Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,511 Year: 6,768/9,624 Month: 108/238 Week: 25/83 Day: 1/3 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
JonF
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 31 of 150 (861208)
08-18-2019 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:05 PM


A sufficient number of the scientific community has examined ID and found it wanting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Jedothek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:18 PM JonF has replied

  
Jedothek
Junior Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 18
From: Pittsburgh
Joined: 08-14-2019


Message 32 of 150 (861209)
08-18-2019 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AZPaul3
08-18-2019 11:55 AM


Re: ID and creationism
AZPaul3's post is the most illogical of all the contributions to this thread hitherto. We learn from it that AZPaul3 does not like the ID folks; he thinks their motives are creepy. Please forgive me if I am not interested. I have been trying to direct people’s attention toward the critique of the arguments publicly presented for ID (as distinct from assertions about the private doings of ID people). Even if AZPaul3 is hopeless, I trust that some others will respond ( as some have) with logic and evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 08-18-2019 11:55 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by AZPaul3, posted 08-18-2019 2:01 PM Jedothek has not replied
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2019 4:13 PM Jedothek has not replied

  
Jedothek
Junior Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 18
From: Pittsburgh
Joined: 08-14-2019


Message 33 of 150 (861210)
08-18-2019 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by JonF
08-18-2019 1:14 PM


JonF, your trust in the scientific community is touching; but it might prod your intellectual growth more if you were to examine the arguments for yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 1:14 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 1:22 PM Jedothek has not replied
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2019 6:41 AM Jedothek has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 34 of 150 (861212)
08-18-2019 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:18 PM


I have examined ID. I've read Behe and Dembski and others . I even thought Dembski might be on to something when he first popped up.
ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
I note you skipped addressing Message 26.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:18 PM Jedothek has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17919
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 35 of 150 (861213)
08-18-2019 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:05 PM


quote:
So though an individual may lack the self-discipline to criticize his own theory , the scientific community as a whole will act to address the proposal critically. In the case of the ID proponents, surrounded by a mob howling that they are not only mistaken but irrational, it is not human to suggest that they should be seeking evidence against their own theories.
I will note that the emotive dismissal of criticism is hardly helpful, and typical of propaganda.
The reason why the theory of ID cannot be addressed critically is that there is no such theory. To provide a viable design alternative to current scientific theories it would be necessary to take the idea of a designer beyond an ad hoc hypothesis - to explain at the least why the presumed designer made particular choices, and to extend this to make predictions.
The ID movement includes Old Earth Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, at least one theistic evolutionist (Behe - who is an ex-creationist) and a few others. One would think that they would at least be sorting out which of those alternatives is best - which would include considerable criticism- but I have seen little sign of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Jedothek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 1:50 PM PaulK has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 150 (861214)
08-18-2019 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:05 PM


... In the case of the ID proponents, surrounded by a mob howling that they are not only mistaken but irrational, it is not human to suggest that they should be seeking evidence against their own theories. ...
They have. It is the scientific process to seek contrary evidence, for only then is knowledge improved.
... ( Lest there be misunderstanding, I acknowledge that RAZD makes a rational case in the article to which he, in violation of his own imperious precept, links.) ...
It is a fine line between an external link and one to a different thread on this forum. The point is to debate with the author of the article, which you can obviously do on the different threads in this forum. Another link you might be interested in is to the Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... thread.
ID has been much discussed on this forum, and referring to previous threads is a way of saving time.
... It is natural and expected for a scholar to seek and present evidence that buttresses his case. ...
But not to cherry-pick evidence and neglect evidence that is contrary and problematic.
... I do not recall that Newton in the Principia made an effort to present evidence against his own theories; that was the task of the larger scientific community.
And it was before the scientific method was formalized. In any case, an anomaly in the orbit of Mercury lead us to relativity being a better explanation. Science grows on the shoulders of those who came before.
So do you have any information on how Intelligent design is accomplished? By what process is it implemented?
How do you define "information" and how do you measure "complexity" ... for discussing quantities without a measuring system is simply just expressing an opinion, and not science.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Jedothek has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 37 of 150 (861215)
08-18-2019 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
08-18-2019 1:33 PM


They haven't done much of anything in the last five years or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2019 1:33 PM PaulK has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8654
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.6


