atheistic ones. The point where philosophy enters science. There will always be disagreement on just where that point is, but there should be a way to balance an exploration of the answers. The accusations of godidit, that settles it, stop looking aren’t as ridiculous as they’re made to look. There really should be a point where public money shouldn’t be wasted on scientific searches for proof of atheism.
I am not an atheist, many scientists are not atheists, many non-scientists are atheists. Acceptance of the theory of evolution cannot be equated with atheism. A far, far higher percentage of creationists are conservative Christians than scientists are atheists.
Maybe scientists overall, but not biologists. The link I showed earlier broke it down — biologists had the lowest rate of belief of all divisions of scientists.
You're quoting from Dembski's book The Design Revolution. That's what he says for public consumption. What he really believes he saves for believers, for instance here in a talk before the group Focus on the Family:
Dembski writes:
"I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
If there is no double standard, what he personally believes means absolutely nothing, compared to what he proposes in The Design Revolution. I’ve been referred to Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker recently on these forums, to explain cumulative selection to me. Surely I don’t have to remind you what Dawkins personally believes. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize winner, said anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization. I’m told that is in no way associated with what he did to earn his Nobel Prize. Why are the personal opinions of Phillip Johnson and everyone at the Discovery Institute made central to motives of Intelligent Design? Why aren’t the motives of Dawkins and Weinberg of today, or Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, Dobzhansky, etc. of yesterday, similarly associated with evolution?
But anyway, if you, unlike Dembski, truly believe that ID has no supernatural component and is just science seeking answers like all other science then I think that's fine.
Dembski thinks that too — I believe he makes it clear in The Design Revolution. Why don’t you allow him separation from his personal beliefs like you do Dawkins, Weinberg, and countless other leading atheists of today?
But as I mentioned earlier about Behe, the real problem ID has with standard science isn't its methods but its answers. ID wants science to accept supernatural answers.
Methods are all that should matter. Answers are always subject to rejection. After all, current science is loaded with atheistic answers, and the majority of the U.S. population still rejects them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 05-28-2011 8:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by jar, posted 05-29-2011 7:33 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 05-30-2011 8:44 AM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 392 of 396 (618737)
06-05-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Percy
06-05-2011 5:06 PM


Re: Summation
Of course, if you want to hear words upon words upon words about either one you need only ask Buzsaw or Marc9000 or Tesla or, a long time ago, Randman, just don't expect either of these two things:
For them to agree on anything.
For them to take any notice of the chasm of disparity in their views.
You're not being very nice, so I'll respond in kind.
I've been too busy to post lately, and will continue to be too busy in the coming months. I hope to be back a little more regularly sometime in the future. I am at least pleased to see that "Scienctifictruths" is up to about 25 posts now. His very first post was a response to me as if he'd been here for years - that's happened to me at other boards. Chances are a regular poster visits a friend, (or walks to a neighboring apartment) registers here on his friends computer, and then another user name piles on a lone creationist. Maybe ScientificTruths isn't one of those, but it happens. I'm sure administrators find that as disturbing as I do, and nothing can be done about it. But overall, the gang approach that evolutionists use at these types of forums is very telling. It's a method of "argument by emotive language", a logical fallacy.
The reason Randman and Buzsaw and Marc9000 and Tesla agree on almost nothing, and the reason why those on the side of science agree on almost everything until you get down to minutia, is because creationists these days all brew their own science.
These discussions are about philosophy more than science. Christians disagree on many things because they think for themselves, while evolutionists agree on most things because they all get their instructions from the scientific community, talkorigins, and other atheist organizations. I wouldn't think that being mindless sheep/followers of the likes of Richard Dawkins would be something to be proud of. Of course we get the mantra that most evolutionists are devout Christians, but a lot of that is phony. That's always denied of course, but you still can't deny the pile-on, shout-down approach that evolutionists have. There is a reason for the anger of course, atheists are generally not happy people. Most Christians can easily agree on that.
The point I've made that always falls on deaf ears, is the double standard between what passes for science and what does not. The "top-down" approach of life origins, the "stops and starts" question of life's origins that Behe has brought up, as only two examples, are labeled as being religious by the atheist scientific community, while the untestable, atheist hypothesis of things like the "PAH World Hypothesis", or the SETI Institute, are heralded as being testable, repeatable, observable science, which of course they are not.
Maybe this fall or winter, I'll do a one-on-one with you or anyone else concerning that.
Marc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Percy, posted 06-05-2011 5:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by jar, posted 06-05-2011 9:45 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 395 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-06-2011 12:26 AM marc9000 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