Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 16 of 396 (437195)
11-29-2007 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by subbie
11-29-2007 8:13 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
If there were even the slightest scintilla of evidence supporting any of them, wouldn't we see it by now?
Unless the evidence opposing the theory does not exactly hit the headlines. Id proponents and creationists look for that evidence that lends support to their views. Evolutionists throw it away or attempt to find an evolutionary explanation for everything possibly bamboozling themselves in the process.
Carl Wieland writes:
In the absence of either programmed mechanism or intelligent action, even open systems will tend from order to disorder, from information to non-information and towards lesser degrees of energy availability. This is the ultimate reason why heat flows from hot to cold and why the sun's energy will not make a dead stick grow (as opposed to a green plant containing pre-programmed machinery.)
Applied to the origin of first life, this denies that such order could possibly arise except from outside information impressed onto matter. Applied to the whole universe (acknowledged as winding down to thermodynamic 'heat death', that is "cosmos to chaos"), this implies a fundamental contradiction to the "chaos to cosmos, all by itself" essence of evolutionary philosophy.
Subbie writes:
given that real scientists accepted creation as the prevailing paradigm for hundreds of years before Darwin
That was in the days when they imagined that a simple cell is actually just some sort of blob -real simple -with that sort of information, one can imagine how the evolutionary hypothesis came to be accepted. With the current knowledge available to us, it is no longer such a simple possibility.
Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 11-29-2007 8:13 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2007 8:49 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 11-29-2007 8:50 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 25 by Granny Magda, posted 11-29-2007 2:41 PM Beretta has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 17 of 396 (437199)
11-29-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:37 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Id proponents and creationists look for that evidence that lends support to their views.
Well do they find it? And if so what is it?
The quote you provide certainly doesn't present any evidence, just a whole string of assertions.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:37 AM Beretta has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 18 of 396 (437200)
11-29-2007 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:37 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Unless the evidence opposing the theory does not exactly hit the headlines.
Well, since I don't limit myself to reading headlines, I tend to pick up a lot that others miss. For instance, I've noticed that many people here have asked you to provide evidence to support your contentions. I shall join the herd and ask you to provide evidence of all the discoveries that creos and cdesign proponentists have made over the years to support their positions.
That was in the days when they imagined that a simple cell is actually just some sort of blob -real simple -with that sort of information, one can imagine how the evolutionary hypothesis came to be accepted. With the current knowledge available to us, it is no longer such a simple possibility.
You completely missed my point. Before the ToE was accepted, most scientists believed in and worked under a creation paradigm. If what you are saying is true, there should be some evidence from that time to support it, since it's what all scientists were doing. Where's that evidence?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:37 AM Beretta has not replied

reiverix
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 19 of 396 (437203)
11-29-2007 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:04 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Looking at geological formations such as the Grand Canyon, we would look at the possibility of lots of water, little bit of time.
The overwhelming consensus does not support your position. Why bother teaching something that has so little evidence. I mean really, how many professional geologists agree with you that the grand canyon is a young feature.
Instead of seeing evolution when we look at the fossils in the rocks, we could look at the possibility that most of the fossils formed in one big disaster and that most of the fossils show catastrophe and rapid destruction rather than hundreds of millions of years of slow death.
Can you demonstrate that most fossils show catastrophe and rapid destruction?
We could compare and contrast the possibilities that many layers of sedimentary rock formed rapidly rather than slowly.
If sediments were formed in the Cambrian by a flash flood, it does not support a young earth.
We could allow for the possibility that the fossils present in the Cambrian explosion represent the first things to be covered in sediment at the lowest levels of the geologic column and that they were all created which is why we can't find their precursors at lower levels.
Except there are older fossils than what is found in the Cambrian, for example, stromatolites. And can you show me evidence of 'created' and how we can test this.
The way I see it is that so many more possibilities would be available for investigation and who knows we may find out things we never would have contemplated given evolution as the only acceptable route.
The way I see it is your whole post has religion written all over it. Everything you said is honed to fit the biblical account. This is introducing god and the supernatural into the science class. This opens the floodgates to all sorts of problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:04 AM Beretta has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 20 of 396 (437205)
11-29-2007 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:04 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Beretta writes:
Instead of seeing evolution when we look at the fossils in the rocks, we could look at the possibility that most of the fossils formed in one big disaster and that most of the fossils show catastrophe and rapid destruction rather than hundreds of millions of years of slow death.
The chances of a flood arranging the fossils so that those from one apparent epoch are never found with those of another apparent epoch are less than one in a trillion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:04 AM Beretta has not replied

JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 21 of 396 (437208)
11-29-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:04 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
When we find fully formed birds below the level of archeopteryx, we could allow for the possibility that birds were always birds instead of looking for a better and more appropriate missing link between birds and their supposed precursors via the evolutionary assumption that they evolved at all.
Archaeopteryx is the oldest (~153Ma) and most primitive bird currently known. Nothing has been found "fully formed below it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:04 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 4:03 AM JB1740 has replied

JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 22 of 396 (437209)
11-29-2007 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:04 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Looking at geological formations such as the Grand Canyon, we would look at the possibility of lots of water, little bit of time.
1. The Grand Canyon is a landform, not a geological formation (which has a very specific definition).
2. We did this. That possibility was thrown out a long time ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:04 AM Beretta has not replied

JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 23 of 396 (437210)
11-29-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:04 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
We could allow for the possibility that the fossils present in the Cambrian explosion represent the first things to be covered in sediment at the lowest levels of the geologic column and that they were all created which is why we can't find their precursors at lower levels.
You can allow for this possibility, but it doesn't make much sense to do so since the fossils that constitute what people tend to refer to as the "Cambrian explosion" aren't even close to the "first things to be covered in sediment at the lowest levels of the geologic column" and the statement "we can't find their precursors at lower levels" is untrue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:04 AM Beretta has not replied

JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 24 of 396 (437211)
11-29-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:04 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
We could compare and contrast the possibilities that many layers of sedimentary rock formed rapidly rather than slowly.
This is what sedimentologists do every day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:04 AM Beretta has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 25 of 396 (437294)
11-29-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:37 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Bless you for joining us here Beretta, but your statement;
Beretta writes:
Id proponents and creationists look for that evidence that lends support to their views.
is exactly the problem.
Science works by attempting to gather facts, make a hypothesis based upon those facts and then test that hypothesis to destruction by comparing it with evidence. Note that I didn't say "support that hypothesis". If the hypothesis can't be falsified, the hypothesis gains credibility. If the hypothesis is supported by previously unavailable evidence, it gains credibility. If the experiment can be repeated by others, with same results, it gains credibility. If it can be falsified, it goes in the bin.
Creationism, as you have admitted, operates in a reverse of this. They decide in advance what the correct answer is, look for something that superficially looks enough like evidence to fool the unwary and undereducated (like your risible and baseless assertion about archaeopteryx), ignore all evidence to the contrary, fail to test any of this evidence at all and then present it to a layman public, who just might be gullible and ignorant enough to swallow it.
That is not science, although it clearly resembles the most dogmatic and dangerous incarnations of religion.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:37 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by JB1740, posted 11-29-2007 2:44 PM Granny Magda has not replied

JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 26 of 396 (437296)
11-29-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Granny Magda
11-29-2007 2:41 PM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Granny,
That might be the best characterization of creationist methodologies I have ever seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Granny Magda, posted 11-29-2007 2:41 PM Granny Magda has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 27 of 396 (437298)
11-29-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:04 AM


