|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
dwise1 writes: Buddhists are pretty flexible, but what about the Unitarian students? The Unitarians merged with the Universalists about a half century ago, and most Unitarian churches are now Unitarian/Universalist. The few services I've been to in merged churches contain no recognizably Unitarian elements. In other words, at least in my part of the country, the northeast, Unitarianism seems to be dead, so when I speak for the Unitarians I may be speaking for a religion that no longer exists, but anyway... The Unitarians are pretty flexible, too. Sunday School classes taught about all religions, but of course the main focus was on the foundation of modern Christianity. While Unitarians would have no objection whatsoever to teaching evangelical views on science in sociology or perhaps history, they would definitely object to teaching them in science class as if they reflected legitimate views within science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I discovered UUism in 1991 and also discovered that I had been one for the previous 30 years. I've heard that the old-time Unitarians weren't very comfortable about the merger with the Universalists back in 1961. And while the religion seeks inspiration from many sources, truthfulness and honesty are also important, so "creation science" and ID are not popular.
In saying that the Buddhists are pretty flexible, I was talking about the reaction to having somebody else's religion being taught to you by the state. By my understanding, being a Buddhist does not exclude you from also being of another faith, so from the Buddhist perspective one can be both a Christian and a Buddhist. However, I also understand that the Gautama Buddha had advised against believing in the gods, because that will only distract you away from the path to Enlightenment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
quote: 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. No, you have not answered that question. Your repeated attempts to avoid answering it speaks volumes.
quote: 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? Now you are just plain lying. In the other thread, you said that the question was not on-topic and that it should be moved to another more appropriate thread and I agreed. Now that we have done just that, you are trying to claim that the question needs to be moved back to the topic where we both agreed it was not on-topic! Stop your weaselling and answer the question!
Your attempts to confound and confuse aren't fooling as many people as you think.
Your attempts to confound and confuse aren't fooling anyone. Just answer the question! If you are unable to answer the question, then simply admit it and give the reason. A little basic honesty, please!
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. What other question? Both are the same question Stop trying to weasel out and answer the question! And just what do you call wanting to have religion injected into the chemistry and English curricula?
dwise1 writes: 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? I reposted what had brought us here as well as the OP question, since I have to constantly remind you what the question is that you keep avoiding. Stop trying to weasel out and answer the question!
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. What "double standards"? The fact that ID and creationism can't be considered science because they don't do science? And please, not more of your bullshit!
But this question leads to another question of you;
dwise1 writes: 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? That "one man" who happens to be Phillip Johnson, spokesman for the Discovery Institute, speaking for the Discovery Institute? IOW, he was not acting on his own as you try to imply. Yet again, I must repeat what I have already written.
Message 1 -- emphasis added:
quote: Message 27:
quote: Message 180quote: Here’s how Dembski describes what Intelligent Design can do; . . . Yeah, the same "Wizard of Odds" who gave us that deceptive travesty you opened with. Let's look at it:
quote: YASA (yet another strawman argument) misleading and deceptive description of evolution. Nor is actual evolutionary theory (as opposed to ID's ridiculous strawmen) at any loss to examine a trait's functionality. Science can already do the job while ID not only has nothing more to offer, but rather wants to detract from science's ability to do its job.
quote: What tools does it add? The ability to propose supernaturalistic hypotheses that are untestable. As well as closing the door on further research by claiming to have found the answer, "goddiddit". As well as preventing any future research on this "already answered" question, since that research would be characterized as a direct attack against God (by the time ID has seized the power it seeks, it can then drop all its pretenses of just talking about some undefined Designer).
quote: What criteria for detecting design? What are they? That is the other side of my question: just how are we supposed to detect or determine design? It's been asked on this forum repeatedly, but IDists (Dawn Bertolt specifically, who claims to know the answer) have not only refused to answer, but even claim that they do not need to provide the answer. If you know just exactly how we are supposed to detect and determine design, then do please provide it. Oh yeah, that's right! You'll just do everything you can to weasel out of that question too.
quote: Huh? How? Since ID closes the door on future research, how could it possibly guide future research anywhere except into the ground? And just how is ID supposed to in any manner add to finding engineering solutions that normal science could not? Science has been doing that job just fine and with great success long before ID came along wanting to muck everything up.
