|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3461 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do. Taq writes:
I do not deny this. Science is a wonderful field. Scientific arguments are based on logic and reason. But I have a question, does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..? If the answer is no, then I know no way to restate and continue the conversation. Science has closed further conversation a priori. If the answer is yes, then why submit logic and reason to the same "scientific verification" requirements that you do in your corpus of science?
Taq writes:
All you have offered is an unfalsifiable claim that there is design in nature. That is neither logical nor reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..? Logic and reason are all very well, but both must yield to evidence. The largest and most well-thought out idea can be slain by a single contrary fact. Likewise, without any evidence that idea is about as valid as propelling a spaceship with angels. Reading between the lines, it seems that you are trying to argue that "intelligent design" is a legitimate field for science to explore. Great! Present the evidence and we can get started. (You might start out with evidence for deities, as that would be a logical beginning.) But beware of those contrary facts that may rear their heads along the way. And be prepared for the evidence to be subjected to scientific scrutiny.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
But I have a question, does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..? Does science acknowledge imagined fantasies as being equal to evidenced theories? No. Can you show that design is something more than something you imagine? Can you show how it is at least falsifiable?
If the answer is no, then I know no way to restate and continue the conversation. Science has closed further conversation a priori. If you think that something made up on the spot should be considered on the same level as well evidenced theories, then you probably should give up the argument right now. As of now, you haven't presented anything other than wishful thinking in support of ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Who are people like me? Are you putting me in a group? If so what group? The group is: People who talk about Intelligent Design and the wonder why people associate them with Christianty.
This is unfortunate. In my mind, intelligent and design are two words in common usage in the english language. As for the two words being used together........ that the two words together is an invention stretches credibility. I can look for historical usageof the words in combination which predate what you mentioned above, but is that really necessary? I make the hypothesis that intelligent design are two common words used together to communicate a simple idea and that such usage predates your invention. I leave it to you to prove or disprove this. Okay. First off, you admit that you are unfamiliar with the Discovery Institute, have not heard of the book Of Pandas and People, and have never seen the Wedge Document. Those three things are the defining features of both the invention and the wide spread usage of the phrase "Intelligent Design". The term "Intelligent Design", as you are using it, was invented in 1987 after the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, where it was ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. Timeline of intelligent design - Wikipedia
As for the two words being used together........ that the two words together is an invention stretches credibility. I get what you're saying. But look at it like this: the words "pro" and "choice" must have been used together at some point before abortion was a thing. Now, if you were in a discussion about, say, whether or not you should choose the order for the meal for your wife, and you come in saying that you are Pro-Choice, I don't think you should be surprised that someone mistook you for talking about abortion. And if they did, would you really argue against them because the words "pro" and "choice" must have been used together in the past and therefore you can use that phrase to describe whether or not your wife should have the choice in what she orders for dinner? Ya know what I'm saying? Pro-Choice is a thing. Intelligent Design is a thing. To use those phrases to talk about other things that they are not is going to cause confusion.
for instance I could say I am gay (meaning happy) and be misunderstood. Another instance of a word being hijacke. Exactly. Except in this case, Intelligent Design means something specific and you have hijacked it to use it to mean something else. In Message 508, you wrote:
My logical argument allows that evolution could have happened exactly as science has said. See, this is why you cannot be talking about Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the idea that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Intelligent Design requires the explicit rejection of evolution. If you ain't rejecting evolution, then you ain't talkin' 'bout ID.
Cat Sci writes: Ever single idea we have ever been aware of has come from a brain. That is a strong statement. Has science been done to support it? Huh? What do you mean? Ideas are things that happen in brains. That is what they are.
Cat Sci writes: From this we can scientifically induce, tentatively, that all ideas come from brains. Based on the unsupported ipso facto statement you just made. But that's just how science works. Every single scientific fact has the exact same support.
Cat Sci writes: If you don't think so, then point to one idea that did not come from a brain. Sure....... something on the order of let there be Tai Chi. That idea came from your brain. Can you show me an idea that didn't come from a brain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3461 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..?
coyote writes:
agreed. but agreed with the caveat that the evidence is sometimes not what it seems. I recall someone discussing that the sun seeming to move around the earth was evidence at one time that the earth was flat. Evidence or interpretation of evidence is not infallible I think.
Logic and reason are all very well, but both must yield to evidence. coyote writes:
agreed. If the contrary fact is incontestibly fact.
The largest and most well-thought out idea can be slain by a single contrary fact. coyote writes: Likewise, without any evidence that idea is about as valid as propelling a spaceship with angels. danger here. lack of evidence does not presuppose evidence is lacking. Is this really what you want to say about validity?
coyote writes: Reading between the lines, it seems that you are trying to argue that "intelligent design" is a legitimate field for science to explore. Great! No need to read between the lines here. I would love for science to consider the question of design. Our best minds should answer the questions. Millions and perhaps billions of people through time have incorporated the presumption of design into their worldview. It is not like the notion is frivolous or useless to mankind. Do you refute as invalid the notion of the Supreme Court justice on observing and defining pornography and deny that he saw pornography unless he could scientifically prove it? If not, why do you refute the notion of all people who see design in nature. Unless you can show scientifically that the justice did not see pornography, you should not state without science that design in nature does not exist.
coyote writes: Present the evidence and we can get started. (You might start out with evidence for deities, as that would be a logical beginning.) Ok. My proposition is that design is everywhere in nature. Like pornography, I know it when I see it. I am not alone. Millions, perhaps billions of fellow humans observe(d) evidence this way. That is a statistically large population of observers seeing evidence. If it is not evidence but something else, prove it.
coyote writes: But beware of those contrary facts that may rear their heads along the way. no problem, with the caveats given
coyote writes: And be prepared for the evidence to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. no problem, just do the science
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity? Because mass bends spacetime.
