|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
This thread begins with Message 15 --Admin.
Subbie had a good idea in his suggestion that we get out of his thread and discuss these issues in another thread I suggest a thread that demonstrates that in Principle and Application, the ID method of scientific investigation, is just as detailed and involved as science, as is the so-called, "scientific method" in establishing Facts and Conclusions concerning the physical world Focusing initially on the basics and fundamentals of any type of investigation in establishing facts. Also, what are the total amount of terms (ie. observation, experimentation, etc) one can throw at an investigation before it becomes exclusive. Where would the scientific method in general terms, leave the ID method in the dust How on both sides the parties are limited in thier conclusions It is easy enough to demonstrate that a select group of "scientists" have made, what is very simple very complicated, in an effort to exclude any understanding of things and the conclusions of things, except thier own interpretations IMV, the thread will be worth it, but it will be short lived, because my proposition is so simple, tons of posts will not be necessary to establish this fact Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Change title Edited by Admin, : Hide content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
ID (Intelligent Design) is the theory that the apparent design in nature is in reality actual design by intelligent entities. On the other hand, IDM (Intelligent Design Methodology) is a term you invented yourself that describes the methods used to develop this theory, and you defined it as being synonymous with SM (Scientific Methodology). ID and IDM are not synonyms. One is a theory, the other is a method. I suppose a good thread then, would be: Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method, for it to be considered science and therefore teachable in the science classroom, regardless of eithers conclusions Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them. If you can't do that then ID has fallen at the first hurdle towards being a scientific theory. Boards back up, will get back to it as quick as I can Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So any argument, in this thread, that attempts to discredit or change the Scientific Method will automatically invalidate DB's assertion that ID follows the SM. At no point have i ever indicated that the SM was invalid as a method. And why would i want to change said method
I am eager to finally see what the actual hypothesis of ID is and how the Scientific Method can be applied to test whether any evidence of ID can be detected and explained. Before you get to eager to see what a hypothsis of ID is, remember that Percy made it very clear that this thread is NOT about ID, due the the fact that it is a conclusion. What we are discusiing here is IDs methodology in comparison with the SM, to see if they jive. Now I am happy to discuss at someother point the hypothesis of ID if Percy allows it. First off ID, like to thank Percy for allowing this thread, because he deemed it against his Jetter budgement, but thanks anyway As indicated above there is a problem right off the bat, lets make sure that this distinctions stays clear, unless at someother point percy allows the discussionof conclusions Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them. Again, no hypothesis, just a method to determine if ID is a possibility, derived from a scientific approach We will be looking at IDs methods and SMs methods Now, what is off limits I believe, is the conclusions of Macro-evolution and design itself, because both are conclusions, as ICANT was trying to demonstrate in the other thread Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Behe claims that in order to arrive at the conclusion of design we first rule out natural mechanisms. For example, Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems can not be produced by naturally occuring evolutionary mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. Im not sure why he ciomes to this conlcusion, so I cant address that aspect
In this method there is no positive evidence in support of the proposed mechanism. Instead, theories are tested by elimination of alternate explanations. This differs dramatically from the scientific method where theories are directly tested using positive evidence. this what I believe the IDM demonstrates as well. I sont know why he says that so I cannot adrress it
It would seem to me that Dawn has been describing this same method as used by Behe, Not exacally
It is implied that "order" can not be produced by non-intelligent processes, therefore order is evidence of design. However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM. In this discuyssion it would be irrelevant whether order cannot be produced by NONINTP, since order is an indication of design to begin with
However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM. Thats the point though, you cannot test a conclusion, the likes of which, where the evidence is not now available. In both methods we can only use our best judgement, with the best possible approaches, correct Dawn Bertot Edited by Admin, : Add missing quote codes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
What you will be looking at, if you want any credibility at all, is a rule or set of rules to distinguish design from non-design. Wrong, this is not the topic at present. I will demonstrate this down below, in response to another post Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you want to claim that ID is able to be derived from the scientific method then we must first be abe to derive an ID hypothesis that is falsifiable. I am not claiming or denying at present that ID is able to be derived from the SM. I am claiming that the IDM is the same as used by the SM. It follows the same logical steps to derive its tenets or conclusions However, remember percy has made a clear distinction between the ID and the IDM
Methods of doing what exactly? Scientific methods involve constructing hypotheses and testing them in order to construct reliable theories. Yes? Methods of application and usage. What criteria do you and we use to come to our conclusions, besides Observation, experimentation, evaluation, reproduction and prediction. IOWs, the IDer if you will, uses the same steps to come to the conclusions of its tenets as does evolution or Macro-evolution There is no difference
If we cannot construct a testable ID hypothesis then I don't see how we can take the next step of testing it. This is not about hypothesis, but mechanichs and application of methods
