|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Behe claims that in order to arrive at the conclusion of design we first rule out natural mechanisms. Not rule out, but question naturalistic mechanisms that are highly unlikely, or currently unexplained in certain areas of biology, mainly concerning origins of life.
For example, Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems can not be produced by naturally occuring evolutionary mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. That they cannot be produced by naturalism could be Behe’s opinion, or any religious individual’s opinion, but the science of ID is justified in observing that it’s highly unlikely that they arose by only naturalism.
quote: How Occam's Razor Works | HowStuffWorks If the scientific method has any relationship at all with Occam’s razor, then the ID studies that Behe proposed in Darwin’s Black Box (particularly as described at the end of Chapter 10) unquestionably follow the scientific method.
Therefore, intelligent design had to be involved by process of elimination. Not entirely. Partially perhaps, but to no larger of an extent than it currently is in naturalistic scientific studies.
It would seem to me that Dawn has been describing this same method as used by Behe, but not used by scientists to construct the theory of relativity. 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. Not everything in naturalistic biology is as cut and dried as the theory of relativity. In many instances it is implied that order cannot be studied scientifically if it happened by a supernatural cause, that means there is evidence for order arising from purposeless naturalistic processes. So in some instances, a process of elimination is currently used in practice of the scientific method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Marc9000 has not addressed the issues that I made clear should be the focus of this thread. This thread is for making clear how ID follows the scientific method. If you choose to reply to this message please keep it on-topic. --Admin
Adminnemooseus writes: I think Dawn Bertot has had plenty of replies since his/her last appearance - Please don't add any more for a while unless you really think you have something that needs to be said (highly unlikely). I have some that aren’t hostile to Dawn, so I’m hoping you’lll find them acceptable. MESSAGE 19
dwise1 writes: What is the methodology for detecting and determining design in nature? In Behe’s words; (the end of Chapter 10 in Darwin’s Black Box)
quote: It’s a fact that life is fragile. Stops and starts in the development of life is not something that’s going to be high on the list for exploration of those who wish it to be a naturalistic process.Behe continues; quote: The beginning of chapter 6 in Behe’s The Edge of Evolution begins like this;
quote: Which they do not is an important phrase. New advances in science can be a source of discomfort for those scientists who are committed to only naturalism, and can cause them to avoid new scientific inquiries. Without ID, some science can go unexplored. I believe that the recent new discoveries about "junk DNA" would have gone unexplored without the current private presence of ID studies. That may be worth another thread. MESSAGE 32
Wounded King writes: marc9000 writes: Not rule out, but question naturalistic mechanisms that are highly unlikely, or currently unexplained in certain areas of biology, mainly concerning origins of life. Really? Then why are his most commonly referenced examples the bacterial flagellum and the mammalian immune system. Probably because his evolutionist opponents choose to reference them more than anything else, thus drawing attention away from other aspects of ID, or the entire concept of ID.
I can see why creationssts and IDists in these discussions love to try and make everything about abiogenesis, but that isn't refelective of the frequently made claims about current irreducibly complex systems in modern organisms. Not only is ID about challenging some parts of evolution, it is also about addressing origins of life, something that is commonly claimed by evolutionists to have nothing at all to do with evolution. Evolutionists try to isolate ID into one small area of its study and discredit that, without consideration of how that one thing can relate to something else in ID. Evolution is a very broad term, it can mean common descent, it can mean change over time, I seem to remember it even being applied to photosynthesis in plants. If evolution can be a diverse subject, ID can too.
marc9000 writes: Not entirely. Partially perhaps, but to no larger of an extent than it currently is in naturalistic scientific studies. Once again simply making a claim does nothing, where is any positive ID evidence? Where is a predictive ID hypothesis? The best they have ever done is retrospectively claim the identification of functional sequences in DNA once considered non-coding 'Junk DNA' as an ID prediction, none of which research came from ID labs. Didn’t come from ID labs? What is your source for that? I have a source that says it did. Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
marc9000 writes: In many instances it is implied that order cannot be studied scientifically if it happened by a supernatural cause, that means there is evidence for order arising from purposeless naturalistic processes. So in some instances, a process of elimination is currently used in practice of the scientific method. Could you say that again in English? The scientific community accuses ID of using a process of elimination (which they deem to not be scientific) and then turn right around and use a process of elimination as a weapon against ID. MESSAGE 67
Minnemooseus writes: The religious roots and nature of ID are well established. As the atheistic roots and nature of evolution are well established. Why the double standard? Because the atheist worldview was established first in science shouldn't mean that it can't be countered with another worldview. If they're both doing science, the personal beliefs of those doing the science should be considered equally.
