|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design in nature?
And it must give accurate results or it is useless. ... ...this methodology for detecting and determining design must comply with the scientific method. So we need a set of rules for determining whether an object is designed or natural, and those rules must provide accurate results. We can't just use, "I know design when I see it!" Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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 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. 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. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Coyote writes: 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 From IntellligentDesign.org: What is intelligent design? Design "theory" has been shown to be wrong in those four examples given. Spectacularly wrong in the case of Behe and irreducible complexity! So let me repeat, and try not to duck this time: What is your set of rules for distinguishing design from non-design? 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. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
[ID]...is me or a scientist evaluating physical properties. Great! Now we're getting somewhere. How do you evaluate those physical properties? In other words, how do you differentiate design from non-design? What is your method for doing this? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If you want to see the real "scientific" method behind ID, just look at the Discovery Institute--the leading proponent of ID. A while back a fundraising document leaked out and was posted on the internet. It gave away their whole sordid scheme.
From the Wedge Strategy:
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences. Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. Hmmmm. No mention of hypothesis testing, theory, or any of the other things science uses in it's method, eh? Sounds more like a religious and political strategy. And funny thing, the Discovery Institute hires mostly lawyers and pr flacks, and runs no laboratories at all. Hmmmm. Dawn, want to tell us about the "scientific method" again? I think you missed something. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sorry I didn't get to your question earlier.
How do archaeologists determine design vs. non-design? By lots of research. We study the context in which tools are found in several ways: we observe extant "primitive" societies and their tool-making practices; we examine archaeological sites and the tools found in them; and we examine sites that are known to be natural and see what we find there. The latter might be river beds or rock slides or roads where traffic breaks up rocks. And many of us learn to make stone tools and artifacts as well. Replicative studies are usually very informative! As part of his research, one of my professors in graduate school had a whole room filled with shelves, all of which were filled with "artifacts" found in streams and other natural deposits. He was able to study the differences between these and known tools and draw up some guidelines for differentiating between the two. In the case of flaked stone, one of the most important traits to look for is bifacial flaking. That is very common in stone tools and very rare in nature. Microscopic studies are also pretty useful, particularly use-wear studies. Regular use-wear is not found in nature, but is very common on certain types of stone tools. And there are always some items that you can't easily tell one way or another. Then analyses of the material and where it originated, or studies of proteins in the pores of the stone, or other types of tests may provide additional clues. In short, there are methods we can use to determine design from non-design. And we aren't afraid to talk about them. Added: One fun kind of use-wear has been seen on sandstone and other soft stones. If a reasonably tough brush, such as manzanita, grows near the rock the wind can cause movement of the branches. This can result in the branches creating generally linear lines "drawn" or "carved" into the sandstone. The smoking gun is to find a branch still carving one of the lines. Edited by Coyote, : addition Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Dawn writes: Please demonstrate why any of the initial or complex examinations of the IDM, are not a scientific investigation method From Wiki: John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing: I think this answers the question, "Does ID follow the scientific method?" The answer is clearly, "No!" Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Wow C I am beginning to think you may be the slowest witted person here. I am not here to defend Behe, some judge or any other position or the article above That's the problem--the answers to your questions are readily available in the quote I provided of the Dover decision. You just don't want to accept those answers. The Dover trial was conducted with experts on both sides, and it arrived at answers based on their testimony. You can claim that ID follows the scientific method all you want, but we already have expert testimony, under oath and with cross examination, along with a federal district judge's ruling, that clearly finds that ID is not science. And insults are neither necessary nor appropriate. They certainly don't advance your cause.
Would you, thats YOU C, please demonstrate why any of the initial chaacteristics that I have present or any test that I may conduct to observe Order, law and harmony in nature are not scientific principles. Let's see the test! You have been asked by several posters to show the test and you keep ducking the question. But you don't have a test. Just like many IDers you are trying to appropriate the methods of science then pervert them to your own ends. ID is all about seeing design in everything no matter what the evidence actually shows. Sorry, science doesn't work that way.
This is now the third or fourth time I have asked you state it plainly and all I get is religious this, article and Behe that That's because ID is nothing but religion, and all your protests won't change that. The modern version of ID was "designed" specifically to get creationism back into the schools after the Edwards decision removed it (in the form of creation "science") from the schools. The book, Of Pandas and People is the smoking gun; the creationists who wrote that got caught with their hands in the cookie jar changing "creationists" to "design proponents"--without changing anything else! There is your proof: even creationists admit that the two are the same. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
so then are you claiming that evolutionists believe time, space and matter has not always existed? honest question, please give and honest answer.
