|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Intelligent Design in Universities | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Not true, I'm afraid. ID has been directly tied into science. One example of this is the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[1] According to Barrow and Tipler, Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion." Harvey commented to Robert Boyle how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins. English scientist Robert Boyle discovered the relationship between the temperature, pressure and volume of a gas and is often considered the father of modern chemistry. Boyle formulated science used by today’s modern chemists including a law known as Boyle's Law which states that the pressure of a gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies. Boyle was also an avid teleologist as he noted in his writings, The Excellence of Theology (1674) and The Christian Virtuoso (1690). Newton enshrouded his science with a healthy dose of his version of a creator.
quote: There is nothing to research (that hasn't been done) as there is no such thing as a separate ID science. ID is an epistemology, a scaffolding in which hypotheses and theories are examined with a slightly different paradigm.
quote: No one has stated anything is too complex for a temporal human to understand. We understand organisms and organelles quite well. But you mean fundamentalists as in the form of Eugenie Scott?  The attempts to bury ID and keep this concept from being considered by the public in an education setting is nothing more than intellectual censorship akin to the book burnings back in the 'good old days.' [1] The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks), John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler, Chapter 1. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Well that certainly refutes that ID has never accomplished anything scientifically and shows that the field has a scientific history, in fact, it has a rich history. That was the point. Aristotle was a teleologist. Heck, so was Socrates and Plato. Aren't you guys being just a tad disingenuous to state otherwise?
quote: First, don't get pissed about trivial discussions, it's not worth it. Either enjoy them or don't participate in them would be my advice to you. And you don't seem to be reading what I'm posting. Here's Harvey's own words I quoted with a reference to the book as a footnote: that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins. Now how else can a person read that and not deduce that he describes the circulatory system assuming the possibility it was designed?
quote: Because that is what ID is based on. You don't know this because you haven't studied it to any degree. And teleology doesn't relate to blood systems as having a purpose or not. It relates to whether it was purposefully designed. There is a big difference.
quote: Again, this is a nonsensical challenge. ID has nothing to research. What would you have us research? What does methodological naturalism research? How does an epistemological paradigm do research? And you are sure these are snapshots of Harvey in action?? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Mick: I disagree with this. The communication problem here is that I fully understand my own field and you guys only think you do. It appears that none of you have studied ID to any degree other than what you read on the Internet posted by our detractors who are confused about even what they are detracting when you corner them. Many of them are little more than evangelical atheists with a religious agenda, I'm afraid. Please look at ID for what it really is, not what someone with a poorly disguised religious bias tells you it is. There is NOTHING in ID to research. Do you think that reductionism or monism has something to research? Now, many teleologists have contributed to science, Faraday, Boyle, Harvey, Newton, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin and the list goes on ad nauseam. But it is not ID they were researching, they were researching their respective fields, biology--chemistry--physics. There is no such thing as an ID biology, ID chemistry or an ID physics. We study science just as you or anyone else does. It does not make anymore sense to ask to see scientific papers on ID than it does to demand to see scientific papers on dualism. Don't hold your breath.
quote: It may be convenient but only because of its veracity. There is no such thing as scientific credentials for ID other than for one to show it entails scientific and mathematic methodology (which I have since I have entered this forum) just as does methodological naturalism. For you to even state this communicates that you don't understand what it is. What scientific credentials does philosophical naturalism have? And I see you just ignore the questions posed to you in the vein of what would you have us research? You can't think of anything, can you? That's because the entire concept of ID research is nonsensical.
