|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does intelligent design have creationist roots? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them. I agree that many sources of information may, given their credibility, help one form a much broader sense of what's right or worng. The point being made however, is that anyone is welcome to carry on any type of experimental analisis on the date collected. BUT, and this is of the upmost importance, those cunducting these inqueries MUST follow certain guildlines for how evidence and conclusions are rendered. In science it is refered to as the Scientific Method:
quote: So, given that anyone has the right to conduct any such investigation on their own, would you agree that the above method is the best way to do so, and, is the best way to verify that the conclusions are based on actual, observable evidence? If you can agree to the above question, then I see no reason why you would be skeptical of science, or scientist, since they are held to the rigors of having to follow the scientific method, and any scientist not doing so will feel the effects of not doing his/her work properly. Perhaps you can elaborate on what you see as a problem with modern science? "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi traderdrew,
It would be quite a process if you wished to explain everything you encounter with science. To save us the process of having to explain all of it, just answer the question about the method that science uses. The scientific method which I provided a link for. Do you at least appreciate the rigorous method used to arrive at conclusions in science? Are you, in your opinion, satisfied with the methods used by science?
It gives the best explanation that fits the evidence until another theory comes along. ...that better explains the phenomenon. It can't just be any theory, it must still do the job of explaining it better.
Consider the theory that the universe is a hologram and that it contains holograms within it of various sizes. So far, as strange as this theory may seem I have not encountered any evidence that refutes it. Sure we have, the evidence that refutes it is that there is no evidence to support it in the first place. There is no evidence that says the hologram universe is anything more than another attempt to add an outside source for the existance of this universe, that in and of itself, can't be explained, either. It just moves the goal post further back. It's like answering the question of abiogenesis with saying that aliens did it. Ok. So where did the aliens come from? Did their origin come about from natural causes, or other aliens as well? And so on, etc. Ok fine, it's a hologram universe, then what? Who created the hologram? And how does the current controler of this hologram universe know that they themselves aren't in a hologram as well? And so on, etc. The hologram universe idea, ONE, isn't anything other than a hypothesis, and, TWO, doesn't have scientific evidence to support it. If you know of some please show me.
But there seems to be legitimate scientific evidence to support it. No there isn't, just pseudo-scientific speculation. Show me the evidence for it. What there is is a lack of being able to provide evidence against the hypothesis. But then again, can you prove to me that God didn't create us last thursday and programed us with all of our memories that you think you've actually experienced? No, you can't. However, would you consider that sufficient evidence for my hypothesis, or, a valid theory as to the origins of our current existance?
Where do you draw the line if there is scientific evidence that supports it and none that proves it wrong? First, I'd say to re-evalute what you consider to be scientific evidence and see if it's supported with any other laws/facts/theories. I draw the line at science vs. pseudo-science. - Oni PS. Btw, I see you're from Palm beach, ever go to the Palm Beach Improv? I perform there all the time. Edited by onifre, : added PS. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
For example, there are concepts that you cant test such as the anthropic principle. How do you "test" something that is nothing more than a rule for reasoning? Here's a quote I found in wiki to help you understand why invoking the anthropic principle is flawed:
quote: Note that both a mutliverse system and intelligent design were considered controversial, they did not single out intelligent design only.
"If something cannot be tested by the scientific method, it cannot be true." How does someone test this statement with the scientific method?
I have never said that if something is not testable using the scientific method it is not true. However, since the evidence is gathered by objective observation, and if the only evidence rendered by this method shows no sign of a creator or design, then, based off of this objective evidence, whatever it is that one proposes as existing cannot be verified objectively. Now, does that mean it doesn't exist, of course not, but it does mean that there is no current evidence to support the assertion.
"Pseudo-science credits the supernatural when natural causes are unable to adequately explain the phenomenon." How do you disprove that statement with the scientific method?
Again, how do you support the assertion that the supernatural exists to begin with? I have evidence for the natural, so I have reason to believe that natural causes can and are capable of acting in such a way that complexity can arise. You however, do not have evidence for the supernatural and therefore cannot invoke anything supernatural until such time as evidence for it is produced. Now, given that the long list of things that supernatural forces were responsible for has, as many have pointed out to you, been reduced throughout time, why does this now newly introduced supernatural force for biological lifes origin considered any better than any other assertion about supernatural forces that has been proven wrong?
Steven Jay Gould recognized that science had its boundaries. It may very well have a limit as well, not just boundaries, but currently it is on the rise due to new technology and doesn't seem to have a limiting factor, yet.
I think the Improv is upstairs near the theater in City Place? I have never been inside. I have lived here for about two years. Yeah, it's right next to the theater. They actually just re-opened it, it's very nice. Next time I'm there I'll let you know. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Don't you find it ironic that people who don't believe that science can discredit some things are trying very hard to discredit certain things? Yes, of course. It seems that you are doing this very thing. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
In other words, the trend has been finding evidence that renders suspected supernatural activity as naturalistic explanations. No. In other words, people in the past have taken to invoke supernatural forces to explain what they considered to be a mystery, until science came along and explained in by naural means. This is not a "trend", and it seems like if you are taking this route in your responses, then you are out of argument.
Is this what you are saying? No.
Trends are one thing but trends don't necessarily disprove the existence of something. WTF are you taling about? What "trend"? Are you comparing scientific theories to Ed Hardy t-shirts? That's a "trend" and "cultural style", science showing evidence against certain imagined supernatural miracles is just science doing it's job. Is that all that you have left? Why don't you address the actual points I make in my posts instead of trying to quote mine me? "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I challenge anyone to come up with a reason that creationism is different than ID. (and no, the cut and paste is not a valid argument) I would say that YECreationism and ID is completely different. At least ID agrees with most aspects of the theory of evolution; they don't discard the theory completely, they only take issue with a few things. Mostly, irreducible complexity, etc. Where as a YECreationist disagrees with the theory completely. He/she believes the earth is more or less 10,000 years old and God made everything as is. To me this seems like a huge difference. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi PaulK
The YECs in the ID movement would disagree. YECism is accepted as a form of ID. You're more likely to see Michael Behe leave the ID movement than Paul Nelson or Nancy Pearcey.
Hi Perdition,
False. Some ID proponents agree with most aspects of the theory of evolution. Some do not. That's one of the "hallmarks" of ID, it doesn't actually make any claims other than "there is an intelligent designer." The nature of that designer, the process of its design, and the proof of that design are left ot the individual to descern on their own.
Well shit, thanks. Honestly I had no idea YEC was accepted by ID proponents. The very little I read about ID - (I try to keep my reading to actual science and conspiracy theories ) - never really covered their opinion of a young earth. And most of the ID supporters here have seemed to accept an old earth. Do we have any YEC/ID supporters on this site? I understand that a YEC can support the ID movement, I just didn't know the ID supporters were accepting of YEC. I just assumed the ID folks didn't dispute geology as well. Thanks for the lesson, fellas. - Oni Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024