Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
41 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,350 Year: 20,386/19,786 Month: 783/2,023 Week: 291/392 Day: 22/129 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 3276 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


(1)
Message 1 of 62 (563003)
06-02-2010 8:22 PM


I generally feel that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, and here I wanted to present one point which convinces me of this, and hopefully hear some responses from I.D. proponents.

My stance is that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather is a religious viewpoint (or, to give more credit, a philosophy). My evidence is the fact that Intelligent Design doesn't seem to apply to any single area of study... it's not about physics, or geology. It's not even about biology or cosmology. Instead, it's just about... well... everything.

Real science isn't like that at all. Real science is focused in on a particular idea, aspect, or area of study. Even wide-reaching theories in science are fairly narrow in their application (Germ Theory deals only with micro-organisms. The Theory of Evolution deals with the diversity of life. The Theory of Relativity deals with large-scale physics, etc.)

Originally, Intelligent Design was presented as an opposing viewpoint to the Theory of Evolution, suggesting that it was a hypothesis within Biology. Then, traditional philosophical arguments for God (like the Kalaam Cosmological Argument or the Anthropic Principle) were applied to astronomy and also given the label of "Intelligent Design" (although it was much harder to pass these off as 'alternatives' to real cosmological theories like the Big Bang Theory). But eventually, Intelligent Design arguments extended to address the formation of the first life itself, the generation of chemical and physical laws, even aspects of mathematics!

So what is it, I.D. proponents? What is Intelligent Design about? Is it an area of Biology? Or of chemistry? Or of physics?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 10:30 PM Fiver has not yet responded
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 06-02-2010 11:34 PM Fiver has responded
 Message 15 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 06-04-2010 3:47 PM Fiver has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Blue Jay, posted 06-10-2010 5:56 PM Fiver has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12643
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2 of 62 (563019)
06-02-2010 9:19 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the I.D. proponents: Make up your mind! thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2370 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


(1)
Message 3 of 62 (563027)
06-02-2010 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
06-02-2010 8:22 PM


magnum
This is a very good question. i don't know a simple definition for intelligent design that's accepted.

The attempt is for science to recognize a created universe. that i do know, and also believe. The proponents, myself included, want science to recognize this observation about existing That we trust as fact.

Science has many tools. The greatest tool is the collective intelligence of great minds.

since religions tend to vary, and religion and science cannot marry in their endeavors without prejudice, science is the best way to teach our children the basics of God without prejudice of religion.

The problem has been the proof. and a lack of a definition of God means their isn't any way to gather any scientific proof. Most proponents do not recognize a need for a definition of God for science. Other than the "supernatural" aspect they have accepted. This flaw has been a folly for all mankind; religious, and non religious.

I do believe the structure size variety and perfectly natural balances and order is so beautiful, so perfect within its interactions and so massive in scale in comparison to this tiny planet and our currently undefined reason for being in it a good reason alone to accept God and creation. However, i do not accept the religious arguments that the bible should be the basis of science concerning creation. but that the science of creation in the bible fits science.

There will be no conflict between the truth of God, and true science. because God established all things, so then what we do study in science speaks for God.

God, i have argued; is natural. i have met resistance with this saying on both sides.

You have debated with me on my arguments. and certainly, whether you agree or disagree, you should at least see my point. i came to God from my observations in science, not from the bible to science. but from science to the bible. although i don necessarily interpret religion the same way as other believers, i do believe that God IS. and also that science should recognize the definition that its own observations do show if examined.

Indeed what IS Intelligent Design? Can we marry God and science without conflict? I Believe we can. I'm just not sure under what title. It is not a new science. Its a variable. Why not just teach the variable and the definition? that is AFTER and ONLY AFTER, The same observations i have made have been scrutinized by science.

IF the scientists of this day will not examine it, then i myself will attempt to become a scientist in the necessary field to bring the observations to the science board myself.

