Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 27 of 142 (589008)
10-29-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 11:33 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Perhaps this is why they fall short of aired corroborating evidenced data in this area.
Leaders like ICR, do btw, apply some of this evidence that secularists consider non-scientific. Their hypothesis premise, for example, relative to their research would not be considered scientific in the EvC science fora.
More importantly, what is the null hypothesis? What observations, if made, would be inconsistent with ID?
What mixture of characteristics in a fossil would be inconsistent with ID?
What types of shared genetic markers between species would be inconsistent with ID?
The null hypothesis is just as important as the hypothesis, a fact that most IDers ignore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 35 of 142 (589299)
11-01-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 8:49 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID,
In order to do this ID would need to make predictions and construct falsifiable hypotheses. ID has been incapable of doing this, so there is no way to apply our observations to ID through the scientific method.
By it's nature, ID implicates creationism and creationism implicates a power/energy. existing in the Universe, capable of creating and designing things in the universe.
Wrong. This is what ID proponents believe. They have yet to show that the evidence implies their beliefs because they lack anything approaching a scientifically valid hypothesis.
A number of years ago, here at EvC I debated the highly esteemed physicist member, Eta Carena on what if the sun were relatively suddenly created?. My argument was that if the sun were relatively suddenly created as per the Biblical record, it would appear to be over 30 million years old because, as I understand, it takes that long for the average protostar to become a full fledged star.
Then let's use this as an example of what I am talking about. What evidence, if found, would falsify your proposal? What observations, if made, would falsify the sudden creation hypothesis? If you are incapable of producing the null hypothesis THEN YOU HAVE NO HYPOTHESIS. No hypothesis = no science.
Bottom line: If you want an objective debate between secularists and Biblical creationists but you disallow any evidence not physical/natural, you kill the debate. Thus the scientifially astute creationists who show up don't stay long.
It is creationists that want creationism taught in SCIENCE CLASS. Therefore, the evidence must meet the requirements of science in order to be taught in SCIENCE CLASS. Therefore, evidence must be empirical. Period. If it is not then it is not SCINETIFIC evidence. It really is that simple.
If creationists were calling for creationism to be taught in philosophy class or a religious class of some type then we could adopt the types of evidences or epistemologies that these fields use. However, as long as creationists want creationism taught in science class then we are going to use the scientific criteria.
In the science departments, one must follow the secular line for employment. Thus the evidence for ID is never known by the young impressional empty minds waiting to be filled with knowledge. They graduate with their minds programmed by the assembly line of secularism.
I was under the impression that many kids who attend public schools also attend Sunday school. Last I heard Sunday school is still offered free of charge and is open to any and all.
The problem here is that you want to government to do your evangelizing for you, with tax dollars nonetheless. From my understanding of constitutional law, that isn't allowed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 8:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2010 1:42 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 40 of 142 (589323)
11-01-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
11-01-2010 1:42 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific (never)
Not only is there no null hypothesis, fundamentalists who believe in the inerrancy of the bible will exclude any evidence to the contrary.
I don't think "exclude" really describes it. Instead, they suggest that natural laws themselves have changed in the past in order to produce these pieces of evidence. Add in some Last Thursdayism and there you have it.
In the case of ID, it suffers from vagueness and obsfucation. What pattern of homology does ID predict? None. What mixture of features in fossil species does ID predict? None. What type of shared genetic markers does ID predict? None. In order to escape falsification like young earth creationism has suffered they have made ID so vague as to be useless as a scientific pursuit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2010 1:42 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 66 of 142 (601060)
01-18-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
01-17-2011 11:40 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Showing how he intervenes is absolutely not necessary, . . .
If you want to claim that ID is science, then yes, it is necessary.
You need to demonstrate that my clearly existing model is not sufficient to the purpose that it is provides, to demonstrate clear order in the nature of things
Your model does not make predictions, is not testable, and is not falsifiable. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements of science. It is that simple.
Besides all of that,what specifically does your "model" provide to us that IDs does not?
Evolution explains why we see a nested hierarchy, why we see specific transitional fossils but not others, why we see shared ERV's between humans and other apes . . . on and on and on. It explains why we observe these things through testable and falsifiable mechanisms (e.g. mutation and selection).
