Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 61 of 230 (653934)
02-25-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
02-25-2012 12:50 AM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
Jar: I agree. There is no place for fairies, magic nor (really) disdain in discussing the Universe. The quest should be for fact and reality as much as we are capable through scientific investigation. In that regard, there are two sides obvious: On one — the totally secular side — everything sprang from nothing or something in another dimension (M theory) or a bounce from a previous cyclic universe, etc.
I accept all as a possibility, though there are major obstructions in both cases. I have the most problem with all this energy and remarkable evolution springing from nothing. The amount of energy which makes up the universe in absolutely incalculable, and we only tangibly see a fraction in all our studies (e.g. -- dark matter and dark energy and even gravity about which we know very little --- except we know they exist and are pivotal to our existence).
So, springing from nothing — to me — is unacceptable. Then, there’s the direction after initiation which we feel is the Big Bang — the actuality of which we are (and always will be) blind to because it occurs over the horizon of existence. Thus: bring(ing) in the Designer and present(ing) both the Designer and the Method/model used by that Designer for examination and testing is, and always will be impossible. That’s not an excuse, it’s a statement of incontrovertible fact. So there we are. We are left with science and math; observations and probabilities; gradients and tensors; Quarks and the Cosmos to try and unravel what has become.
JCH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 02-25-2012 12:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 02-25-2012 2:31 PM jchardy has not replied

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


Message 62 of 230 (653936)
02-25-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jchardy
02-25-2012 2:25 PM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
As long as it is impossible to bring in the Designer and present both the Designer and the Method/model used by that Designer for examination and testing, Intelligent Design is just fantasy.
Intelligent Design is simply another attempt to bring religion into science and pretend that it has any significance and it should be opposed and denounced as just that, an attempt to make fantasy legitimate.
There is no place for the Intelligent Designer and no need or value to such a concept until the above conditions are met.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 2:25 PM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 63 of 230 (653939)
02-25-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by lbm111
02-25-2012 5:05 AM


Re: purpose in science
FROM JCH:
Dear lbm111: I would urge that we all attempt to avoid being side-tracked. The evolution of hammers — even as a surrogate for the roots of our concerns -- are interesting, but the evolution of the universe and particularly of sentient and then sapient life is much more so (I think).
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:05 AM lbm111 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 64 of 230 (653940)
02-25-2012 2:37 PM


Are we actually going to be presented with anything new and/or interesting here or is the request to be taken seriously and not ridiculed the only point to be made?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 65 of 230 (653941)
02-25-2012 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by hooah212002
02-25-2012 8:02 AM


SECULAR?
Dear hooah212002:
Secular: Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings".
Again, your signature is off-putting. It implies your agreement that all but scientists are idiots. I don’t consider that a valid appraisal of mankind. I certainly don’t think that the Monks of Tibet or Dharmic Swamis, particularly Aurobindo Ghose (1871—1950) or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869—30 January 1948) were idiots, and they had deep questions as well.
But I do NOT want to get off track. Sorry! JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by hooah212002, posted 02-25-2012 8:02 AM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 66 of 230 (653942)
02-25-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by lbm111
02-25-2012 2:08 PM


