Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What difference does evidence of ID make?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 20 (46440)
07-18-2003 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peter
07-17-2003 10:31 AM


peter writes:
Newton wasn't a scientist .... he was a natural philosopher.
Oh I hate to disagree with you, because normally I'm always in agreement with you. However, a natural philosopher IS a scientist.
Slowly over the course of time natural philosophers became known as scientists. Don't ask me why but I think it was a move which has caused problems both for philosophy and for science.
Philosophy (as it is now taught in general) has disconnected itself from pragmatic concerns like the natural world, making it useless. Science (as it is now taught in general) has disconnected itself from the rigorous logical discipline of philosophy and so has lost its ability to reason properly past the previously constructed "rules."
In fact I blame this phenomenon, at least in part, for the rise of ID. Many scientists have lost touch with the most fundamental fact that there is a philosophy underpinning science. And no it is not materialism as ID claims. It is a logic on how best to examine evidence to draw conclusions about the material world.
I have personally known a brilliant biologist who fell for ID hook line and sinker because he didn't understand the basics of philosophy. And I also knew at least 3 brilliant biologists who couldn't counter that first biologist's ID claims because they didn't understand philosophy either.
To watch them argue was extremely painful for me (who has studied both science and philosophy). They could talk about facts but lost how to string them together, and simply ended up calling each other names. Ah brilliant in science no longer means you can argue worth a damn.
Anyhow, science is natural philosophy and the faster they merge back together the better both fields will be.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 07-17-2003 10:31 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 20 (46441)
07-18-2003 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Warren
07-17-2003 8:34 PM


Re: The real reason
warren writes:
Nonsense. No ID theorist I know of makes the argument that something couldn't have evolved therefore it must have been designed.
Warren, you tricky son of a...
welcome back!
I have already done away with this claim of yours quite solidly (with a quote from dembski himself no less). You simply never responded. When I asked you to respond you disappeared completely. Now here you are magically reappearing to readvance your original false claim.
At this point I only have one question for you. How do people like you determine how long to stay "disappeared" before returning to say the same thing which has already been shot down?
Or should I say that is my only new question. You got a few still waiting to be answered, including this bogus argument you just remade.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 07-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Warren, posted 07-17-2003 8:34 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Warren, posted 07-20-2003 3:08 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 20 (46586)
07-20-2003 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Warren
07-20-2003 3:08 PM


Re: The real reason
warren writes:
I know for a fact from reading what Dembski and other ID theorists have written that their arguments don't rest on proving something impossible.
Apparently you never read my response. Not only do I state that I understand that there is more to ID than JUST proving impossibility, it included a citation which PROVES that proving impossibility is a PART of ID theory.
My original response follows. Please read it and read the article I cite by Dembski. It seems to be something you have not read before, as it has NOTHING to do with calculations, and is all about how theoretically proving the impossible proves something.
Then answer the issues I have raised. Original response begins here....
PaulK is totally correct that ID theory (as part of its argument) argues for the PRACTICAL impossibility of a thing as proof of ID. Your responses have not countered this point at all, except to shift debate to another part of the ID argument.
To put things more clearly, ID theory uses a two prong approach in dealing with evolutionary explanations for observed phenoma.
One is to present positive evidence of design. This involves an appeal to use the same scientific criteria we use to judge design in nonbiological phenomena to biological phenomena. In short, asking why should this distinction exist.
The other is to raise questions about evolutionary explanations. This is where both Dembski and Behe (and to some lesser extent Wells) argue that evolutionary explanations for observed phenomena, while not logically impossible, are practically impossible and so should be discarded. This is advanced with an assumption that once evo theory is discarded other theories become equally or more viable.
Dembski himself argues this point (calling it "eliminative induction") in his essay:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%2...
In this article he further claims that those critical of this method are commiting the "argument of invincible ignorance." I dispute Dembski's position on this, but will leave that for some other thread.
The point here is to show that much of ID's position and Behe's arguments in particular are a form of negative argument (used as a positive argument only in that it "weeds out" alternatives) and that it does so only by arguing practical (or in Dembski's words "pragmatic") impossibility.
Sorry Warren, but that's from the horse's mouth (or to ID critics perhaps some other part of the equine).
The problem from a critic's standpoint is that even if one accepts the second method (eliminative induction) as a form of argument, all it does is challenge specific known methods [of evolution], without calling into question overall evo theory (which is NOT method specific). This is a point that seems to be missed by ID theorists.
Even the popular paradigm of "slow, progressive changes based on genetic mutations" is not a crucial component of evolutionary theory. Punctuated-equilibrium has already altered the "slow, progressive" facet of that paradigm, and Lynn Margulis' work has challenged the "genetic mutation" portion.
Evolutionary theory, being a general theory will stand whether those changes become major parts of the working paradigm, and if they eventually go away, replaced by more accurate or explanatory methods for the "evolutionary process."
Another problem from the critics standpoint is that neither prong sets out a specific encompassing theory to explain what we see at all. In the first prong, we at least see an analogy that might raise some suggestions of a paradigm, but the second gives us nothing at all to work with.
Given his acceptance of the eliminative induction method, one would think that Dembski could understand that ID gets weeded out due to its inability to coherently explain anything nearly as well, as its competitor.
As a challenge to you, please show me any statement made by an ID theorist which says anything more than "there may be signs that an intelligent agent may have had a hand in something." I have yet to see any connecting theories which actually explain what I am experiencing every day, and how that took place in the past.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Warren, posted 07-20-2003 3:08 PM Warren 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