Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 31 of 99 (206950)
05-11-2005 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Limbo
05-10-2005 6:16 PM


Other people have already supplied answers I would have given. But let me address this one comment of yours...
After all, we cant risk thinking of ANYTHING ID does as actual real-live 'science', right?
You are new here so you might not realize this, but there have been threads started by me to allow, and even to assume ID as a modern scientific enterprise. Heck, I even supported some statements and intentions of the ID movement as having merit.
You know how many ID theorists showed up to explore ID as a science? Zero. Several evos did show up and we tried to think through some methods and uses, but it got boring with no real support from the ID crowd.
That's right, challenge that theories shortcomings and you get ID theorists pouring in to lament how they are abused and state that the solution is continued debate on the subject. Actually say "all right let's sit down and explore this field" and they disappear.
At least that has been the practice so far. It leaves me with the feeling that without the debate, there is no further interest in ID. Exploration sure doesn't seem to be the focus.
So before you accuse me of not allowing anything ID involves as being scientific, I invite you to comb through the threads, or start your own, on actual investigations or research into natural phenomena using ID.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Limbo, posted 05-10-2005 6:16 PM Limbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:01 AM Silent H has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 99 (206953)
05-11-2005 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Silent H
05-11-2005 5:57 AM


quote:
That's right, challenge that theories shortcomings and you get ID theorists pouring in to lament how they are abused and state that the solution is continued debate on the subject. Actually say "all right let's sit down and explore this field" and they disappear.
But I haven't disappeared.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 5:57 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 6:23 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 33 of 99 (206957)
05-11-2005 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 6:01 AM


But I haven't disappeared.
Hmmmm, semantics, but perhaps correct.
Let me change that to "and they never appear". Most certainly you have not appeared in any thread dedicated to discussing actual progress or methodology of ID, except those in context of disputing evo or continuing the debate of evo vs creo.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:01 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:43 AM Silent H has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 99 (206961)
05-11-2005 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Silent H
05-11-2005 6:23 AM


quote:
Most certainly you have not appeared in any thread dedicated to discussing actual progress or methodology of ID
Gee. Well I'm new here so there probably are many threads I haven't visited. And, I have a creedo not to post in anymore threads at once than my schedule allows me to handle.
You know what, Holmes? I have this sneaking nag in my gut that you guys haven't had any real ID theorists in here, well versed in its science aspect and prepared to go anywhere you wish to go in the field.
Want to see the ID-detractor PhDs in every subject scamper away from the discussion? Now's your chance.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 6:23 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 7:55 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 35 of 99 (206970)
05-11-2005 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
05-10-2005 5:16 AM


holmes,
I still am not sure if I understand what you're saying. I think we're making different (both valid) points. But I'm not sure.
Still working on it,
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 05-10-2005 5:16 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 8:10 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 36 of 99 (206981)
05-11-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 6:43 AM


Gee. Well I'm new here so there probably are many threads I haven't visited.
Uhhhh, so why are you acting defensive then. In the post which you replied to and yet was addressed to someone else, I made the point of saying that they couldn't really be blamed since THEY were a new poster.
Since you are a relatively new poster that would have covered you as well.
I have this sneaking nag in my gut that you guys haven't had any real ID theorists in here, well versed in its science aspect and prepared to go anywhere you wish to go in the field.
You may be right. Often self-proclaimed ID theorists turned out to be creationists who believed that life was created by something intelligent, which is different than a person who is pursuing a system for detecting the marks of intelligent design.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:43 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 7:59 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 99 (206982)
05-11-2005 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
05-11-2005 7:55 AM


quote:
You may be right. Often self-proclaimed ID theorists turned out to be creationists who believed that life was created by something intelligent, which is different than a person who is pursuing a system for detecting the marks of intelligent design.
Correct. If they 'believe' anything without evidence, that is their religious views rather than science.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 7:55 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by sidelined, posted 05-11-2005 8:32 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 38 of 99 (206987)
05-11-2005 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Ben!
05-11-2005 7:15 AM


