Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 8:39 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, jar, Sarah Bellum, Theodoric (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,091 Year: 9,127/19,786 Month: 1,549/2,119 Week: 309/576 Day: 112/98 Hour: 4/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 292 (194114)
03-24-2005 4:25 PM


I've been very much discouraed by some of the portrayals of intelligent design. In way too many topics, people describe it as a scientific nothing, and say that evolution has so much evidence behind it that there's no point to believing in ID. I thought that this board was supposed to counter perceptions like this and explore the creation vs. evolution for what it truly is, and not as a one-sided debate. People like Dembski and Meyer, and organizations like the Center for Science and Culture, Access Research Network, and the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center can quickly rebut some of these clearly false portrayals of intelligent design. Even using common sense, the idea that this whole controversy, that the curriculum at places like Kanasas, that the scientists who put work into intelligent design, that they all are working to promote a scientific nothing, would be proposterous on its face.

I've also seen people who object to evolution or agree with ID described by words such as bigots, morons, and fringe nutcases. What is disturbing that believing in the creation side seems to be warrant enough for such labels. It is frustrating to try to post on this forum and yet have my side victimized by such negative stereotypes, and many times my posts have to spend a disproportionately large amount of time refuting these stereotypes or exposing simple logical fallacies within these stereotypes.

I do not understand how any progress can be made on a creations versus evolution board and how it can have any purpose if people want to maintain that it is a fact that ID has gotten nowhere scientifically, or that negative stereotypes of the creation or anti-evolution side would be allowed to exist.

Actions like this put the board one step closer to becoming like www.talkorigins.org, a site that claims to explore the controversy but is inherently biased towards evolution.

Changed thread title. --Admin

This message has been edited by Admin, 03-28-2005 09:02 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 4:30 PM commike37 has not yet responded
 Message 3 by kjsimons, posted 03-24-2005 4:35 PM commike37 has not yet responded
 Message 4 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 4:39 PM commike37 has not yet responded
 Message 5 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 4:39 PM commike37 has responded
 Message 6 by Lammy, posted 03-24-2005 5:04 PM commike37 has responded
 Message 33 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-24-2005 7:19 PM commike37 has responded
 Message 76 by Evopeach, posted 08-03-2005 4:44 PM commike37 has not yet responded
 Message 218 by Dr. Robert T. Bakker, posted 08-09-2005 9:32 AM commike37 has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 2 of 292 (194116)
03-24-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:25 PM


It is frustrating to try to post on this forum and yet have my side victimized by such negative stereotypes, and many times my posts have to spend a disproportionately large amount of time refuting these stereotypes or exposing simple logical fallacies within these stereotypes.

Why don't you post some actual evidence for ID and then we can actually discuss it. I've asked you a couple of time but it seems you'd just perfer to whine that actually present your case.

So how about it? Pop in to one of the MULTIPLE current threads and let's see what the current state of play is with ID research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:25 PM commike37 has not yet responded

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 667
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 3 of 292 (194120)
03-24-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:25 PM


Sorry to burst your bubble Mike, but as it stands now it is a fact that "ID has gotten nowhere scientifically". Simply put ID is not science because the hypothesis ID presents is not falsifiable. It is a requirement for all science that what is being presented, could possibly be proven false. ID can't be proved false, therefore it resides outside of science. God(s) and other superstitions are also not falsifiable and are also outside of science's realm. Sorry!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:25 PM commike37 has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 4 of 292 (194124)
03-24-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:25 PM


And it occurs to me -

quote:
Actions like this put the board one step closer to becoming like www.talkorigins.org, a site that claims to explore the controversy but is inherently biased towards evolution.

Since the FRONTPAGE of Talk origins says:

The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

Talk origins has NEVER offered equal time to creationism - the position has always been that is rubbish. So that's a strawman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:25 PM commike37 has not yet responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 5 of 292 (194127)
03-24-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:25 PM


commike-

Present:

- A single falsifiable ID theory.

