Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
23 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
Jedothek
Junior Member
Posts: 13
From: Pittsburgh
Joined: 08-14-2019


Message 1 of 133 (861028)
08-15-2019 2:11 PM


I tried to insert the following protest on the discussion page for the Wikipedia article on intelligent design, but discussion is closed; so I vent by preaching to you folks. I have not altered my original wording at all.

I have to protest the biased and ridiculous first paragraph of this article (as I have protested the similar lead of the Stephen C. Meyer article) even though no one here is listening. As with the Meyer article, it is unprofessional to include the controversial term "pseudoscientific" in the definition of a theory; it belongs rather in the discussion in the article under "Scientific criticism."

Further, the paragraph makes itself contemptible with its failure to understand a distinction relevant to the issue, when its calls ID "a form of creationism." An encyclopedia that cannot distinguish design from creation (who designed the Saturn V rocket? Was it the same set of persons who built it?) has no business offering any remarks concerning these subtle questions.

Further, the first paragraph asserts, as an uncontroversial fact, that "ID ...offers no testable or tenable hypotheses," without the writers apparently having glanced at testable hypotheses easily accessible in such articles as
https://evolutionnews.org/.../a_closer_look_at_one_scientist

The issue is not whether you, the reader, like intelligent design. The issue is whether Wikipedia comes across as a source of knowledge or as a swamp of dogma. -- John Harvey


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 08-16-2019 2:05 AM Jedothek has responded
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2019 7:36 AM Jedothek has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 08-16-2019 9:37 AM Jedothek has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3894
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 133 (861030)
08-16-2019 12:08 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Biased accounts of intelligent design thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 3 of 133 (861031)
08-16-2019 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jedothek
08-15-2019 2:11 PM


In your own words how would you state the ID hypothesis and how would you test it?

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 1 by Jedothek, posted 08-15-2019 2:11 PM Jedothek has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:07 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15389
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 4 of 133 (861035)
08-16-2019 3:40 AM


Talk Page
The relevant Talk Page provides useful context.

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 5 of 133 (861038)
08-16-2019 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jedothek
08-15-2019 2:11 PM


Is ID science?
Welcome to the fray, Jedothik

The issue is not whether you, the reader, like intelligent design. The issue is whether Wikipedia comes across as a source of knowledge or as a swamp of dogma.

It is rather obviously a source of knowledge. Here's the first paragraph:

quote:
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim 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."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Sounds accurate to me, unlike the article you linked (it makes several logical errors). The best way to show ID is not a pseudoscience would be to do some actual science based on this concept. This step has not been taken.

Please see Is ID properly pursued? for my take on ID (note signature).

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : st


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jedothek, posted 08-15-2019 2:11 PM Jedothek has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 6 of 133 (861042)
08-16-2019 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jedothek
08-15-2019 2:11 PM


With others here I'd like you to spell out exactly what ID is, especially as compared with creationism, or Young Earth Creationism.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jedothek, posted 08-15-2019 2:11 PM Jedothek has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 08-17-2019 6:25 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:02 AM Faith has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 7 of 133 (861138)
08-17-2019 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
08-16-2019 9:37 AM


I don’t think they are coming back

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 6 by Faith, posted 08-16-2019 9:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 8 of 133 (861147)
08-18-2019 3:14 AM


Nah, it's drive-by spam. If he doesn't come back it should be deleted.

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 08-18-2019 3:29 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 7:50 AM Tangle has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3712
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 9 of 133 (861149)
08-18-2019 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tangle
08-18-2019 3:14 AM


Nah, it's drive-by spam. If he doesn't come back it should be deleted.

I prefer the term from Mrs. Doubtfire: "It was a run-by fruiting!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2019 3:14 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 10 of 133 (861152)
08-18-2019 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tangle
08-18-2019 3:14 AM


Too bad. I've never been very clear what the differences are between ID and YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2019 3:14 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2019 9:17 AM Faith has responded
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 08-18-2019 10:15 AM Faith has responded
 Message 45 by dwise1, posted 08-18-2019 4:49 PM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 11 of 133 (861163)
08-18-2019 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
08-18-2019 7:50 AM


Faith writes:

Too bad. I've never been very clear what the differences are between ID and YEC.

ID is pretend science but even pretend science could not sign up to a young earth, so my guess would be that there ain't no YEC IDists.

If there are, their heads are in a very bad place.


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 10 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 7:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 9:45 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 133 (861170)
08-18-2019 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tangle
08-18-2019 9:17 AM


That tells me absolutely nothing. I wonder if the author of the thread can offer something more illuminating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2019 9:17 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Jedothek
Junior Member
Posts: 13
From: Pittsburgh
Joined: 08-14-2019


Message 13 of 133 (861174)
08-18-2019 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
08-16-2019 9:37 AM


ID and creationism
ID is the doctrine that the world (e.g., the genetic code or the values of physical constants) exhibits signs of having been designed by intelligence. A strong form would be: “the world MUST be (partially) designed”; a weak form would be “the balance of evidence supports design rather than mindless genesis.”

Opponents of ID say, “AHA! You’re REALLY trying to sneak God into this! I can even show that ID proponents A and B are *gasp* Christians!” This is , of course, a fallacy. The religious affiliations of proponents are as logically irrelevant as, say, a Hindu physicist’s religion is ordinarily taken to be when it comes to criticism of a paper he has published. ID proponents such as Meyer and William Lane Craig do not cite scripture, they cite evidence. I even heard one ID person say that it’s possible that life on Earth was designed by extraterrestrials. ( I know that sounds like an infinite regress, but this point would require a separate discussion.)

Creationism says that the world , or more often , living species were brought into existence by some voluntary act rather, than say, by evolution. Some ID proponents will tell you explicitly that they think living species have evolved; they might add that the first organism must have been designed ( so far as I know, C . Darwin never said that life came into existence by evolution, whatever that would mean), or that evolution has received some intelligent guidance along the way. A key question here is whether natural selection is adequate to account for evolution.

Young earth Creationism holds that the world was made about 6 thousand years ago. I don’t encounter many people who say this. The Christian philosopher William Lane Craig whom I mentioned seems to accept that the universe was created about 13.8 billion years ago ( I never heard him take a position on when planet earth was formed).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 08-16-2019 9:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:14 AM Jedothek has responded
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 08-18-2019 11:55 AM Jedothek has responded

    
Jedothek
Junior Member
Posts: 13
From: Pittsburgh
Joined: 08-14-2019


Message 14 of 133 (861176)
08-18-2019 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
08-16-2019 2:05 AM


See my statement elsewhere on this page of ID. For testing, I have nothing better to offer at the moment than the tests suggested in the article I have already indicated,

https://evolutionnews.org/.../a_closer_look_at_one_scientist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 08-16-2019 2:05 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2019 11:19 AM Jedothek has responded
 Message 26 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 11:56 AM Jedothek has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 133 (861180)
08-18-2019 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 10:02 AM


Re: ID and creationism
If the main thing is that *things* look like they were designed by an intelligence, what are the options: a creator God or extraterrestrials? Anything else? I don't see how you can avoid the Creator God myself and doesn't that automatically raise the specter of religion?

So those IDers who accept evolution merely postulate the Intelligent Designer as the initiator of the process?

By the way, I'm a YEC.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:02 AM Jedothek has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 08-18-2019 10:21 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 11:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019