You have read my argument, I Don't believe you understand it. But if you have understood at least enough, How would you classify The definition and findings to science under the assumption that it is true? call it Intelligent Design? call it a variable? or will you not be hypothetical with me for he sake of your question?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 06-02-2010 8:22 PM Fiver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2010 10:46 PM tesla has responded
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2010 8:07 AM tesla has responded
 Message 13 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2010 1:21 AM tesla has responded
 Message 61 by barbara, posted 07-19-2010 4:09 AM tesla has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 62 (563032)
06-02-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by tesla
06-02-2010 10:30 PM


It's the evidence...
Just to take on one point:

since religions tend to vary, and religion and science cannot marry in their endeavors without prejudice, science is the best way to teach our children the basics of God without prejudice of religion.

Science deals with empirical evidence. Religions deal with scripture, dogma, belief, "divine revelation" and the like, and cringe at any attempt of science to evaluate those using empirical evidence.

But now you want science to abandon its established methods and accept scripture, revelation and the like -- most likely with no critical analysis -- and accept your religious beliefs. And to teach them as if they were science.

Sorry, you have it entirely backwards.

It is evidence first, then the rest.

You want science to teach about deities, science will first have to have evidence of deities. And that evidence will have to withstand critical examination. So far the claims of various religions have fared quite poorly when subjected to critical examination.

Example: the global flood about 4,350 years ago. That religious belief has been disproved with overwhelming evidence.

Example: a young earth. Likewise.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 10:30 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 11:01 PM Coyote has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2370 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 5 of 62 (563037)
06-02-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
06-02-2010 10:46 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
quote:
But now you want science to abandon its established methods and accept scripture,

Not hardly, slow down frank..
I want science to accept what it finds. Not endorse religion. That's why God in science is important to me, science and God are not in conflict. religions are. Its our misunderstandings that make science flawed. The dynamics of the universe are perfect. we are not.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2010 10:46 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2010 11:25 PM tesla has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 62 (563045)
06-02-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by tesla
06-02-2010 11:01 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
want science to accept what it finds. Not endorse religion.

Good. That is appropriate.

That's why God in science is important to me, science and God are not in conflict.

OK. But you realize that you have to produce empirical evidence, evidence that can be replicated by scientists, that there are any deities in science.

...religions are. Its our misunderstandings that make science flawed.

Nobody claims science is perfect. Science is all about disproving earlier theories.

The dynamics of the universe are perfect. we are not.

So? We do the best we can.

None of this proves there are deities that should be included in science. You are getting a lot of exercise with your logical leaps!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 11:01 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 10:46 PM Coyote has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 7 of 62 (563046)
06-02-2010 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
06-02-2010 8:22 PM


So what is it, I.D. proponents? What is Intelligent Design about? Is it an area of Biology? Or of chemistry? Or of physics?

Easy question.

It's about trying to create doubt about any area of science that undermines their religion. Simple.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 06-02-2010 8:22 PM Fiver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Fiver, posted 06-03-2010 3:04 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 3276 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


Message 8 of 62 (563061)
06-03-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by subbie
06-02-2010 11:34 PM


quote:
It's about trying to create doubt about any area of science that undermines their religion. Simple.

I think you're right here, actually. Most Intelligent Design discussions that I've seen work by simply muddying the waters on the current science and hoping that this proves Intelligent Design by default. I've never read any Intelligent Design book which tries to add onto the idea in anything but a strictly biblical way.

If there were scientific evidence of life having been specially and intelligently designed, the next logical areas to explore would include...

1. What methods were used to build life?
2. Where and when did the building of life take place?
3. Where is the division between variation in life that happens naturally and variation that is due to the intelligent design?

The list goes on...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 06-02-2010 11:34 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20237
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 9 of 62 (563082)
06-03-2010 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by tesla
06-02-2010 10:30 PM


Re: magnum
Just a small point tesla,

The proponents, myself included, want science to recognize this observation about existing That we trust as fact.

Science doesn't take anything on trust.

Therefore science cannot recognize it and still be science.

Enjoy.