OR

- A single ID study from the peer-reviewed literature.

One of these would refute the assertion that ID is not science. If you can't come up with either, than perhaps ID isn't science after all...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:25 PM commike37 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:05 PM pink sasquatch has responded

Lammy
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 6 of 292 (194137)
03-24-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:25 PM


commike37 writes:

I've also seen people who object to evolution or agree with ID described by words such as bigots, morons, and fringe nutcases.


A stereotype is a blanket view of a group based on observation of a few. In this case, I don't think we can call this stereotyping when referring to creos. Just search the boards. You have any idea how many creos have tried to discredit the theo of evo by the "if we evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkey around?" question? Now, type in "second law" or "2nd law" in the search engine. I think it's safe to say that almost all creos that ever visited this site have tried to use this argument at one point or other.

Stereotype? I don't think so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:25 PM commike37 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:01 PM Lammy has responded

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 292 (194140)
03-24-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by pink sasquatch
03-24-2005 4:39 PM


You know, I've had the ability to post some of this for longer than you have known, but the disturbing thing is that I'm required to post this. It would be one thing to say that a certain aspect or tenet of ID is not science or that it creates a non-falsifiable theory, but to extend that accusation to the entire theory of intelligent design on a creation vs evolution board is proposterous. Too many topics are getting bogged down with such worthless requests.

And to pre-empt this argument, don't try citing the rules and saying that assertions must be backed up with evidence. What I'm doing here is saying that claiming that ID is a scientific nothing is an abusive assertion, destroying clash and making the debate too one-sided. Let me remind you that I'm a debater, so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes on this one. Every time I've previously made this claim, the typical reaction is to turn this into an evidence war. However, that doesn't really clash with my claims of abuse.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

5. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design theory?

Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

6. Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?

Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additional peer-reviewed books about design theory are scheduled to be published in 2003 and 2004 by Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press. In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago. There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations. Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable

Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1191

FAQ: Will intelligent design lead to false positives (or could it eventually say that "everything" is designed)?

A false positive is when you say something is true, but it really isn't. Right now, science probably have to worry about ID producing false negative (saying something ID isn't designed, when it really is) because science already operates under the presumption that nothing is designed anyway, so "false negatives" will not change how science currently works. But false positives could pose a problem for science--if we begin to infer design when we really shouldn't. However, false positives are always a problem in many scientific theories--where we are making claims based upon inferences. If the evidence points to design, we should infer it. We can be careful and use the explanatory filter to only detect design in certain circumstances where the evidence seems to warrant design. If we do infer design, that doesn't stop us from still investigating natural causes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 4:39 PM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 5:18 PM commike37 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2005 5:23 PM commike37 has responded
 Message 11 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 5:30 PM commike37 has responded
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2005 9:35 PM commike37 has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 8 of 292 (194146)
03-24-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:05 PM


"peer-reviewed book" - that's a new one on me? anyone?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:05 PM commike37 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Ooook!, posted 03-24-2005 5:21 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2005 5:37 PM CK has not yet responded

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 9 of 292 (194147)
03-24-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
03-24-2005 5:18 PM


"peer-reviewed book" - that's a new one on me?

"Yeah!! I showed it to a few of my mates, and they said it made sense"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 5:18 PM CK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15040
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 10 of 292 (194150)
03-24-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:05 PM


Isn't it interesting that despite objecting to people suggesting that you have been decieved by propaganda all you can do to support ID is - quote propaganda.

Funny, that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:05 PM commike37 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:41 PM PaulK has responded

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 11 of 292 (194153)
03-24-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:05 PM


almost what I asked for...
commike, I asked you to produce one of these things to refute the assertion that ID is not science:

- A single falsifiable ID theory.

OR

- A single ID study from the peer-reviewed literature.

Regarding the first; if you think one was present in your response, please specify, because I did not see it. The closest I saw was:

Q: Does intelligent design make predictions?
A: Is it testable.