quote: No, it hasn't been published yet because it is a new publication that has not yet arrived at its first date of publishment. Heck, it was only announced a week or two ago. When it comes out, and if you subscribe to it, you will fully see what its all about. But...careful here...as you might actually learn something about the truths of our universe. Don't ya just hate it when that happens?? OOPS, missed this: "More importantly, what does it matter, given that his scientific methodology didn't make any use whatsoever of his theological beliefs?" Right.....Now hold that thought, because you just might be on to something important here. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether one is of the naturalist persuasion or the ID persuasion. It either walks in the scientific method or it does not. Right? So what's the big deal? This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-03-2005 10:17 PM This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-03-2005 10:57 PM Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Viruses and prokaryotes are irrelevant to the overall scenario. I think the term "best" should be quite obvious. A genome works at its "best" when geneA translates ProteinA consisting of the right amino acids in the right sequence where it will fold with the right conformational entropy to be a cause of the effects that govern the organism at its maximum effiency. Is biology absolute nonsense to you? Deleterious mutations encode for different proteins than the original gene and the genome deteriorates when this happens because the new translated protein may not be able to do what the old translated protein did--HINT: mutational meltdown as the upper probability barrier, anyone?? This is simply logic and common sense. Do you think your car is at its best when you buy it off the show-room floor, or 25 years later after it has devolved and it's sitting in the junk-yard with rust going back into the ground from where it came?
quote: The paper was not on thermodynamics but evolutionary biology. This doesn't mean that 2LOT doesn't apply here. 2LOT is a universal law that governs everything in the universe. It states that with any chemically spontaneous reaction or event, entropy will tend to increase. Mathematically, S represents entropy and 2LOT states as a tendency that spontaneous events yield S2 > S1. But you see, Darwin was a science flunk-out and he was so silly as to assert that with spontaneous speciations the tendency is bass ackwards: S2 < S1. Boy wasn't this guy a genius of science. And I'll give you fair warning that if you get further into the mathematics of this with me, you won't exactly be overjoyed at the outcome. 
quote: LOL....You are just going to throw out a slurry of papers and proclaim your argument as superior? Nah...I think that we will observe Internet debate etiquette. Bring your argument in your own words, cut and paste the relevant sections of the papers that support your argument. And supply a link to those papers just as I do to you. You're doing games, not debate. Is this because you think you are defeated before you even begin?
quote: I defined it above. You cannot honestly state I didn't.
quote: Your words in that paragraph are not supported by anything you present. The paper was not presented to show that genomes are the best when they are first designed. The paper was presented to show that human genomes have DEVOLVED over the past 5 million years or so since man supposedly evolved from Chimp. Do you dispute the discovered science in that paper showing that deleterious mutations are accumulating in the genome at the rate of 1.6 mutations per generation? You need to refute this up front because if you do not, you are agreeing that the macroevolution via increased complexity inherent in Darwinism is a load of crap.
quote: The system was designed. It exists, doesn't it? Then either nature or intelligence designed it. Or do you think it just magically "poofed" into existence by little green fairies?
quote:Look. I'm not necessarily quoting the paper verbatim every time a speak of it. I am digesting the results of it. Can you refute my interpretation of those results or is your comeback always going to be, "the paper doesn't say exactly that." That could not be anymore ludicrous. quote: You don't see any trends today except for the ones you make up and imagine as science. And the population size of homo sapiens is irrelevant to anything we are discussing. Look at the diversity of the population if you want to get into synch with the discussion. There have been populations reproductively isolated since the dawn of history such as certain tribes in the Amazon, etc., who have never interbred with, say Icelanders. But gee these people are still the same species, go figure.