ID explains none of this, and proposes no testable mechanisms by which any of this could occur. ID can not explain why we see ape-human transitionals but not mammal-bird transitionals. ID can not explain why humans and other apes share the same ERV at the same location in our genomes. ID proposes no testable mechanism by which we could share these ERV's. ID can not explain the nested hierarchy at any level be it living species, fossils species, or in the genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-17-2011 11:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 67 of 142 (601061)
01-18-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dawn Bertot
01-16-2011 11:39 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
ID is an intial examination of obvious order, the likes of which are necessarily the product of design.
You are begging the question. You first need to show, scientifically, that order requires an intelligent designer before concluding so.
To deny that ID has a model is to deny that you yourself have a model, because ours is no different, just not as involved
The differences between ID and real science are quite striking. ID lacks predictions, testable mechanisms, is not falsifiable, and can not explain the evidence we do have (e.g. nested hierarchy). It fails at every turn.
All you need to do to demonstrate that ID is not scientific is to prove that we do not have a method or model
Since you are the one asserting that there is a model it is up to you to supply the evidence of such a model. Lacking such evidence we can only conclude that there is no model. Either you can support your own claims or you can not. It is up to you.
Please explain how the ID model explains the nested hierarchy in a testable and falsifiable manner. If no such model exists, then just say so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-16-2011 11:39 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 81 of 142 (601241)
01-19-2011 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
01-19-2011 3:33 AM


Re: When pigs fly
we then draw conclusions from those Models as to the nature of that examination or model.
Once again, ID has no model. It started from a conclusion. ID is not testable nor is it falsifiable. ID can not explain the evidence we do have. ID fails at every turn when it comes to being science.
Compare this to evolution. Using the theory of evolution we can construct testable hypotheses. For example:
"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Just a moment...
Using this hypothesis we can test to see if humans and other apes share a common ancestor. So what are the ID hypotheses, and how are they testable?
Neither your model or mine lets us demonstrate (prove) either of our conclusions.
False. The evolutionary model lets us demonstrate shared ancestry between humans and other apes as shown above. It does so in a testable and falsifiable manner. The ID model doesn't have these attributes. It is not testable and it is not falsifiable.
Your second assumption is that the "ID model" is derived as a result of ID or creationist thinking,
Do a google search for "cdesign proponentist". That should clear up a lot.
ID is the result of "creation science" losing court cases and being booted out of schools. ID is an attempt to dress creationism in a lab coat and try to sell it as a science. That is the whole point of ID. No scientist is using ID to do scientific research. The only way in which ID is used is to push the creationist agenda of getting religion into science classes.
every examination of physical properties that produces a demonstratable fact (order and law in this case) is science.
Science is more than examination. Gathering facts is but a single step in the scientific method. You also need to construct hypotheses and then test those hypotheses. ID is incapable of doing this which is why it is not science.
unless you are prepared to admit or demonstrate that Order is not present and Law does not reside in nature.
Observing order and law is but the first step in the scientific method. You also need to construct a hypothesis as to the cause of these observations, and then design experiments that will test this hypothesis (and the null hypothesis). ID does not do this. It jumps over the hypothesis and experiment stages of the scientific method and lands at the conclusion. This is why ID is not science.
Calling for a demonstration of how God interviens in this process, ignores the very rules you employ in your own research methods and more importanly ignores simple rules of reason.
Making claims with no experimental support ignores the rules of science which is why ID is not science. If you want to claim that ID is science then you must follow the rules of science. The theory of evolution does have experimental support which is why it is science.
In the absense of that which is absolutely demonstratable I can only rely on the observable and testable.
So how do we test the claim that Order and Law are the product of an intelligent designer? Please describe these experiments, or admit that ID is not science.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-19-2011 3:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 11:41 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 99 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-19-2011 11:08 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10199
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 86 of 142 (601283)
01-19-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by barbara
01-19-2011 3:15 PM


Re: When pigs fly
In reality isn't that how facts are determined by getting the majority to agree on the definition of it?
No. Facts become facts when many people observe the same thing. Facts are the world's data, the observations. Theories and models explain the data.
The most important evidence that science can solve is how regulatory genes and Hox genes are formed by natural processes. Natural processes meaning auto responses to specific causes that react to them without directing it by any other source.
DNA regulation is done through binding of protein or RNA to specific DNA sequences. This either shuts down transcription or turns transcription on. Mutations to either the DNA binding site or the DNA binding protein/RNA can alter the timing and strength of regulation.
You might want to check out Thomas Schneider's EV program. It models the de novo evolution of DNA binding sites.
http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by barbara, posted 01-19-2011 3:15 PM barbara 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