Will that kill science? Yes, as I already explained. Dembski's platitudes are meaningless and raise all the same questions and problems that I have been providing all along. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, after all. Just how the hell is IDist science supposed to work? Why all the conspiracy theories? Project much?
How will anything like that prevent atheist scientists from doing what they’ve always done? Never mind the scientists who are atheists. What about all the other real scientists -- who far outnumber scientists who are atheists -- ? The "findings" of the new breed of ID "scientists" will be completely useless for them to work with. And with certain areas of research deemed closed by ID, such that trying to reopen those areas would be dealt with as an attack against God, how could real scientists continue to operate as before. ID seeks to fundamentally change the nature and operation of science. And those changes will render science inoperative. So then, yes, that would kill science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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 TOP natural scientists (leaders, political activists) are atheists, "almost total".
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Yeah, when I read Dawkins' description of his WEASEL program, I couldn't believe it. So I wrote my own -- necessary, because Dawkins only described it but offered no code listing. Besides, I think he did it in BASIC, because mine written in Pascal succeeded within a few minutes rather than take the entire lunch hour as his did.
But even though I saw it for myself, I still didn't believe it. So I analyzed the mathematics of the probabilities. Interestingly, it turns out that it becomes more improbable for every step and path to fail than it is for at least one to succeed. Ian Musgrave also experimented with Dawkins' WEASEL and collected programs written by others which he has posted on his "Almost Like a Whale" website at http://health.adelaide.edu.au/...m/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm. My analysis of my MONKEY program is at http://health.adelaide.edu.au/.../Musgrave/essays/monkey.txt. And there's nothing atheistic about it. It's just natural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
dwise1 writes: You know I never said or implied that. And just what do you call wanting to have religion injected into the chemistry and English curricula? No, it was quite clear that you were implying that. If you did not imply that chemistry students must be taught about God being the source of those properties and reactions that they're studying, then please reveal and explain to us the completely different idea that you now claim that you were promoting instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4536 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
marc9000 writes: Evolution is complex order, achieved with no purpose. True. What's your problem with that? ABE: Maybe a better way of saying that is that evolution is a process by which complex order can emerge without a predetermined outcome. Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given. Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. -Theodoric Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
marc9000 writes:
The model a lot of creationists use would have hundreds or thousands of changes occur all at once, hence the huge odds against such an occurrence. 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. But nature works by lots of little changes, i.e., cumulative changes--and natural selection. If any of those changes are seriously deleterious the individuals who carry them are eliminated from the gene pool. If those changes are favorable, the individuals who carry them are more likely to be around to foster the next generation. Over time this adds up, and virtually all the descendants will be from those with the favorable changes (the sixes). So the model I proposed to you, throwing only those dice that are not sixes is more accurate than the creationist model requiring all changes to be made in one shot. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
marc9000 writes: 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. What we're wondering is how one does supernatural ID science. 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. 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. What Behe really wants is different answers, supernatural answers. A couple random off-topic notes:
About this:
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. 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." 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. 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. There's really no difference between us if the only answers you're willing to accept are naturalistic ones like aliens and "telic principles in nature" and so forth. But if you're demanding that supernatural answers be allowed then we must ask, "How does one do supernatural ID science?" AbE: If there's really no supernatural component in ID then you might want to let Intellen know over in the Who designed the ID designer(s)? thread where he states unequivocally, "Jesus Christ is the sole Intelligent Designer." --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add a paragraph at the bottom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
What we're wondering is how one does supernatural ID science. I do not think that Creationism is science. My belief is that without scientist accepting the potential of a supreme consciousness that dictated the laws of nature: scientists will blind themselves from potential discoveries. I believe this way because it is a potential truth. But...Supernatural science already exists. It is mostly for entertainment these days. Like ghost hunters etc. there is still research being done on psychic ability. The findings so far show that those who believe they can see a card they cannot, have a greater success rate at their guesses than those who don’t. There has to be a natural explanation as to why. We just haven’t asked the right questions, or we are not currently able to see what makes this possible. Anyways, that’s my take on this topic. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024