quote: Yeah, we shall see. Invite your students in here to personally witness an ID theorist kick your intellectual butt-hole up between your evolved shoulder blades. Your turn, Doc. Now remember, we debate aggressively but we don't take this personally. Are we on the same page? Because I'm going to start calling stuff exactly the way it is and throwing some major science your direction. Have a great day. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Again, please refrain from asserting that just because an exact sentence is not found in a journal abstract that a study cannot infer certain concepts. That's simply illogical. And there is reason to lead one to believe the slightly deleterious mutations estimated in that study can lead to mutational meltdown. Here is an interview with Eyre-Walker, one of the researchers of that study: "We’ve recently estimated the rate of these harmful mutations since we split from chimpanzees about 6 million years ago and we came up with an estimate of about 2 harmful mutations occurring per genome per generation, which is the highest that’s ever been estimated in any organism so far and that’s probably and underestimate. It means that we are all carrying maybe up to 1000 harmful mutations." And: "Mutational meltdown is the process by which as harmful mutations accumulate in a population, those harmful mutations, because they reduce things like fertility, can actually lead to a reduction in the population size. As soon as the population size has reduced, that actually increases the rate at which harmful mutations accumulate in the population. And of course as more accumulate the population size becomes depressed, that leads to the faster accumulation of harmful mutations and you can reach a critical point where those two processes basically snowball, you have positive feedback and eventually the population just becomes extinct." And I will continue to lecture the molecular biologist in biology until this conversation reaches a level that I can ascertain the biologist understands the remedial biology being tossed his direction. Notice - OpenLearn - Open University
quote: El wrongo againo. Many genes comprise the genome, so when I state that the genome is responsible for something and many genes in fact ARE responsible for that something then I can logically extrapolate that logic to either term. You seem to want to debate semantics rather than the issues, why is that? Finally: transcription describes only the first step in the gene to protein process. When messenger RNA directs the synthesis of proteins from amino acids that process is called translation: "Gene translation: The process by which transcribed messenger RNA directs the synthesis of proteins from amino acids." | HHMI Praise good Darwin for evolved dictionaries. Otherwise readers might really believe this tripe you are throwing out you call science.
quote: Semantics again. You don't know me as I don't recall ever having a conversation with you. Then how is it you know my background and education from only two or three posts? I'm not going to keep trading insults with you, do you want to debate ID, or just continually slug it out on the playground at recess? I out-grew the latter years ago, I'm afraid
quote: Then you would be in an extreme case of denial. I proposed this hypothesis to you in non-technical terms to insure you understood it: "ID predicts that genomes are at their best when they are just designed and the second law of thermodynamics takes it from there to DEVOLVE genomes in direct opposition to the musings of Darwin." I then introduced a study that show this to happening in the human genome and offered ways it could be falsified. More technically, ID predicts: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it. Genes are not fixed into a medium such as a library book, therefore they qualify as loose information. Now it is your turn to do the same for Darwinism and we can move on to other hypotheses. I'm waiting.........you're not presenting anything........
quote: I would be glad to had I asserted that 2LOT inhibits heredity. Talk about a strawman.........
quote: Another ad hom. I'm simply not going to trade these with you. If you are capable of bringing an argument against something I have posted, then stick to the subject and do it or post to someone more on your level. In the meantime, I will expect you to post references PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY READ. My 16 year-old would be going, "Oh Duh" about now.
quote: I don't believe you. Post them where people can judge what they say for themselves not what YOU think they say. You have not posted a single readable reference and your side is infamous for using references that don't exist to support illogical arguments you hope to pass to the masses as quite logical. That duck don't float. What arrogance for you to think other people need to do the work needed to support YOUR argument.
quote: LOL....How old are you? Do you think you can just throw out an accusation that I misunderstand the paper without telling what I am misunderstanding? Did you read this in the abstract: "Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages." If you read it, do you agree that the study concludes 1.6 new deleterious mutations are occurring in the human genome each generation? That's all I am saying, how could one read this and come to any other conclusion.
quote: Oh, you think that quantum mechanics involve poofs and bangs by ex nihilo fairies.? I'm not going back to this stupid argument as it has been covered. If you would but read the two threads as requested, you could see this for yourself. Read about the ex nihilo fairies HERE. Write a paper on it and submit it to me on these ex nihilo fairies. Please relax as I grade on the curve.