Beretta, Please Keep On-topic and Answer the Question
Beretta writes:
dwise1 writes:
Here is basically how science currently works. We observe the natural world and form hypotheses to try to explain what we observe. Then we test those hypotheses by using them to make predictions and then either conducting experiments or making further observations.
Exactly -that's what we would do only we would allow for other possibilities other than the current evolutionary-based possibilities.
For example -instead of assuming that radiometric decay has been carrying on for millions of years at the same rate as it now occurs, ...
{SNIPPED: a ship-load of the same old tired extraneous and off-topic young-earth creationism and "creation science" crap}
I keep remembering the beginning of Doctor No, though since I had read the book over 35 years ago I forget whether this scene was in the book, the movie, or both (and although I had speed-read the DC comic version of the movie in the grocery store, I also do not remember whether the scene was in it as well). In his previous assignment (which, in the book, was From Russia With Love), Bond had almost been killed and M blamed it on his choice of weapon, a Beretta, which M disparaged as being too under-powered, "a woman's weapon", and at which time they upgraded him to, I believe, a Walther PPK (Polizeipistole, Kriminal).
M's disparaging assessment of the Beretta's performance keeps coming to mind as I watch you flail helplessly.
Beretta, you are yet again avoiding the question. The question is: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? It's not asking about creationism, nor is it asking about "creation science". It is specifically asking about ID.
Yet, even though you have elsewhere insisted that ID is not creationism, here you are answering a question about ID with pure creationism. Shall we take that as your admission that ID is indeed just creationism in a slightly different disguise? Or at least you are using ID as a feeble attempt at smoke-screening creationism into the public schools. At the very least, it exposes you as a "cdesign proponentist"{*}, a creationist who is trying to use ID to play "Hide the Creationism".
{* FOOTNOTE: That term comes from "smoking gun" evidence presented in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case). When drafts of the book, Of Pandas and People, were examined, it had started out as a creationist text, but then exactly when the Edwards decision came down (the case involving the Louisiana "balanced treatment" law, which exposed to the US Supreme Court that "creation science" is purely religious} it suddenly turned into a "intelligent design" book. In their rush to change all references to creationists into references to "design proponents", they botched their Find-and-Replace word processor command, producing something like "cdesign proponentist". Clear and blatant evidence of "Hide the Creationism" in action.}
Specifically pertinent to the question is the line of questioning regarding ID's goal of requiring science to include supernaturalistic explanations, specifically the "explanation" of "Goddidit". Specifically:
Exactly how do they intend science's methodology of hypothesis building and testing to function with the requirement that it include "Goddidit"?
Just how exactly are we supposed to test "Goddidit", as the current methodology requires?
Just exactly how is "Goddidit" supposed to raise new questions which help to direct new research, something that science depends very heavily upon and which is readily and amply provided by the current methodology?
Just how exactly is "Goddidit" supposed to not serve as show-stopping dead-end to all scientific investigation?
Just how exactly is "Goddidit" supposed to not kill science?
To repeat my question at the end of the OP in referenct to statements made in the now-closed should creationism be taught in schools? topic:
In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
In Message 250, Beretta replied:
effectively killing science as well.
Believing in ID cannot possibly kill science.
I contend that Beretta is dead wrong. ID's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science.
The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science. A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. Certainly their ID idols have already provided them the answer. And if even they haven't come up with a description of how their brave new science will function, then why not?
That is the question, which you avoided. Please keep on topic this time.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:04 AM Beretta has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 28 of 396 (437744)
12-01-2007 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Beretta
11-29-2007 8:04 AM


How Does ID Work?
So far I don't see that ID works much differently than science when brainstorming possibilities.
But how does ID go about narrowing down the possibilities to what actually works?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 8:04 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Granny Magda, posted 12-01-2007 1:48 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 32 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 1:00 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 44 by nator, posted 12-02-2007 4:59 PM purpledawn has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 29 of 396 (437784)
12-01-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by purpledawn
12-01-2007 6:56 AM


Re: How Does ID Work?
Hello Purpledawn,
With respect, I think that ID does differ from science, even at the "brainstorming" stage, by which I presume you mean the formation of hypotheses. The main difference is that ID is only willing to accept certain explanations. Any hypothesis that sounds a bit too much like evolution automatically goes straight in the big ideas bin.
The only hypotheses always excluded by science are supernatural ones. This is because they are untestable and therefore useless. It would be impossible to tell a fake supernatural explanation from a true one, since you could always add another layer of supernatural mumbo-jumbo to explain away the lack of evidence (ie. it's invisible, you need to believe, the bad energy of a sceptic disrupted the test, etc.).
As for your second question, ID doesn't bother narrowing down the possibilities, except by discarding ideas that it doesn't like the sound of. ID also refuses to abandon ideas which have been discredited. Just witness how Beretta has clung on to his banana idea, when any scientifically minded individual would have run a thousand miles from it!
Bottom line is, ID is not interested in explaining anything, only trying to crowbar creationism into schools. Well, that's my opinion anyway. Hope it answers your questions purpledawn.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by purpledawn, posted 12-01-2007 6:56 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by purpledawn, posted 12-01-2007 7:43 PM Granny Magda has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 30 of 396 (437901)
12-01-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Granny Magda
12-01-2007 1:48 PM


Re: How Does ID Work?
Thanks,
I understand the science viewpoint of this issue.
I really wanted a response from Beretta or at least the ID side of the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Granny Magda, posted 12-01-2007 1:48 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Granny Magda, posted 12-01-2007 7:46 PM purpledawn has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024