Re: purpose in science
going back to the hammer - a paper could be published detailing what the hammer was used for certainly. You could identify marks for example that indicated it was used to hit small iron objects such as nails, or look at the shaft, the heft or the weight. All of these are valid points but they do not prove the purpose of the hammer. They prove at best what the hammer was once used for.
Once we have proven what it was used for, we can use several other pieces of evidence:
Humans build tools for certain purposes.
Tools built for a certain purpose tend to be used for those purposes.
We can then infer that a tool that has been used for hammering nails, that appears optimised towards the end of hammering nails, was built for the purposes of hammering nails.
The purpose is an unwarranted hypothesis.
Why?
Science should stick to the facts and say what the evidence shows happened otherwise you get in a position IDists can claim that the evidence shows things it doesn't.
The evidence shows that a person designed and built a hammer for the purpose of driving nails into something. That's sticking to the facts. I fail to see how this gets us into any problematic position with regards to IDists.
If the IDists can use the evidence of the shape and structure of the universe to infer the reason why it was built, that would be perfectly acceptable.
If they use evidence to show the existence of an entity that utilizes the universe towards some end, that would be fine.
I wouldn't mind that, one bit. It's exactly what ID should be doing, since it would in effect be, science (assuming they stick to the rules, of course).
Scientifically proven means that based on explicit premises, logical conclusions are deduced and verified via empirical data.
I dispute the wording strongly, but I expect we are really meaning the same thing when we talk of something being scientifically proven.
I would rather say that to scientifically prove something, one acquires new evidence, preferably as independent of the original evidence as possible, that was either a predicted consequence of the theory (strong proof) or is shown to be consistent with the theory (less strong).
Thus, if you think the hammer was a weapon you might predict a longer handle. If evidence came along that the handle we have has been broken, and is missing a section: this would be at least partial proof of the weapon claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 2:08 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:11 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 67 of 230 (653943)
02-25-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
02-25-2012 2:07 PM


anger
If you think anger is on-topic for this thread, then I don't think that it is.
I read the thread to be about the anger (from both sides of the debate) that hampers fruitful discussion. From the OP
quote:
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 2:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 3:44 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 68 of 230 (653944)
02-25-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
02-25-2012 9:06 AM


Re: Spouting crap or discussing OP?
Dear: Theodoric
Pardon me, but I got way behind (as I still am!) and focused in on the main thing that caught my eye. Give me time, I’ll learn the rhythm here.
As to your statement: it is not just atheists that believe in Evolution. Absolutely agree. So do I. I just believe Evolution MAY have been nuanced and not determined by chance out of chaos. What’s your point otherwise? JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 02-25-2012 9:06 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 69 of 230 (653948)
02-25-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Warthog
02-25-2012 9:55 AM


Re: purpose in science
Dear: Warthog: Msg 47 Thanks for your response and I appologize for my tardy one.
You said:
Science suggests that the intelligence of cephalopods is a result of developing their amazing physiology as well as an active predatory lifestyle.
There is no evidence that intelligence is a goal or 'pre-loaded' as used in another thread. Of course there would be no hard evidence of such. That’s just a speculation. It takes intelligence to evolve a successful predatory life style. We can’t know any of that was directed by any other than evolution. I was more interested in the potential stemming from that development and the road block placed in its way to advancement. Our advantage (since we evolved out of the same predatory life style, basically) is that we have a legacy system whereby information from previous generations are stored; reused and built upon. Why are we the only intelligent species so endowed? Just because we have thumbs? Very complex questions and impossible (really) to answer. You’re quite right, ultimately, when you note:
None of this requires us to assume any form of creator. There is no measurable pattern here that demands a higher power or any form of direction. If there is actual evidence of a creator, I'd love to see it.
Quite right, and to your last point: Wouldn’t we all? But that can never be for reasons I have elaborated on in the past. So we are left to our own devices ---- and speculations and biases.
Then you state a more important point:
I think the biggest problem here is the conflation of two meanings of purpose. I have never seen the use of the term purpose in science to mean anything other than function. I agree with Tanypteryx that function is a better term in this debate.
JCH response:
Purpose in science (to me at least) is the accumulation and analysis of data to support or refute a hypothesis or theory. Nothing more. Only if the process also results in applicable information does it otherwise take on a function beyond the initial purpose.
In short, the purpose is curiosity (investigationally) driven in science.
The function applications are needs and wants driven.
They are Totally different platforms and should not be conflated.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Warthog, posted 02-25-2012 9:55 AM Warthog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Warthog, posted 02-26-2012 6:09 AM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4399 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 70 of 230 (653951)
02-25-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
02-25-2012 11:28 AM