quote: LOL....You seem stuck with this particular mantra. Rest of the post deleted as nothing more than ad homs. I don't debate logical fallacies. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: No it isn't. The scientific method has nothing to do with the philosophy of MN. The method describes research methodology beginning with an observation and ending with a theory or law. It is the philosophy of Karl Popper that takes it from there by then attempting to falsify these theories or laws. They stand until falsified or replaced by a better theory or law. No MN in here. All that MN does in science is to teach the young chemist that when he runs across a chemical reaction he doesn't understand, it is not correct to conclude "God must have dun it." MN doesn't research anything, scientists do. The same can be said of ID.
quote: Well, LOL...I do admire your tenacity. You apparently intend to just come back with this slanted at a slightly different angle as each of your old angles are refuted. The ID theorist that does research has the same methodology that anyone else uses in research: the scientific method. End of story.
quote: It could not be anymore RELEVANT. You seem to want to paint a picture where no IDist can research anything and when I point out that 3/4 of the science we use today in the lab was brought to that lab by teleologists, you deem it then irrelevant. I'm smelling a religious bias creeping stealthfully into our words of wisdom. Finally, I think you misunderstand teleology from the aspect of design. It is simply another paradigm in science through which the design of certain systems can be viewed as purposeful. When I state that Harvey and Boyle were teleologists and viewed their science through these glasses, all that means is that their observation begins with a sort of, "if this is designed, I may have designed it like this" type of world-view. This worked well for both of those scientists and we can add Pasteur and Newton in there as well.
quote: If that Imam were a biologist, I wouldn't hesitate to ask him a question. You seem to think that Imams cannot be biologists because they are Imams. This is not logical cognition as the two titles are not mutually exclusive. And I do not expect you to provide hypotheses to ID, others are glad to do this and have. But although they may be even exclusive to ID, this does not mean they are now ID and no longer science. You keep screaming at me (so to speak) to do some research. When I ask you what it is you would have me research, you have no answer because anything I would scientifically research would then be science. You're simply dropping your logic here. And recognizing this I will reiterate what I have previously stated: This entire line of logic is nonsensical.
quote: No, I will not agree with this, I firmly believe ID should be taught when people are eager to learn about it. Anything less than this is nothing short of intellectual censorship which your side seems now to have embraced with the fervor of a Pentecostal preacher. The biology inherent in ID is not now ID, it is still biology. And were we to research any area of that biology we would use biology, not ID. You seem to have painted yourself into a vicious circle, here.
quote: Are you perhaps a parrot that has learned to use your owner's keyboard? You may be, because you just....type.....the....same....thing....over....and.....over........ Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Gee. Mick seems to have evolved. Ok, I am buying this so far. Pretty good, in fact.
quote: So what? So does everybody trained in science. Where do you find examples of IDists employing science not susceptible to MN? Nothing in ID requires a supernatural mechanism. Sheeze....I wonder sometimes if you guys even read what I post. Anyhow, I assume you have a point here and that point is that just because I am an IDist I am no longer capable of doing science because of a religious belief. What religious belief would I hold that would prevent me from doing science using the philosophy of MN? And if this is a systemic problem, why is the science of Faraday, Newton, Lord Kelvin, blah...blah....viewed as valid science? I mean these guys were strong creationist type critters.
quote: I did not mention all the biologists in HERE, now did I.
quote: You best hope not if this is your field. Darwin was a non-scientist college drop out that could not handle the math even with the help of tutors his father hired for him. There was not a single mathematical formula anywhere in OoS. And funny, I have a BS with a biology minor, and I don't recall even discussing Darwin in most of those classes. If all modern biology is based on the musings of Darwin, no one seems to know this. Finally, there is no such thing as a scientific mechanism in Darwinism. Even stochastic mechanisms must have some degree of predictability via probability. So, unless you think you can mathematically determine what evolves from what, you need to drop the term mechanism from your vocabulary concerning this subject or note that you are defining the term differently than does most of science.
quote: Because an environmental change occurred. When C came into the diet, logic dictates that similar organisms would mutate via that environmental stimuli. Just common sense involved here. Nothing more.