I think we are both essentially right, but my position is a bit more nuanced and accurate.
As simply as I can put it, the criteria that the ID theorists are using to "detect design" does not require any information about who did the designing. That is it keys on info which is irrelevant to what the IDist is like or even what it used to do the creating.
From usual scientific methods one would expect that if one is proposing to prove something was designed, they would go about it by addressing the nature of the designer and how it went about making its products, and then testing those criteria.
But they are working outside that methodology, essentially using a process of elimination. That is you show that no possible natural mechanism could have produced X, therefore a non natural one must have created it.
As long as one accepts that (process of elimination) as valid methodology, then there is no reason for them to introduce the nature of any designer. I do have problems with it but that still does not mean I can say they must introduce the nature of the designer. Whether they did or not, that method itself is flawed.
Now what is true is that they cannot. ultimately, escape having to address that issue as scientists beyond ID. That is to say even if it is true that the ID system is only about detecting design, once design is detected some other group of scientists are going to have to get involved and develop a model based on the fact that design is there... so who did the designing and how.
Especially if ID theorists want to replace the model of evolutionary theory with an ID based model of biogenesis and speciation, they will then have to deal with what did the creating and how (or at least when and how), otherwise it is a bit empty as a paradigm.
So IDists do not have to invoke the nature of designers in order to pursue the detection of design, which is how they have created their "field". But even if that detection challanges evo theory, if they want to move beyond detection and into discussing an ID model to replace evo, THAT is when they will have to bring in designers and such.
A model of abiogenesis and speciation which simply reads "we detected design so natural processes were not completely the case" would ultimately be unsatisfying and unproductive.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Ben!, posted 05-11-2005 7:15 AM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:29 AM Silent H has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 39 of 99 (206996)
05-11-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 7:59 AM


Jerry Don Bauer
Hello again Jerry. If you would be so kind as to establish here the theory of Intelligent Design then I will use your version to continue the debate rather than the website in the OP.Perhaps you could start with defining what intelligence means in this application and how does this intelligence operate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 7:59 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:23 AM sidelined has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 99 (207031)
05-11-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by sidelined
05-11-2005 8:32 AM


quote:
Hello again Jerry. If you would be so kind as to establish here the theory of Intelligent Design then I will use your version to continue the debate rather than the website in the OP.Perhaps you could start with defining what intelligence means in this application and how does this intelligence operate?
Hello Sidelined. I would be glad to establish the theory of ID here for you if I could. I'm afraid there is no such thing as that, anymore than there is a theory of chemistry, anatomy or neural surgery. That's just a myth.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by sidelined, posted 05-11-2005 8:32 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by sidelined, posted 05-11-2005 1:36 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 99 (207035)
05-11-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Silent H
05-11-2005 8:10 AM


quote:
As simply as I can put it, the criteria that the ID theorists are using to "detect design" does not require any information about who did the designing.
Designers have not a thing to do with design after the fact. They are two separate subjects that do not logically lead from one to another.
If a man has surgery and needs it repaired 20 years later, the new physician need not know the name of the old one before he proceeds to fix what is wrong with the patient, that's just silly.
You're hairdryer will work just fine without you knowing the design engineer or even the nature of that designer. That designer could have had the nature of Mother Teresa, an axe murderer or Elvis and wouldn't make a lick of difference to the way you interact with the hairdryer.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 8:10 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 9:56 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 99 (207051)
05-11-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 9:29 AM


Designers have not a thing to do with design after the fact. They are two separate subjects that do not logically lead from one to another.
Why are you posting this to me, that is what I was telling everyone else, specifically in that quote you cited from my post.
Unless you meant to address another quote, which is what comes next for science? You are right that for a doctor fixing a problematic surgery, it is irrelavent to know about the previous doctor.
However we are not talking about that alone. We are discussing SETI-like, or Archeological like work. After the detection, there is a NEXT STEP. The next step will be using the nature of what was detected to make assessments about the intelligent agent involved.
It is unlikely SETI devotees would say, "we found life" and then walk away.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:29 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 12:30 PM Silent H has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 43 of 99 (207080)
05-11-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-09-2005 9:57 PM


Re: sound and fury, signifying nothing
Jerry writes:
You also might want to watch the name calling. It detracts somewhat from the opinion I had formed earlier of you
Hi Jerry, Troy,
Yes I apologise for the namecalling. I decided to take a few days off the forum as it's clearly just winding me up.
Maybe I will post again in a week or so.
Cheers
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-09-2005 9:57 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 99 (207091)
05-11-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Silent H
05-11-2005 9:56 AM


quote:
Why are you posting this to me, that is what I was telling everyone else, specifically in that quote you cited from my post
Um...Because I misread the post? Yep, that's the ticket. Sorry.
Mick, take some time off, man. We all get snippy from time to time as this is emotional stuff for some reason or another I have never figured out.
I used to lash out (and still do occasionally, in spite of an effort not to) these days I try to just close the laptop and go for a swim.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 9:56 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 12:52 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 46 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 12:56 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 45 of 99 (207101)
05-11-2005 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 12:30 PM


We all get snippy from time to time as this is emotional stuff for some reason or another I have never figured out.
Just to let you know, ID is not an emotional topic for me, unless confusion or amusement counts as an emotion.
I can get peeved by obfuscating tactics of any particular author, but the subject itself (when we are discussing it as as science and not the political movement) doesn't really make me mad or sad or whatever. It just is an approach with weaknesses or strengths to be evaluated.
If I get sarcastic, it is just a bad habit of adding a bit of zing to an argument.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 12:30 PM Jerry Don Bauer 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