(1)
Message 38 of 150 (861216)
08-18-2019 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:15 PM


Re: ID and creationism
We learn from it that AZPaul3 does not like the ID folks; he thinks their motives are creepy.
Your motives are not creepy but are a lie, a subterfuge, a cover behind which you work to undermine the rule of law in this country.
At least vocal creationists are honest, open, upfront with their desire to once again have their version of their god with their version of righteousness rule all of American society as they once did.
Your stance is pure charlatanism.
Even if AZPaul3 is hopeless, I trust that some others will respond ( as some have) with logic and evidence.
You and yours have already presented your evidence at Dover and in the Wedge document.
Science, as well, has seen your logic and your evidence and all of it has been rejected many hundreds of times in the last few decades.
You carry your history with you in everything you say. That history is one of fakery, misdirection, and its rejection by science.
Squeal all you want about how illogical your opponents are on this subject.
You are not the first and will not be the last DI shill to fake the non-religious nature of, and the religious goals of, ID.
I have no problem with you and others discussing the faulty logic of the cdesign proponentsists yet once again. You can start by showing us the exact model, the equation, for determining specified complexity.
Have at it.
Just so everyone understands that your position is not one of honesty but is, in truth, religious creationism with a mask.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:15 PM Jedothek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 2:49 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 39 of 150 (861220)
08-18-2019 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:05 PM


Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer about your position: but if you aren’t using the scientific method (by your own admition) you are not testing an hypothesis and will not be able to make a conclusion that is evidence based.
Also: you have not specified the units of measurement ID measures complexity. Is this something you are able to do?
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Jedothek has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 150 (861221)
08-18-2019 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by AZPaul3
08-18-2019 2:01 PM


Re: ID and creationism
I don't think it's fair to accuse them of pretending not to have a religious view of the intelligent designer. I think they really don't have such a view, all they are trying to say is that phenomena exhibit the marks of intelligent design. That implies an intelligence to bring about the design for sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply a particular intelligence.
I'm not really sure why they want to insist on this though unless it's to avoid the secondary problems of trying to specify how the design came about which apparently they don't consider essential to the main idea: that the phenomena exhibit the marks of intelligent design. If that's all they want to claim why aren't they allowed to claim that without you telling them they mean something other than they say they mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by AZPaul3, posted 08-18-2019 2:01 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2019 3:15 PM Faith has replied
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 3:42 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 150 (861224)
08-18-2019 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
08-18-2019 2:49 PM


Re: ID and creationism
... unless it's to avoid the secondary problems of trying to specify how the design came about ...
Indeed. It is either natural or supernatural. If it is natural then no god/s need apply. If it is supernatural then god/s are involved.
Note that not having an explanation doesn't mean there isn't one, just that it hasn't been developed yet.
... apparently they don't consider essential to the main idea: that the phenomena exhibit the marks of intelligent design. ...
And the question here is how do we know this? Is it just some currently unexplained phenomenon, or is it something that cannot be explained with science as we know it? Which again leads to supernatural.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 2:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 3:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 150 (861227)
08-18-2019 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
08-18-2019 3:15 PM


Re: ID and creationism
Isn't that their task: to demonstrate what they mean by intelligent design? We don't need to get into the nature of the designer at all. It's hard enough to convince anyone of the marks of design. I think they're obvious. You don't. Most here don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2019 3:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2019 6:52 AM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 43 of 150 (861228)
08-18-2019 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
08-18-2019 2:49 PM


Re: ID and creationism
I see you skipped over Message 27
Yes, they don't consider the how or the who important. They're wrong, partly for reasons given above and all over the Web. I think the biggest problem is that without those elements it's vapid and sterile. OK, everything is designed. Now what? The answer to all questions is "the Designer dunnit, we cannot have any idea how or by whom".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 2:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 4:55 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2019 6:42 AM JonF has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9583
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.5


(2)
Message 44 of 150 (861234)
08-18-2019 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:15 PM