quote: The huge is my little tidbit and quite subjective, but you have never seen a huge wolf? The ferocious comes from your side. Would you like to meet this guy in a dark alley about 3:00 in the morning? My personal incredulity has little to do with the fact that you guys deduce this stuff without empirical evidence to support those deductions, IMHO. You (they?? not really trying to get personal with you) have not a single piece of evidence that suggests whales morphed from a land mammal called pakicetus, no matter if they dress it all up in a pretty package with flowing ribbons. Where are the breeding experiments that could deduce speciation in these transitions. Where is the DNA to draw genetic conclusions? Surely they have something other than few rocks that "look funny." You stated up front that science can be identified as science via testability, falsifiability, positive evidence, and predictive power. Pretty good. Now, where do you have evidence that can confirm the speciations you propose in this pakicetus to whale transition? IOW, what tests do you do in the lab to show an evolutionary trend rather that what most of America seems to think of the cute graphs and charts: 'Interesting. What a good example of diversity and similarity in varying species.' Tell me how, 1) what you have is testable in a laboratory considering this particular transition. 2) How could this transition be falsified? 3) Can you now predict what will evolve out of the whale as this transition continues into the future? Why not apply this proposed example to the qualifications you have assigned to science?
quote: Yep.
quote: You didn't produce any evidence in that posting. You produced someone's opinion. Does opinion now count as a theory of science that must be taken experimentally through the scientific method? Think about it!
quote: Correct
quote: Incorrect. First, allow me to correct your English: the odds of SOME pattern occurring are very great. But this is not quite accurate, either. There are now no odds involved at all because a pattern MUST occur every time you turn the cards over. When the probability reaches 100% there is no longer probability involved as if you flip the cards it WILL occur. Nothing in nature HAS to occur, so your analogy, unfortunately, is found to be quiet lacking in applicability to our particular discussion.
quote: Yet, you have no evidence to show this, you just accept it seemingly by faith. You seem to follow the natural philosophy which you are quite welcome to do, thus you see no purpose in this process. I however, espouse teleology and thus DO see a trend of purpose had this process occurred.
quote: You are welcome to your opinion, however, you have presented nothing which would cause an objective person to change their minds. I'll bet you a dollar to a donut I have set through as many formal genetics and evolution classes as have you (unless you are an evolutionary biology major at a post graduate level) and just like most of the college graduates in this country, I reject the entire concept outright. From the aspect of those who study this in a formal setting, I'm afraid that we are in the majority. Accepting Darwinism doesn't affect anyone's religious beliefs as evidenced by the fact there are many theistic evolutionists. So, in light of that fact, why then do you feel this is the way it is? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I will, but you have to ask the right questions. I'm honestly trying to lead you to them, answering your other questions along the way as best I can.
quote: Glad you asked. Intelligent Design: a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it, man. Regardless of how you have seen this stuff portrayed by our detractors and media activists, Eugenie Scott or other pseudo-scientific politicos, this is all there is to it. Paleontologists, archeologists, cryptographers and SETI scientists ALL use methodologies to detect design in their finds or systems they are studying and when they use those techniques, it is science. When we do it, it suddenly becomes RELIGION... Egads. So why should you care? I don't know you, so the truth is you may not care at all. You are a research biologist and we also have research biologists that are IDists. So what is the difference in the way you guys do biology? There is not a lick of difference! The only difference is in how you might view the origin of those systems you are studying. Just as did Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Diogenes, IDist see design in those systems. Look at how the non-religionist Socrates (he held no beliefs of a personal god) worded it: "Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?" We go with Socrates on this in that the human eye and like structures are the work of "wisdom and contrivance," not chance mutation and natural selection. And some have held this view historically from the great debates in ancient Greece 300 years before there ever was a Christ. Now, if you do not care, tell me why, knowing that we teach and do biology exactly alike, you would have a problem with me teaching biology along with evolution, but also from the aspect of ID, allowing the students to consider the entire story and decide for themselves. Where is truth in science anymore as an investigative body of thought? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
