|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As a simple example, imagine there's a cell component that evolution believes is vestigial because it doesn't appear to have a function. ID doesn't come along and say "oh goddidit, leave the poor thing alone!" -they say, well since we believe that everything is made with a function -this may no longer have a function (due to mutation perhaps) but chances are, if it's there it has a function or at least it certainly did have in the past ... I.e, they say that it's vestigial.
Evolutionary assumptions of the past made many vestigial organs out of things that do have functions "Vestigial" doesn't mean having no function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If one knows by cause and effect that rocks roll down a steep hill, then we make a prediction about a rock that is let loose. It will fall to the bottom. But if in the middle of the night we let rocks loose one by one, and in the morning we find them piled up in a neat little pile half way down the hill, then we naturally assume that someone or something intervened in their natural course down the hill. And we assume more likely that some intelligent being (probably a human) caught the rocks and piled them up when we were not looking. So we correctly determine from the evidence that an intelligent being altered the course of the expected physics of the situation. We assume this knowledge, and consider it wise to assume so. Postulating a personal intervention in the course of the rocks down the hill is scientific, because we observe they did not make it to the bottom, and we observe the orderliness of the pile. Therefore the conclusion of intervention in the middle of the night is scientific. And if we keep repeating the experiment at night, and keep finding the situation as before, we draw the same conclusion. Perhaps we finds some unknown shoe prints next to the pile. That reinforces the conclusion. It becomes a theory. We then find a handwritten note on the pile telling us who made the pile. It now becomes a scientific fact. Someone IS intervening in the course of the rocks falling physics to the bottom of the hill! Excluding intelligent intervention in the course of nature or physics is not scientific. And, of course, an evolutionist would make the same deduction about the rocks as you would. Creationists, however, are in the position of someone who finds the rocks at the bottom of the hill and insists that God put them there.
Excluding the intervention of a higher intelligent being is logically fallacious. Not when the rocks end up at the bottom of the hill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The bit you wrote under "So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?" doesn't actually answer the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"Rethrowing only those that are not sixes"? How was that decision made? Who made it, nature? Only in the anthropomorphic sense that nature "decides" that things should fall down rather than up.
Nature can't plan for future function. Hey, you said something true.
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. Hence the word "cumulative".
It looked more like atheism, than it did testable, repeatable, observable science. Apart from being testable, observable, repeatable, and science, and having nothing to do with atheism, yeah. Good point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The phrase as a science wasn’t in the O/P. I think when it is asked "how ID's supernatural-based science is supposed to work", it is implicit that the question is how it should work as science, and not as a gardening implement, a dietary supplement, or a device for mechanically peeling bananas.
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. Instead of lying about what atheists think about, you could always ask some of them.
The TOP natural scientists (leaders, political activists) are atheists, "almost total". It is interesting that the people who know most about the natural world are the least inclined to attribute it to God; but surely it is not on-topic here for you to supply arguments in favor of atheism.
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. Which for some reason you have neglected to supply.
A constraint is not a guide. Constraining something doesn’t guide it. Your fiddling about with words may have obscured the point in your eyes, but is hardly likely to make anyone else less able to grasp the point.
And they won’t successfully shout down ID. You inadvertently told the truth!
To decide borderline cases of design will require the experimental or theoretical exploration of models [...] Future research could take several directions. Come back when IDers are writing about their research in the past and not the future tense.
What does bad mean? It is hard to know with you whether you are dishonestly feigning incomprehension or whether you are genuinely confused.
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. Yeah. Scientists. Who know pseudoscientific crap when they see it.
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. No, not really. If scientists determine that the answer is no, then surely that is not ID. You might as well define flat-Earthism as an attempt to determine whether the Earth is flat. As enough has been said about IDer's shameful equivocations on the subject of religion, I need not add to it here. Especially since you have already spent enough time not answering the actual question. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024