Perhaps that is a question for cosmologists, not "evolutionists." And it is off topic in this thread. The management does not like threads to drift that far off topic. Start a new topic if you have something to say about cosmology. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Since the evolution theory is a religious one and you believe it can be supported through the scientific method you must believe religion can be supported through the scientific method. Is Intelligent design not a form of religion. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief. To call it anything else is delusional, and trolling. And, in this thread, it is also off topic. This forum has strict rules about staying on topic. You should check them out before the moderators' patience wears thin. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In order to get you on topic, perhaps you should read my previous post:
Message 133 So if intelligent design can't be supported by the scientific method because its a religion than neither can evolution. Complete nonsense. (Why don't you let scientists worry about these things? At least they are qualified. You seem to be just repeating the same catechism over and over.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
How many test do i need to conduct to know it is order and harmony? Only one; but that one has to produce repeatable results, it has to rely on solid data, and it has to lead to a reliable conclusion stemming directly from the observations. (Subjective opinions and unsupported claims need not apply.) So far you have provided none of these. And you have provided no real-world definitions of "order" and "harmony" that can be used in such a test. Here are some of the problems: Different observers can look at "a leaf" or any other object and come up with different opinions on "order" and "harmony" (whatever those terms mean). Unless you can define some objective criteria you are dealing with the subjective. There are all kinds of leaves, from those you don't want growing in your lawn to fossils hundreds of millions of years old. What data will you collect, and from which leaves will you collect it? What will you do to ensure that your data is not subjective? What criteria will you use to ensure you have enough data? What measurements and observations will you take? How much additional data will you need from other organisms? You didn't think you could just study leaves, did you? When you have enough data, how will you work from that data to a conclusion? What data will you use, and what data will you judge not to be important? What criteria will you use to decide these things? What assumptions will you use, and how well supported are they? Will you be able to establish a theory that explains all the data, as well as related data, and ignores no important data? When you can start to answer these questions, and literally hundreds of additional related questions, you may be able to come up with a suitable test. But first, you really should establish some relationship between "order" and "harmony" and the real world. At the moment those terms seem more suitable for a sophomore bull session well lubricated with adult beverages and unbridled ignorance.
evaluating and studying thier pattern of logical and orderly progression to produce another organism is not weighing leaves So how are you going to study the "pattern of logical and orderly progression?" Measure them? Study them in historical perspective, using fossils and radiometric dating? Seems like what you are describing is basic biology and paleontology, which is being practiced by thousands of scientists around the world. Their results fill floors in major university libraries. But I think what you are really doing is depicted in the following cartoon:
See, there is that "step two" -- it doesn't bother you because you already know the answer and you have no need to go through all the steps that are customary in science. But that's why you don't have a test you can describe for us. That's why you don't have a method you can describe. That's why you keep coming up with these subjective and undefined terms, such as "order" and "harmony" that ultimately mean nothing. Fact is, you are peddlin' religion lite and we all know it. That's all that ID is, and ever will be. And that is why it has to be promulgated by folks such as yourself and sold to an already religious audience instead of working scientists and peer-reviewed journals. Real scientists won't touch ID with a ten foot cattle prod for the reasons outlined above, and many others. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Only one; Thank you, atleast that is a start
but that one has to produce repeatable results, it has to rely on solid data, and it has to lead to a reliable conclusion stemming directly from the observations. (Subjective opinions and unsupported claims need not apply.) So far you have provided none of these. And you have provided no real-world definitions of "order" and "harmony" that can be used in such a test. I love the science mind it is so funny. ironically it is void of logical deduction, the very thing it needs the most C, all information, not at present and not now available is void of reliable conclusions, but it is not void of logical probabilities Any information derived by the SM, about information not now available or conclusions of the same is at best speculative, but that deosnt mean it is wrong or inaccurate, just not demonstratable So, now listen, pay close attention. The SM, unless it is dealing with present visible information and conclusion that can presently be proved, suffers the same fate as any test or theory Your methods and conclusions are no better, than the IDMs, science approach we use in the conclusions concerning, order, law and harmony It amazes me that you believe I actually need to keep conducting tests to see if order actually is order
When you have enough data, how will you work from that data to a conclusion? What data will you use, and what data will you judge not to be important? What criteria will you use to decide these things? Why do you assume my test needs to be complicated to be valid. thats funny EPIC FAIL! And the sad part is you can't even see why. Good night. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If Intelligent Design is not about design in some way, then you guys have chosen the wrong name for your ideas, and it is not I who have done most to misrepresent your position. Maybe this is why it is so difficult for IDers to characterize their "science." There are dozens to hundreds of different major denominations of Christianity, and they all have major differences among themselves. It is not surprising that they can't agree on what ID should entail. And what makes this problem worse is they aren't really pursuing ID as a science. They don't have to come up with a working method, any real hypotheses, any tests that could be applied, or a cohesive theory. When pushed they make things up that sound like science, but not all of them make up the same stories. That's why Dawn and Buz don't have the same approach. And most of them have very little familiarity with science in the first place (when you already know all the answers you don't need to study science). That's why we can't get any decent explanation of ID and it's use of the scientific method. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Your missing the big picture Frako, its not a matter of what can be proved, its a matter of what can be logically demonstrated. No one has demonstrated on this thread why the IDM, is not science, why the the tests that Behe are not scientific tests and why its conclusions are not eacally the same as any test by the SM
Sorry, this is entirely wrong. The conclusions that he draws from his tests and the one I have demonstrated demonstrate that the conclusions from those tests are as valid as any conclusions drawn by the SM and those tests The fact that no one will directly address this issue, is indicative of the fact that within themselves, they know that logical position cannot be overthrown Above I presented a summary of the findings of the Dover trial in which a federal judge determined that ID is religion, not science. That trial also showed why the conclusions Behe reached did not follow the scientific method. Further, it showed that IDers have to distort the definitions of science in order to fit ID into science and the scientific method. You simply cannot accept those findings. That's doesn't make them invalid. Face it, ID is religion lite and everyone knows it. I suspect even you know it but are unwilling to accept that fact. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024