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar? Carbohydrates perfrom all kinds of functions for living organisms.
Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist? That a long and complicated answer, but muscles and nerve impulses evolved from ecological advantages.
Why is subjective, how is objective. Not necessarily. Many times, the answer to "why" is just a question of "how".
Why is the sky blue? Because the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum. See? Each of those questions is scientifically answerable. But, what you are trying to say, is that science cannot answer the purpose of those things. And sure, it can't. But all you're doing is Begging the Question. If there is no purpose in the first place, then its no wonder that science cannot find it.
Ooo how about poison the well fallacy? That's not what poisoning the well is...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3461 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I had composed a more lengthy response but the server went down before I posted. I will keep this more brief.
taiji2 writes:
You have helped me achieve clarity.Percy writes: Lord help you achieve clarity out of this jumbled muddle. If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do. Again, I suggest that perhaps the name of the thread could have been made a bit more clear. Percy writes: Click on this link: Science Forums at Evc. This particular forum, Intelligent Design, is on the list. It's one of the science forums at EvC. The natural assumption is that people will join threads in these forums to discuss science. You can get me off this thread forever with a yes or no answer. I interpret what you are saying is that only scientists or those with science views should be on this forum. If the answer is yes, I am in the wrong place, I am leaving, and I am sorry to have wasted your time.
Percy writes:
If you're arguing that intelligent design has no scientific support then I couldn't agree more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity? Because mass bends spacetime. That is how they are attracted. Why does mass bend spacetime?
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar? Carbohydrates perfrom all kinds of functions for living organisms. That explains how sugars are used, it doesn't explain why they are sweet.
Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist? That a long and complicated answer, but muscles and nerve impulses evolved from ecological advantages. That is how they came to be, it doesn't explain why they did.
Why is subjective, how is objective. Not necessarily. Many times, the answer to "why" is just a question of "how". Then you are confusing the terms or committing an equivocation fallacy
Why is the sky blue? Because the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum. That explains how the sky is blue but not why it is blue.
See? Each of those questions is scientifically answerable. Each of those answers involve how not why.
But, what you are trying to say, is that science cannot answer the purpose of those things. And sure, it can't. But all you're doing is Begging the Question. ... Is it begging the question to use the definition of why?
Ooo how about poison the well fallacy? That's not what poisoning the well is... Poisoning the well is a preemptive attempt to rule out an argument that is valid, and here would be claiming that I can't use the definition of why when the difference between why and how clearly lies in the proper use of the words with the definitions of their use.
quote: Using words properly helps assure good communication. Using words to mean different things than the other person means is a way to assure bad communication (for example Faith's definitions and meanings rather than scientific ones)
... If there is no purpose in the first place, then its no wonder that science cannot find it. Or if the purpose cannot be determined. Even if Picasso said he painted the face blue because he felt like it, that does not answer the question, because now you would have to ask why did he feel like it ... especially when he has used other colors on other occasions presumably because he felt like it: feeling like it has no predictive, and thus no testable, aspect, which means it cannot be investigated by science. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I had composed a more lengthy response but the server went down before I posted. Compose replies in a text editor (like notepad) and you won't lose it, plus you can keep it alongside the post you are replying to and avoid paging up and down from the reply window to the post you are replying to. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
taiji2 writes: You can get me off this thread forever with a yes or no answer. You are a very touchy guy. No one's trying to get you "off this thread." What I wrote was a response to your statement that the thread's title isn't sufficiently clear if there's supposed to be an emphasis on science. So I pointed at that the thread is in one of the science forums. But I don't think anyone here has any problem with you arguing here that intelligent design is outside the realm of science. It seems an eminently sensible position. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3461 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes: You can get me off this thread forever with a yes or no answer. Percy writes: You are a very touchy guy. Well no actually. At least not in this case. I have recognized that you are the forum moderator. As such, I pay particular attention to what you tell me regarding where I am and what I am doing on the forum. I recognize your authority. So when you remind me I am on a science forum and say there is an assumption people join threads in these (science) forums to discuss science ........ well I just assumed there was a message there. My interpretation of that message was you were telling me the forums on the website are divided between science forums and forums that are not science. My interpretation was that you were suggesting I was in the wrong place on the website. If my interpretation was right, I was indicating my willingness to move my presence to where it was appropriate. If my interpretation was wrong, I simply needed an answer that my interpretation was wrong.
