Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance
Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 76 of 154 (588982)
10-29-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by shadow71
10-29-2010 11:33 AM


Discovery
The main problem with ID is a complete inability to predict or discover anything at all.
You can apply post hoc interpretations to anything. And this is exactly what IDists do to the verified predictions and discoveries that genuine science achieves.
Is ID capable of making verifiable predictions and discoveries? Is ID "science" able to demonstrate itself as able to meet the same exacting standards as genuine science? Rather that simply asserting that all interpretations are equally valid?
What has ID science ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can it claim to compete in terms of the validity or accuracy of it's conclusions with conventional science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by shadow71, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 77 of 154 (589012)
10-29-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by shadow71
10-29-2010 11:33 AM


Unfalsifiable Ideas Are Not Science
Hi shadow,
My conclusion is that the design advocates are not getting a fair hearing in the scientific discipline.
Anyone is free to submit to an academic journal. Sadly, when ID advocates do submit papers, they tend not to mention the "designer" who they claim is so evident. If the ID lobby want to have their "design hypothesis" taken seriously, they need to present it in peer-reviewed literature, not by innuendo but in unambiguous terms. They choose not to do so. They can only blame themselves.
I was impressed by Meyers book SIGNATURE IN THE CELL DNA AND THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN,
He states that ID partly a historical look at the origin of life which strikes me as being similar to the scientific investigation of evolution.
That's exactly the effect that Meyer is striving for; he wants to make ID look like proper science. It's an illusion though. He's just trying to bamboozle you with pseudo-science and bad maths.
Thus my conclusion that Main stream science is not applying the same standard of proof to ID as to Science.
They are held to exactly the same standard. Both must be falsifiable. Your own suggestion about God guiding the process of selection suffers from this problem., it's not falsifiable.
A world where God (or some other supernatural entity) controls selection, in just such a way as to exactly mimic natural selection, cannot be distinguished from a world where selection is simply natural. The two scenarios are impossible to tell apart. Such propositions, whilst arguably of philosophical interest, are of no use to science. The scientific method simply cannot be brought to bear upon such unfalsifiable ideas.
Your idea about guided selection and much of the ID lobby's arguments for a designer are unfalsifiable and they are spectacularly unparsimonious to boot. They don't conform to the scientific method. That's why scientists have no time for them. It's not atheistic zeal, it's just a product of how the scientific method works.
I respect scientists, just like yo do. that's why I listen to them when the vast majority say that ID s a waste of time.
Mutate and Survive
PS; Your messages would probably come across as more effective if you were to use quote boxes and other nifty coding functions. Quote boxes certainly make a post easier to read.
There are helpful tips here and in Posting Tips. Or you can use the "Peek" button to show messages complete with codes, so you can take a look at what others have done in their posts.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by shadow71, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 154 (589050)
10-30-2010 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by shadow71
10-29-2010 11:33 AM


Meyers
My conclusion is that the design advocates are not getting a fair hearing in the scientific discipline. I was impressed by Meyers book SIGNATURE IN THE CELL DNA AND THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN,
He states that ID partly a historical look at the origin of life which strikes me as being similar to the scientific investigation of evolution. Thus my conclusion that Main stream science is not applying the same standard of proof to ID as to Science.
If he stated that he could fly to the moon, would you wonder why he wasn't getting the same funding as NASA?
Stating things is easy. Doing things is rather harder.
What would creationist research into the origin of life even look like? You take a beaker full of nothing and a beaker full of God, mix 'em together and see if you get a giraffe?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by shadow71, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 10:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3015 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 79 of 154 (589070)
10-30-2010 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dr Adequate
10-30-2010 1:41 AM


Re: Meyers
quote:
What would creationist research into the origin of life even look like? You take a beaker full of nothing and a beaker full of God, mix 'em together and see if you get a giraffe?
I have a question for you before I can answer your post. Do you consider theoretical physicists scientists?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed quote box - Added the "/" to the quote closer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2010 1:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Granny Magda, posted 10-30-2010 10:40 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 10-30-2010 11:40 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2010 6:22 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 80 of 154 (589071)
10-30-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by shadow71
10-30-2010 10:31 AM


Re: Meyers
Well I guess I've got a question for you; what the heck has theoretical physics got to do with the origin of life?
Oh and nice one with the quote boxes, but the second tag should read [/quote]. It won't work without the "/" symbol to end the code.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 10:31 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 11:07 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3015 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 81 of 154 (589073)
10-30-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Granny Magda
10-30-2010 10:40 AM


quote:
Well I guess I've got a question for you; what the heck has theoretical physics got to do with the origin of life?
I have to establish groundrules to determine if design advocates meet the standards of scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Granny Magda, posted 10-30-2010 10:40 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 10-30-2010 11:37 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 84 by subbie, posted 10-30-2010 11:57 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2010 11:58 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2010 6:24 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 112 by Granny Magda, posted 10-31-2010 11:23 AM shadow71 has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34054
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 82 of 154 (589075)
10-30-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by shadow71
10-30-2010 11:07 AM