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 3 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 10:30 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 10:43 PM RAZD has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2370 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 10 of 62 (563217)
06-03-2010 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
06-03-2010 8:07 AM


Re: magnum
quote:
Science doesn't take anything on trust.


oh no. science does. many scientists dont. see the science rule for objective reality.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2010 8:07 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2010 7:30 AM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2370 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 11 of 62 (563218)
06-03-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
06-02-2010 11:25 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
quote:
So? We do the best we can

i believe if scientists were not so concerned about looking stupid they would ask better questions, communicate better, and maybe learn something.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2010 11:25 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 06-03-2010 11:12 PM tesla has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 12 of 62 (563221)
06-03-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by tesla
06-03-2010 10:46 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
i believe if scientists were not so concerned about looking stupid they would ask better questions, communicate better, and maybe learn something.

Creationists are in no position to lecture science on how science should be done.

Creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 10:46 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:38 PM Coyote has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 13 of 62 (563229)
06-04-2010 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by tesla
06-02-2010 10:30 PM


Re: magnum
The attempt is for science to recognize a created universe. that i do know, and also believe. The proponents, myself included, want science to recognize this observation about existing That we trust as fact.

So provide concrete evidence and then science could recognize a created universe. The fact is there has been no shown evidence as such.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 10:30 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:35 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20237
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 14 of 62 (563263)
06-04-2010 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by tesla
06-03-2010 10:43 PM


science and tentativity and trust
Hi tesla,

oh no. science does. many scientists dont.

If anything, I would put this the other way: scientists (tentatively) trust the work of others, especially when that work is repeated and repeated and repeated. This is because it is difficult to repeat everything from scratch.

But the key is that this "trust" is tentative, that the concepts can be invalidated, and when this happens they are discarded.

This is not trust in the way you used it for your faith in god, is it?

Every theory we know is based on a simple formula: if X is true then Y results. That Y is observed does not mean that X is true (the "all a is b; b; therefore a" logical fallacy), just that it may be true. With no evidence that invalidates the truth of X we may regard the theory as tentatively true (for now).

This is not trust in the way you used it for your faith in god.

see the science rule for objective reality.

Curiously, you did not provide a link to show what you are talking about here.

I did a google on your phrase and came up with jumbled garbage - where each of the words appear but not the phrase - certainly no clear and concise list. Then I put it in quotes and got this result:

quote:
EvC Forum: I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!
oh no. science does. many scientists dont. see the science rule for objective reality. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that ...
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m... - 4 hours ago

Interesting eh?

If what you are referring to is the assumptions made about objective reality -- that (a) it actually exists (rather than everything being illusion) and (2) the evidence we see is indicative of that objective reality (that evidence doesn't "lie" about reality) -- then this is the foundation of all perceptions of reality, not just science, and in science it is still a tentative assumption.

Something held tentatively is not trust in the way you used it for your faith in god, is it?

trust (trŭst) –v. intr. (American Heritage Dictionary, Copyright © 2009)
trust·ed , trust·ing , trusts
1. To have or place reliance; depend: Trust in the Lord. Trust to destiny.
2. To be confident; hope.
3. To sell on credit.

Trust1 is not the same as trust2, and using one for the other is the logical fallacy of equivoction.

Enjoy.


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 10 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 10:43 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:34 PM RAZD has responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 522
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 62 (563375)
06-04-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
06-02-2010 8:22 PM


Uh-uhh.
Even wide-reaching theories in science are fairly narrow in their application...

Newton's law of gravity is often referred to as the Universal law of gravity: it applies to the gravitational interaction between bacteria and sugar molecules as well as planets and galaxies. Quantum theory is believed to also be universal, even if its deviations from classical theories is too small to measure in large systems. A major thrust in physics now is to find a grand "Theory of Everything (TOE)". Intelligent design seems to be just one of those Theories of Everything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 06-02-2010 8:22 PM Fiver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 06-04-2010 8:57 PM AnswersInGenitals 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