Yes, there may well be Idist hypotheses that are independent of Biblical creationism. I cite Michael Behe's efforts in my message 49. Behe is the rare example of an IDist who will clearly go against young Earth creationism. But in general, the Discovery Institute is doing a piss poor job of separating their IDism from Biblical creationism. Also see that message 49. Why should there be a requirement of separation? Most evolution sites do a poor job of separating evolution from atheism.
So Dawn, how does your version of ID fit into the big picture of science? Do you accept what I cited that Behe accepts? Behe considers his IDism to be part of the larger biological theory of evolution. Behe (a real biological PhD) does the best job of making ID part of science, and that's not that good of a job. If Behe alone does it, why isn’t that good enough? Why is his job not that good? To quote William Dembski; the biological community is still coming to terms with Behe’s work. Is this false? If it’s not, how many like Behe would it take for an admission by the scientific community that ID is in fact scientific?
If ID "theory" is to be considered science, then it must fit into the big picture of what is considered science. It fits into the ‘open inquiry’ that is science. It doesn’t fit into what is considered science by atheists. MESSAGE 82
Taq writes: When using the scientific method (SM) you question the theory that you are putting forward. If Behe is putting ID forward then he needs show how he questioned the mechanisms of ID. He never does that. He questions evolution, largely because evolutionists never seem to do that. If you claim that evolutionists constantly question the methods they put forward, apparently the intensity of the questioning is an important consideration. Behe’s intensity in questioning evolution seems to go several levels beyond the questioning that evolutionists do of their own methods. The problem that will likely keep this from being a meaningful thread will be the disagreement in how the scientific method is defined. Today’s scientific community will define it to encompass all that Darwinists have accomplished (both real and imagined) in the past 150 years, and this of course is far beyond any current volume of ID studies. Darwinism in its early stages, as well as other current scientific studies like SETI, didn’t use the scientific method that you require of ID. SETI still doesn’t. As past discussions on these types of forums have made clear, ID is the only thing ever proposed as science to have to pass the testable, repeatable, falsifiable entrance exam, before even being considered as science. Again, SETI certainly didn’t, and Darwinism in its beginning stages didn’t either. Edited by Admin, : Add moderator comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Dr Adequate writes: Marc9000 has not addressed the issues that I made clear should be the focus of this thread. This thread is for making clear how ID follows the scientific method. If you choose to reply to this message please keep it on-topic. --Admin Perhaps you could highlight the bits which you think are on topic. Not sure if this is directed to me or to admin, but I'll respond to it. The following are bits from my message 97 that were on topic.
In Behe’s words; (the end of Chapter 10 in Darwin’s Black Box)
quote: It’s a fact that life is fragile. Stops and starts in the development of life is not something that’s going to be high on the list for exploration of those who wish it to be a naturalistic process.Behe continues; quote: The beginning of chapter 6 in Behe’s The Edge of Evolution begins like this;
quote: Which they do not is an important phrase. New advances in science can be a source of discomfort for those scientists who are committed to only naturalism, and can cause them to avoid new scientific inquiries. Without ID, some science can go unexplored. I believe that the recent new discoveries about "junk DNA" would have gone unexplored without the current private presence of ID studies. That may be worth another thread. To clarify (and take this a little further) were Jerry Coyne and Allen Orr, authors/biologists that Behe referenced, out of line by making reference to "biologically reasonable"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: To clarify (and take this a little further) were Jerry Coyne and Allen Orr, authors/biologists that Behe referenced, out of line by making reference to "biologically reasonable"? That is certainly a test that we might apply to any ID hypothesis sufficiently concrete to deserve the name "hypothesis". Biologically reasonable quickly swerves away from any ‘scientific method’. Reasonable to whom? To those in the scientific community who are mostly atheists, or to the general public (that funds them) who are mostly religious?