Percy writes: No one's trying to get you "off this thread." What I wrote was a response to your statement that the thread's title isn't sufficiently clear if there's supposed to be an emphasis on science. So I pointed at that the thread is in one of the science forums. ok, so if your answer is that no, it is appropriate for me to stay on the thread, then we are good and I will hang around. Thanks
Percy writes: But I don't think anyone here has any problem with you arguing here that intelligent design is outside the realm of science. It seems an eminently sensible position. There you go again saying I said what I didn't say. No problem, what is going on here is debate and I suppose that is proper debate tactics. I can plod past it. I won't even get prickly about it. Edited by taiji2, : correct grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3461 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
But I have a question, does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..? Taq writes:
I agree absolutely based upon what I know of science. But, how is this relevant in a response to a message of mine that makes no reference to imagined fantasies? Are you opening a new line of questioning? Does science acknowledge imagined fantasies as being equal to evidenced theories? No. perhaps you meant to reference my quote previous where I asked if science believes logic and reasoning exists only within the community of science or if they acknowledge logic and reasoning might represent a larger population.
Taq writes:
Well I think I can and I think I have. My cosmological view is that the universe, along with all the natural laws upon which it operates, came from nothing into something through design. Can you show that design is something more than something you imagine? Can you show how it is at least falsifiable? My evidence? I think I have read here that the big bang produced a huge amount of matter composed of mainly hydrogen atoms. This in a short time too, I have never heard of phyletic gradualism being referenced in discussion of the big bang. I have previously made the proposition that the atom is designed. I come to this conclusion using logic and reason and deduction. If the struture of the atom is not derived from design, then where did it derive? Random mutation? Natural selection? Show me some science that out of the big bang nature should chaotically settle on these beautiful things called atoms that (inert gases questioned) are a very slick building blocks toolkit for a lot of interesting stuff. If you are talking evolution, lets start from the big bang and apply the science from there. I stand ready to be taught, teach me.
If the answer is no, then I know no way to restate and continue the conversation. Science has closed further conversation a priori. Taq writes:
Show me the quote, otherwise don't quote what I think.
If you think that something made up on the spot should be considered on the same level as well evidenced theories, then you probably should give up the argument right now. Tqq writes:
Add "In my opinion'"to the front of your statement and we are good.
As of now, you haven't presented anything other than wishful thinking in support of ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar? I'm calling BS on this line of argument. Of course there are some non scientific question using the word why. The point here is whether you actually asked one. If you ask why Picasso shaped a persons nose as he did, a perfectly good answer to that question would be wanted to provoke reaction X. If you want to ask a question that science cannot answer, simply using a why does not cut it. You cannot demonstrate that one why question is not scientific by asking different ones as you do here. As for why sugar exists, who says there is a reason. Why is not "sugar exists because plants evolved to produce it as a means of storing energy" (accompanied by some biology re: evolution and natural selection) a suitable answer? Is it because your really meant to ask something else? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If the struture of the atom is not derived from design, then where did it derive? Random mutation? Natural selection? Show me some science that out of the big bang nature should chaotically settle on these beautiful things called atoms that (inert gases questioned) are a very slick building blocks toolkit for a lot of interesting stuff. Seriously bro. You are making a complete fool of yourself. Atoms are very simply put together. You would be utterly surprised at how little is required to specify completely the operation of an atom. What the heck is "inert gases questioned" supposed to mean anyway? Inert gases do form compounds and some very important chemistry is built on that fact. I'm not saying that you don't actually have a position that can be defended. But when you post rot like this, you are not convincing anyone. Given the mere presence of quarks, electrons, and a low enough energy level, it turns out to be impossible that atoms do not exist. No designing necessary. Don't like that answer? Or more likely you've never even considered it. After the Big Bang, only the very simplest of nuclei existed. Those nuclei consisted of only three different elementary particles. Where is the complexity in that? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
taiji2 writes: Well no actually. At least not in this case. I have recognized that you are the forum moderator. As such, I pay particular attention to what you tell me regarding where I am and what I am doing on the forum. I recognize your authority. So when you remind me I am on a science forum and say there is an assumption people join threads in these (science) forums to discuss science ........ well I just assumed there was a message there. My interpretation of that message was you were telling me the forums on the website are divided between science forums and forums that are not science. My interpretation was that you were suggesting I was in the wrong place on the website. If my interpretation was right, I was indicating my willingness to move my presence to where it was appropriate. If my interpretation was wrong, I simply needed an answer that my interpretation was wrong. You're torturing yourself with over analysis in this thread. I said I was only responding to what you said about the thread's title not being clear, and that's all that I meant. I'm only a participant in this thread. Moderators are not normally permitted to moderate threads where they're participating.
Percy writes: But I don't think anyone here has any problem with you arguing here that intelligent design is outside the realm of science. It seems an eminently sensible position. There you go again saying I said what I didn't say. There were no quotation marks around what I said you said. I wasn't quoting you verbatim. I don't have to use the identical words you used to say the same thing you said, and in Message 506 you said, "If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do." This statement would be inexplicable if you had a legitimate scientific argument for intelligent design, but if you do actually have one then it's well past time to start presenting it. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024