I have to establish groundrules to determine if design advocates meet the standards of scientists.
You have things in the wrong order there.
It is not the person that meets standards, not the SOURCE that is relevant, but rather what is being advocated, the CONTENT.
The issue is that Intelligent Design does not meet the standards of Science regardless of the individual advocating design.
Further, even if it were true, no one has ever shown why some designer has any relevance or importance beyond being a historical footnote or in the case of product liability suits.
Intelligent Design might someday meet the standards of science if and when the advocates present a model that can be tested.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 11:07 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 83 of 154 (589077)
10-30-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by shadow71
10-30-2010 10:31 AM


shadow71 writes:
Do you consider theoretical physicists scientists?
Theoretical physicists work hand-in-hand with experimental physicists, like surgeons work hand-in hand with ER physicians. They're two different specialties, neither of which could function without the other.
Where are the experimental IDists? What experiments are they doing to confirm or falsify the predictions of the theoretical IDists?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 10:31 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 7:00 PM ringo has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 84 of 154 (589079)
10-30-2010 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by shadow71
10-30-2010 11:07 AM


I would say that the first, and most important, ground rule is that scientists question everything and assume the accuracy of nothing. This, of course, rules ID out right from the start since it begins with the assumption that the bible is inerrant.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 11:07 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 12:41 PM subbie has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 85 of 154 (589080)
10-30-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by shadow71
10-30-2010 11:07 AM


quote:
I have to establish groundrules to determine if design advocates meet the standards of scientists.
How about you start by presenting the evidence for your "divine guidance" and showing that it is equivalent to that fro natural selection ? Because obviously you already have that all worked out to back up the accusation of double standards in the OP. Really I'm amazed that it wasn't in the OP, because it should have been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 11:07 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 12:56 PM PaulK has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3015 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 86 of 154 (589086)
10-30-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by subbie
10-30-2010 11:57 AM


subbie writes
quote:
I would say that the first, and most important, ground rule is that scientists question everything and assume the accuracy of nothing. This, of course, rules ID out right from the start since it begins with the assumption that the bible is inerrant.
You are wrong in your assumption that ID assumes the bible is inerrant. You are confusing ID and fundamentalist. Some fundamentalist believe the bible is inerrant (your phrasing not mine).
ID presents theories based on scientific investigation, ex. the information contained in DNA & the possible origins of that information and then states conclusions based on that investigation.
So I believe you should not group creationists and ID together. Michael Behe is not a creationists.
So I believe ID does meet your stated groundrule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by subbie, posted 10-30-2010 11:57 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Coyote, posted 10-30-2010 12:51 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 90 by subbie, posted 10-30-2010 1:14 PM shadow71 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 87 of 154 (589087)
10-30-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by shadow71
10-30-2010 12:41 PM


cdesign proponentsists
So I believe ID does meet your stated groundrule.
The modern version of ID was cooked up after the Supreme Court's Edwards decision to try to sneak creationism back into the schools.
The smoking gun is cdesign proponentsists -- the result of faulty cut-and-pasting in the book Of Pandas and People.
Without changing anything else, "creationists" was globally changed to "design proponents." But they missed one and ended up with cdesign proponentsists -- giving away the whole sordid operation.
Missing link: "cdesign proponentsists"
This is just one example of the "science" done by creationists. The various attacks on science do nothing to "prove" creationism. That takes evidence, but so far we have yet to see any. Perhaps you could provide some?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 12:41 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3015 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 88 of 154 (589088)
10-30-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by PaulK
10-30-2010 11:58 AM


paulk writes,
quote:
How about you start by presenting the evidence for your "divine guidance" and showing that it is equivalent to that fro natural selection ? Because obviously you already have that all worked out to back up the accusation of double standards in the OP. Really I'm amazed that it wasn't in the OP, because it should have been.
One starting point would be a quote from Paul Davies THE MIND OF GOD, P.16 of Preface.
I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2010 11:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2010 1:07 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 92 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-30-2010 3:43 PM shadow71 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 89 of 154 (589089)
10-30-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by shadow71
10-30-2010 12:56 PM


Since your "divine guidance" deals with the development of life over time, cosmology is even more distant from your point than the origin of life. I very much doubt that Davies even agrees with the idea expressed in the OP.
So your "starting point" is a controversial opinion which doesn't even directly address your claims. That is not a good start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 12:56 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 90 of 154 (589090)
10-30-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by shadow71
10-30-2010 12:41 PM


Behe on Intelligent Design
shadow71 writes:
You are wrong in your assumption that ID assumes the bible is inerrant. You are confusing ID and fundamentalist. Some fundamentalist believe the bible is inerrant (your phrasing not mine).
ID presents theories based on scientific investigation, ex. the information contained in DNA & the possible origins of that information and then states conclusions based on that investigation.
So I believe you should not group creationists and ID together. Michael Behe is not a creationists.
So I believe ID does meet your stated groundrule.
Here's what Michael Behe said about intelligent design.
quote:
Defendants' lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.
Judge Jones's opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover, about half way down the page.
You got anything else?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 12:41 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by hooah212002, posted 10-30-2010 1:19 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 96 by shadow71, posted 10-30-2010 7:15 PM subbie has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024