"Testable" is quite different from "falsifiable". Hopefully you understand the difference - in other words, where is the ID theory that can be refuted?

The source goes on:

Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!

What is "Intelligent Design theory"? Is there an agreed upon working description?

What is "specified complexity"? Do the IDers have a working definition?

Regarding points #2,3, and 4; the Theory of Evolution also explains and/or predicts these things, without the inclusion of a supernatural force. Why is an ID view of these things more accurate than what has already been naturalistically explained?

Regarding the point of peer-reviewed literature; I should have been more specific. When I use the term "study", I mean that a hypothesis is tested through experimental data and/or evidence gathering. The "peer-reviewed literature" you list is theoretical/philosophical - no hypothesis tested with evidence:

Likewise, the PCID journal mentioned is peer-reviewed by IDers only, is published only on-line, and only contains theoretical/philosophical and/or review papers.

Perhaps I should ask a bit differently:

- Can you present a single (falsifiable) ID hypothesis that has been tested by experimental evidence?

After all, I would think that if ID was a legitimate theory and field of science there would be at least a little experimental evidence, wouldn't you?

I'm really not trying "to pull the wool over your eyes" here, commike; I would be genuinely interested to examine a legitimate, scientific ID study. I'm looking forward to seeing if you can come up with one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:05 PM commike37 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:48 PM pink sasquatch has responded
 Message 21 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:07 PM pink sasquatch has responded
 Message 23 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:11 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15040
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 12 of 292 (194157)
03-24-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
03-24-2005 5:18 PM


That does happen, but I rather doubt that it is the case for the CUP volume

And they are leaving out one rather important detail on the Michigan book - it was published in the "Rhetoric and Public Affairs" series.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 5:18 PM CK has not yet responded

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 292 (194160)
03-24-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
03-24-2005 5:23 PM


Here we go with the abuse then. This is just frustrating that I can't quote evidence without having it automatically discredited as propaganda. If I can't quote evidence without this happening, why should I use evidence at all? Likewise, should the entire talk.origins archive be thrown out because it's evolution propaganda? You have absolutely no proof to back up this baseless and crude claim. I would also suggest that you acquaint yourself with the "ad hominem" logical fallacy as well, as it will easily discredit your position.

It's these types of frivolous claims that are creating problems with this forum.

Also, look at Charles Knight and Ooook! Now that I've satisfied some of the users and posted some evidence, they think that my appropiate reward is to mock me for my efforts.

And can I at least have an admin or a mod weigh in on my first post?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2005 5:23 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 5:45 PM commike37 has responded
 Message 20 by Ooook!, posted 03-24-2005 6:03 PM commike37 has responded
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2005 6:13 PM commike37 has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 14 of 292 (194164)
03-24-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:41 PM


but you have provided any evidence at all. You've provided some claims from some people who claim that they have some evidence .

I'm starting to think that you don't actually understand what evidence actually is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:41 PM commike37 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:52 PM CK has not yet responded

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 292 (194165)
03-24-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by pink sasquatch
03-24-2005 5:30 PM


Let's get back to abuse
You see this is why I didn't want to post evidence. I specifically said that this would turn into an evidence war and there would be any clash referring to my claims of abuse, and look what happens. No one has really even attempted to respond to my claims of abuse. In fact, nowhere in your entire post is abuse mentioned. However, this topic is titled "Abusive assumptions." Once again, while I wouldn't mind getting into an evidence war over specific tenets of ID, it is simply unacceptable withing the context of this forum to argue that ID and creation as a whole are unscientific.

Also, no one has dealt with the negative stereotypes problem that I raised in the second post of my argument.

This message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 05:49 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 5:30 PM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 5:54 PM commike37 has not yet responded
 Message 18 by kjsimons, posted 03-24-2005 5:55 PM commike37 has responded
 Message 22 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 6:07 PM commike37 has not yet responded
 Message 187 by Theus, posted 08-07-2005 5:28 PM commike37 has not yet responded

1
23456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019