Re: ID and creationism
Jedothek writes:
AZPaul3's post is the most illogical of all the contributions to this thread hitherto. We learn from it that AZPaul3 does not like the ID folks; he thinks their motives are creepy.
The world thinks you motives are more than creepy. It thinks they're corrupt and a pack of lies. The reason is this
quote:
The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change to promote and support the pseudoscientific[1] idea of intelligent design (ID), which asserts 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."[2][3][4] Its chief activities are a campaign to promote public awareness of this concept, the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high school science classes, and legal action, either to defend such teaching or to remove barriers otherwise preventing it.[5][6] The movement arose out of the creation science movement in the United States,[7] and is driven by a small group of proponents.[8][9]
Wedge strategy - Wikipedia
This from their own documentation.
And I'm guessing this is a reason why you might not like Wikipaedia

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:15 PM Jedothek has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.1


(1)
Message 45 of 150 (861238)
08-18-2019 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
08-18-2019 7:50 AM


Too bad. I've never been very clear what the differences are between ID and YEC.
I think that a lot of that confusion is due to YECs having replaced their young-earth claims with ID claims and arguments after Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) blew "creation science's" cover and exposed it as religious in nature -- remember that the purpose of "creation science" was to fool the courts and the public by pretending that their objections to evolution were for "purely scientific reasons, nothing religious about it."
Both YEC and ID are part of the anti-evolution movement whose roots go back to the early 20th century, but each had a different history and a different approach -- at first.
The YEC approach is firmly based on a literalist interpretation of the Bible and is overtly based on sectarian Christian beliefs. I don't know how staunchly the YEC position was held early in the movement (eg, its 1920's heyday), but I've read indications of that community becoming polarized during the 50's and 60's (eg, YECs Drs. Morris & Gish leaving the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) to form their own YEC creationist groups when the ASA wouldn't take a hard-enough line against evolution and an old earth), such that when the movement was remobilized after Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) overturned the "monkey laws" and brought evolution back into the classroom (and also made the "creation science" deception necessary for creationists).
We hadn't heard much about ID before Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), but before then I did see lawyer and ID co-founder Phillip Johnson on NOVA demanding that evolution and science follow courtroom standards for evidence, which immediately informed me that he did not understand how science works -- this was not stated by him, but that would be analogous to requiring all police investigations at all levels to follow courtroom standards, in which case no investigation could ever follow clues nor form hypotheses.
Ostensibly, ID objects to evolution on philosophy grounds. Basically, they misrepresent science as adhering to an atheistic philosophical naturalism which teaches that the physical universe is all that exists; ie, no God. Instead, the reality is that science practices methodological naturalism in which science does not try to use non-natural explanations (eg, the supernatural) solely because there is no way in which science can work with such explanations (eg, we cannot observe, measure, test, verify, nor even detect the existence of the supernatural).
In reality, many IDists' religious beliefs also factor into their opposition to evolution, such as Phillip Johnson's remark that he opposes evolution "because it leaves God with nothing to do". But, just as the YECs would hide their religious motives from the public with "creation science" (AKA "The Game of 'Hide the Bible'"), IDists also hide their religious motives from the public. Yet both YECs and IDists would speak very openly in private groups about their religious motives. Both groups would publically allow for a Creator other than their own particular god (eg, YEC "public school edition" educational materials defining the "creation model" as involving an "unnamed Creator", ID rhetoric that the Designer could be anything including aliens) all with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?, know what I mean?", all while in private among themselves (and religious groups) they would state outright that they are talking only about the Christian god.
IDists would conduct outreach presentations to the YECs trying to build a coalition to oppose evolution. But then with Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) destroying their ability to continue using "creation science", YECs adopted ID arguments. For example, YECs dealing with the public will no longer try to use young-earth claims and will even do everything they can to avoid presenting one (eg, a staunch YEC I corresponded with over a period of 20 years absolutely refused to ever present or discuss even a single young-earth claim), but rather almost all of their arguments are about complexity (ignoring the inconvenient fact that the most common byproduct of evolutionary processes is high levels of complexity). And the most famous case of this adoption of ID terminology is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) about the book, Of Pandas and People, whose conversion from a creationist to an ID book was substituting all occurrences of "creationists" with "design proponents" resulting in the smoking gun, "cdesign proponentsists".
So I submit that one of the main reasons why it can be so hard to differentiate between YEC and ID is because most of the ID claims and arguments that we encounter are from YECs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 7:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 4:57 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 5:32 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024