Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,216 Year: 5,473/9,624 Month: 498/323 Week: 138/204 Day: 8/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 21 of 1273 (514980)
07-14-2009 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Son
07-14-2009 2:47 PM


ID is religion lite
That sounds like Creationism. Are you sure you are talking about ID?
Of course its ID!
When they're talking about creationism they say the same thing but add an "Amen!" at the end.
;-)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Son, posted 07-14-2009 2:47 PM Son has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 29 of 1273 (515423)
07-17-2009 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 11:36 AM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
As stated, this is "an assertion" not a conclusion based on the scientific evidence. That assertion comes from religious belief, not scientific evidence.
What is important for you to understand is that most of these things were relatively or virtually unknown 20 years ago!!! The trend for ID is up and the gaps in secular evolution are growing. I think we will win.
Of course! Twenty years ago is when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Edwards v. Aguillard, which removed creation "science" from the schools. Creation scientists had to come up with another dodge, and ID was it.
Don't take what we all say at face value.
Don't worry, we won't.
What is ID to me?
Not only is it a learning process, it is a way of perception. It is a way of seeing through the irrational debate of secular evolutionists with critical analysis. I might make a good philosopher of science.
Fine, but what it isn't is a science, and it is dishonest to try to claim that it is a science or that it is based on scientific evidence.
I am an amateur and I have no official crucial scientific training.
I believe you!
However, you should remember that a number of the folks here are scientists. And a deep understanding of a field of science isn't something that comes with casual study. Many of us have spent 30 or 40 years in intense study of a particular field. And we might just resent an amateur who comes along and tells us we don't know squat.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 11:36 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by traderdrew, posted 07-18-2009 11:05 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 51 of 1273 (515719)
07-20-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by traderdrew
07-20-2009 4:39 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by the involvement of (at least one) intelligence.
You are correct--intelligent design is an assertion. That assertion is based on a religious belief, or a world view stemming from a religious belief.
Intelligent design is not a scientific field, as there is nothing to investigate--the conclusion is already known! There is no way to move from a dataset to empirical knowledge because that concluding "empirical knowledge" has already been asserted. And further, nothing that contradicts that conclusion will be entertained. All of these are the antithesis of science, but characteristic of religious apologetics.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by traderdrew, posted 07-20-2009 4:39 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Luweewu, posted 10-07-2009 12:00 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
(1)
Message 55 of 1273 (528801)
10-07-2009 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Luweewu
10-07-2009 12:00 AM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
Assertion based of religious belief? false premis.
Actually that is based on careful observation. ID is not science. It is not taught in science classes in the universities--except in religious institutions. It is supported almost entirely by creationist websites, many of which are only thinly disguised, and by creationists "scientists" who are just pretending to do science. ID has been found to be religion by a Federal District Court (Dover). The "cdesign proponentsists" editing of The Panda's Thumb is the smoking gun. Source
You assume that ID is based only in the lowest form of fiction.
No, I assume--with a lot of evidence--that it is based on religious belief, and is being disguised in a dishonest attempt to sneak religion back into the schools under the mantle of "science."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Luweewu, posted 10-07-2009 12:00 AM Luweewu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Luweewu, posted 10-07-2009 12:52 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 60 by Luweewu, posted 10-07-2009 7:22 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 80 of 1273 (530674)
10-14-2009 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Theodoric
10-14-2009 1:04 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
Intelligent Design derives its ideas from the evidence.
Where is the research that shows this?
I think it is more accurate to say that ID derives its conclusions from scripture and revelation.
It uses the same evidence as science, but its research is dedicated to shoehorning that evidence into a framework acceptable to religious belief.
The main method used by ID is arguing against the theory of evolution, as if that would prove ID. The scientific method is not used at all in ID, as it leads to the wrong conclusions (i.e., common descent, evolution, old earth, etc.).