Scientific methods involve constructing hypotheses and testing them in order to construct reliable theories. Yes? Theories about what? There are really only three classifications. The methods you use to form your hypothesis, how things work presently and hypothesis about what might have have happened, as you call them theories Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Not noticeably. So far as I've seen, the "IDM" goes like this: (1) Assume without any evidence that the Bible is the literal word of God.(2) Lie. The scientific method is rather different. That's why following it leads to different conclusions. Conclusions about what, could you explain You seem to be a very emotional character, simply try and stay focused on one point at a time What general methods does the SM use that are not employed by the IDer, to come to thier conclusions Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
OK then, let's get to it. 1. What is ID's methodology? 2. What is Science's methodology? Please be specific. Observation, experimentation, evaluation, reproduction and prediction, etc I assume that Mr Darwin observed things long before he went to the next step correct? His evaluations had to involve presuppositions (SMs)and then conclusions, correct? You see thats the problem. Most evolutionist, atleast the hard core ones, assume that thier position involves neither presuppositions or conclusions, but happily and logically they do. Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you have no reliable way to distinguish between design and non-design you have nothing. So lay off the double-talk and tell us how one can reliably determine whether a particular item is designed or not. Its sad but true that the scientific mind, actually makes for bad philosophy or logic. Determining something (and by that you mean prove) is not the same as demonstrating it logically Sadly you dont even recognize that your "conclusions" involve the same lack of ability to distinguish between events that actually happened and those that possibly or probably happened So like us (outside the scriptures) you are left with what can be demonstrated physically and logically "Lay off the double talk", thats funny. Your a funny guy C So not seeing a thing designed does not mean that the evidence or logic will not allow it, given the fact that we use the self same methods to derive our conclusions, as do you But it would help to know what conclusions you speaking about Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
To compare your IDM with SM it is necessary to show the ID hypothesis which is in no way discussing ID simply what the comparison of ID is to the scientific method. With no hypothesis there is nothing to compare. Sure there is, the methods we both employ will be exacally the same correct? Hypos are derived from those general methods correct? Can you show me a general or specific principle you use that we dont to formulate your hypothesis? Can you you explain what your hypothesis are and what you conclusions are? This is why I say if both follow the same methods and both are scientific applications, both should be taught in the classroom, unless I am missing something Like most prejudices, everybody needs to move beyond ID or IDMs as being supernatural or religious Because now watch. General principles of observation and experimentation, do not require the supernatural or religion, only an examination of physical properties I dont need supernatural help or conclusions to determine something by a scientific method I employ Is that you on the tractor at an earlier date? Dawn Bertot Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. I have no doubt that this is what IDists believe and it makes sense. It is however to involved for this thread. What is under discussion here is the basic method and mehodology of both positions, to see if they are the same and are science. Wer are not discussing conclusions as of yet Why is that so hard for you to understand. It has been alleged in the following posts that I have no stated my position, this is wrong. I will state it again and see if perhaps you will attempt to answer it What besides the categories of Observation, experimentation, evaluation, and prediction does the SM use that we do not? Secondly if we use the same methods why is ours considered NOT science Perhaps you could attempt an answer at such basic questions. Ill wait your response
So let me repeat, and try not to duck this time: What is your set of rules for distinguishing design from non-design? I was not ducking anything my simple friend, it is not the subject at hand, because it is a conclusion Watch Ill demonstrate What is your rule of evidence for distinquishing something as being designed verses something that is simply a naturalistic cause? At what point will your answer be provable? We are dealing with methods and whether they are scientific in approach, not conclusions design is the conclusion of a scientific approach, not provable in the same way a view that only natural causes are the cause this is why I said earlier science minds make bad philosophers, logicians and debaters. Im sorry but that is true because you cannot distinguish between these two simple items Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You see from the definition of intelligent design given by IntelligentDesign.org that design "theorists" are able to do this, and that this is a critical part of their "scientific" method. As such it is not off topic. I think you just can't answer the question. Again its not a part of thier method, its part of thier conclusions from thier methods Give me an example of you SM process you would employ that we would not, to determine some conclusion of events no longer available directly. What would that be and perhaps you could give an example of ours that is not Science, excluding conclusions, that is not scientific in application Ill get you where you need to be C, in a logical fashion, just hang on Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You are apparently trying to patronize me. This is amusing. Ill ignore this comment, but it does speak volumes about you personality. But that is beside the point so we wont discuss it here
Scientists compare the predictions of a theory (neo-Darwinism) with observations of the natural world, and find that they match perfectly. Creationists run like frightened little bunny-rabbits when invited to produce a hypothesis having predictive power; and since observing nature does nothing to support their fantasies, they find that it better suits their purpose to lie about nature --- a practice which would, if anything, be impeded by actually studying it. All you did here is restate the basics of the SM and the IDM, without demonstrating exacally why and how we dont follow the same rules of science in the beginning process Secondly once into the process, how do we lie about there being order and law, which is a process of scientific evalustion and atleast a clear indication of design, like anyother Conclusion drawn form the SM You really should leave you demeaning asssertions at the stoop, unless you can provide evidence as to what we lie about Your goal is to simply demonstrate what you use that we do not and then show why ours is not science, or a scientific approach that should serve as no problem for such an intellectual as yourself, correct? Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024