Re: teleology and ID
WOW! Finally some guidance on how to resond cogently in this format. Thankyou so much MODULOUS. Let me digest this and enter it into my formatting. thanks again!!
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 11:28 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 3:36 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 71 of 230 (653954)
02-25-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Modulous
02-25-2012 2:59 PM


Re: anger
Modulous writes:
I read the thread to be about the anger (from both sides of the debate) that hampers fruitful discussion. From the OP...
I understood the differences he describes before the concluding paragraph to be the thread's topic, and that the passing references to anger and vitriol were an effort to make clear both the degree of difficulty of attaining any resolution and the importance of discussing these differences nonetheless. I think it would be a good idea to have a thread discussing the creationist/IDist impression that science guards its theories jealously and reacts emotionally and irrationally when challenged, but my reading of the OP didn't lead me to believe that was the topic of this thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 2:59 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 72 of 230 (653955)
02-25-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
02-25-2012 2:55 PM


Re: purpose in science
Once we have proven what it was used for, we can use several other pieces of evidence:
Humans build tools for certain purposes.
Tools built for a certain purpose tend to be used for those purposes.
these appear to be perfectly ok statements but they are premises not evidence.
to say Humans build tools for certain purposes is an assumption. You can build an argument based on the assumption that anything a human builds and is identified as a 'tool' was designed for a purpose. those assumptions may tally with your personal experience and you can convince most people why the hammer has the purpose you claim.
but an IDist could use the same logical form:
Once we have proven what it was used for, we can use several other pieces of evidence:
God builds organisms for certain purposes.
organisms built for a certain purpose tend to be used for those purposes.
both arguments are insufficient. there is no evidence of purpose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 2:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2012 4:17 PM lbm111 has replied
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 4:22 PM lbm111 has replied

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


Message 73 of 230 (653956)
02-25-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by lbm111
02-25-2012 4:11 PM


Re: purpose in science
to say Humans build tools for certain purposes is an assumption.
No, we can watch them doing it.
but an IDist could use the same logical form:
No. There's a difference between inferring something we can observe as a cause and inferring something that we never see as a cause. Namely that the second one would be silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:11 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 230 (653957)
02-25-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by lbm111
02-25-2012 4:11 PM


Re: purpose in science
Humans build tools for certain purposes.
Tools built for a certain purpose tend to be used for those purposes.
these appear to be perfectly ok statements but they are premises not evidence.
They are facts, supported by the evidence to such a degree so as to deny them would be perverse. We can use such facts as evidence.
to say Humans build tools for certain purposes is an assumption.
No. It's an observed fact.
but an IDist could use the same logical form
And I implore them to do so!
God builds organisms for certain purposes.
organisms built for a certain purpose tend to be used for those purposes.
Would you like me to give you evidence of humans building tools for certain purposes?
Would you like to give me evidence of gods building organisms for certain purposes?
Would you like to give me evidence that organisms are being used for the purposes they were built for?
Hopefully that should show the difference between teleology and non-teleology. I cite indisputable facts, backed by the evidence. You retort by saying the IDist could cite disputed facts, backed by no evidence whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:11 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:31 PM Modulous has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 75 of 230 (653958)
02-25-2012 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2012 4:17 PM


Re: purpose in science
to say Humans build tools for certain purposes is an assumption.
No, we can watch them doing it.
but an IDist could use the same logical form:
No. There's a difference between inferring something we can observe as a cause and inferring something that we never see as a cause. Namely that the second one would be silly.
we can watch them making something. we cannot watch their purpose in making it.
"humans build tools" is an observable
"humans build tools for certain purposes" is an assumption
although i would argue the word "tools" is obviously heavily implicit with meaning regarding its creation.
more accurately
"humans create objects" is an observable
"humans create objects for certain purposes" is an assumption
try replacing the word 'humans' with the word 'animals' and you will see it is less obvious now replace with the word "genes"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2012 4:17 PM Dr Adequate 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