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 10-14-2009 1:04 PM Theodoric has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 1273 (539331)
12-15-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 5:40 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Obviously natural selection only selects for fitness when the mutations are extremely deleterious. Slightly deleterious mutations do get passed on.
Then, of course, there are the beneficial mutations.
Don't forget, they get passed on too.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 5:40 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 6:11 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 98 of 1273 (539349)
12-15-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
And as time goes by, mutations accumulate, and lead to the genetic meltdown.
And how much time has gone by?
6,000 years?
There's the problem, you see. This genetic meltdown is the pride and joy of those who believe in "the fall" and a young earth. It is not something established by science.
And it is no wonder that it is also a part of "intelligent design" as ID is a direct outgrowth of religion, not of science.
When you admit that we live on an old earth, with evolution acting over billions of years, and when you realize that "the fall" is a religious concept with no applicability to the real world, the entire basis of genetic meltdown simply disappears.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 6:11 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 10:40 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
(1)
Message 100 of 1273 (539356)
12-15-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 10:40 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
I gave you a chance to have decent conversation. You declined by instantly throwing out religious arguments.
The topic of the thread is ID, and ID is nothing if not religious in origin. That has been clearly documented in a number of instances, including the Dover decision.
You are the one pretending it is something coming from real science rather than from creation "science" after a US Supreme Court decision removed creation "science" from the classrooms.
Therefore I bid you goodbye.
Are you leaving?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 10:40 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 189 of 1273 (539953)
12-21-2009 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
I think religion should stay out of the science class. In fact, I think ID should stay out of the science class...
Agreed. Now convince other religious practitioners who are pushing ID and we'll all be happier.
...but I don't think Darwinism should be held up on a pedestal saying it is the the only pathway to the truth.
Science does not deal with truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH. Science deals with data and theory. Scientific theories are the best current explanations that we have for a particular dataset. Where does this "truth" nonsense come into things? Sounds more like religion and dogma than science.
And what "Darwinism" is I haven't a clue. I studied fossil man and evolution for six years in graduate school and never once heard the term "Darwinism." Is that primarily a creationist term? I certainly do not hear that term in scientific circles?
Exploring this farther: is "Darwinism" a term cooked up by creationists in an attempt to discredit science? Or some specific branch of science? Is it a "guilt by association" term, as who would want to be associated with an "-ism"? And does it seek to discredit Darwin personally in hopes that doing so will discredit his theory--after 150 years of withstanding all the challenges brought against it? Is "Darwinism" a act of desperation when all the other attempts creationists have tried have failed to discredit the theory of evolution? Or is it just sloppy thinking?
I think ID belongs in philosophy and so does atheism.
Fine by me. Just leave science alone, as science is neither ID nor philosophy nor atheism.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:20 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 12:43 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 191 of 1273 (539955)
12-21-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:50 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
I realized after I read this, by utilizing this method to explain the past, it is based on the "assumption" that nothing extraordinary or supernatural played a part in the history of how life was formed and developed.
It seems to me your statement also renders naturalistic and materialistic explanations invalid since Darwinism was formed under the assumption that there wasn't a designer involved.
And you would rather work under the assumption that there was a designer, or something supernatural, involved?
Fine. Knock yourself out! Establish a field of investigation based on that assumption and see if you get useful results. Establish a consistent method of investigation and gather data and see if you can make any progress.
But leave science alone.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:50 PM traderdrew has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 199 of 1273 (539983)
12-21-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 10:43 AM


Genetic meltdown and ID
This goes on untill generation 7 when the whole population has suffered a genetic meltdown.
Why is "genetic meltdown" suddenly a problem after 3.5 billion years?
And why is it such a favorite subject for IDers?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 10:43 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 207 of 1273 (540011)
12-21-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 3:04 PM


Re: Please explain E. coli
Because it takes a lot of time for that to happen. You don't expect them to be dead in 7 generations like in my picture do you?
Seems like 3.5 billion years isn't enough for the "genetic entropy" to create any problems.
So why worry?
And you didn't answer my question about why IDers are so fond of genetic entropy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 3:04 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 232 of 1273 (540098)
12-22-2009 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dr Jack
12-22-2009 5:01 AM


Re: Please explain E. coli
How many generations do you think it needs? E.coli can divide every 20 minutes under ideal conditions, how many twenty minutes are there in the last six thousand years? Even if we drop it to one generation a day to account for variations in generational rates, that's over two million generations.
But it isn't 6,000 years--it is more like 3.5 billion years. And it isn't just E. coli--it is all of life.
And guess what? No genetic entropy!
Why hasn't genetic entropy shown its head in E. coli?
"Genetic entropy" has been shown the door! It is a failed concept.
But like many of the concepts being pushed as science by IDers and fundamentalists, this nonsense can be traced back to the bible--in this particular case their belief in a "Fall."
How else do you think folks come up with geocentrism, kinds, young earth, and all the other nonsense we see in these threads? Those ideas certainly are not supported by science--as some claim; science has shown the exact opposite!
And ID is right up there with the rest, but with the serial numbers filed off in an attempt to sneak it back into the public schools under the false guise of "science."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Dr Jack, posted 12-22-2009 5:01 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Dr Jack, posted 12-22-2009 7:03 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 282 of 1273 (540257)
12-23-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by traderdrew
12-23-2009 12:49 AM


Re: Flaws of IDers
If I had help from three other ID proponents, I think we would be kicking your ^(&%$ around the moon by now.
It is not the numbers that count but the strength of their arguments, and the evidence they bring.
ID is fighting an uphill battle because it is clearly a spin-off from religious belief, pushed almost entirely by fundamentalists who are trying to hide that fact, and has not been shown to have any scientific merit. In fact, much of its approach is anti-science--it has a conclusion based on religious belief and is looking to twist the data around in any way possible to support that belief. And the impetus for all of this was a US Supreme Court decision that threw creation "science" out of the schools--they had to come up with something quick to try to get back in the schools. The result, Paley's idea from the early 1800s dusted off and repackaged.
And who knows, it might even fool somebody!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 12:49 AM traderdrew has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 294 of 1273 (540298)
12-23-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Smooth Operator
12-23-2009 10:38 AM


Re: Genetic entropy (again)
The more mutations, the faster the genetic meltdown occures. The larger the population, the slower the genetic meltdown occures. But it's still inevitable. It doesn't matter what numbers you include, the end is the same. Only differnece is how long will it take. A deterministic process has always got the same end result.
Why, in 3.5 billion years, has this "genetic meltdown" not occurred?
Starting from very small populations one would think that it would have occured immediately, eh?
But it didn't. The whole concept is disproved by the history of life on earth.
It seems to me that this is an idea which you are most likely pushing because of a belief in biblical literalism and the "fall," not because of some overwhelming scientific evidence. Much like your geocentrism. (Do you also believe in a young earth and a global flood in historic times?)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-23-2009 10:38 AM Smooth Operator 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