marc9000 writes: It’s a fact that life is fragile. Which is one of several ways that it resembles a snowflake rather than a Chieftain tank. What of it? Snowflakes are not life, and have nothing do with an interruption of the evolutionary process. The fragility of life (easy death) can interrupt an evolutionary process.
Again, your point is obscure unless you believe that naturally occurring things don't start or stop, in which case you're wrong. An exploration of starts and stops in this case means an examination of time frames involved in the development of a biological system. Development in a continuous manner, or a necessarily discontinuous one. Discontinuous as in long periods of time when nothing happens, increasing chances of death of a developing system, either by a predator, or by extreme temperatures. Life on earth exists in a very narrow temperature range. Dead partially developed systems do not continue to evolve.
Perhaps you could explain the relevance of what appear to be random quotes from Behe. He describes scientific procedures that are, or may be, of varying degrees of interest to different people, depending on their worldview. Explorations of specificity between components, or continuous/discontinuous as he describes, follow the scientific method. They are not religious in any way. The initiation of their exploration can be accused of being religious, but the studies themselves are not. marc9000 writes: Without ID, some science can go unexplored. I believe that the recent new discoveries about "junk DNA" would have gone unexplored without the current private presence of ID studies. I proved that you were wrong about that at the same time that I pointed out that these discoveries were not "recent and new". Remember? You gave your opinion, but you didn’t prove anything. As I said, another thread. I only touched on it here to highlight the obvious — questions and challenges to any theory are likely to be more involved when they come from those who are most interested in challenging it. Atheists would be less likely to challenge the junk DNA mindset than would IDists, because it goes along with purposeless naturalism more than with a purposeful designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Removing off-topic content. Please do not reply to moderator messages. --Admin
MESSAGE 224
The general function on the above linked page by A.C. McIntosh, Information and Entropy (about 1/3 down the page) is the one I abbreviated above in response to the four criteria by Bluejay.
Admin writes: In your earlier message you described a couple hypotheses and a couple possible experiments related to ID. Forming hypotheses and performing experiments are part of the scientific method. But in this message you've reverted to Dawn Bertot's approach of simply asserting that ID follows the scientific method. You're arguing that this guy said this and that guy said that, but you're ignoring the central focus of the thread. My mistake has not been fully recognizing the HUGE distinction you and others are making between the scientific method, and mere secularism. In the beginnings of the ID movement, it was rejected as science solely on religious grounds. It’s been fairly effortless for ID proponents to show the details of its work to be secular, (that’s some of what I’ve been doing in this thread, Dawn too) but the thread title uses the words scientific method, and that’s obviously being defined as a lot more than just a disconnect from religion.
Evolutionists in this thread have provided a few examples of evolution research following the scientific method, as well as some additional examples of a more general nature. These examples were provided as illustrations of what is being requested from IDists, an example or two of actual ID research following the scientific method. I’ll work on that.
Supporters of ID who wish to talk about something other than examples of ID following the scientific method should not be posting to this thread. Much of what you seem to take exception to in my posts is my responses to evolutionist posters who are clearly trying to draw me off topic. It just seems to me that they shouldn’t be posting here either, but it’s your forum. Didn’t you move this thread to the Free For All forum so that it would have just a little more flexibility? I’ll abbreviate those types of responses from here on, but some I can’t resist.
I've posted a number of messages to this thread, and I think I've been pretty clear about what is needed, and I think a number of other participants have also been pretty clear about this, particularly BlueJay. It's time to address the topic. I’ll do that.
If supporters of ID continue to post off-topic I'll just close the thread. You might want to just go ahead and do that anyway, because if you don’t this could turn out to be the biggest display of goalpost moving by evolutionists that EvC forums has ever seen. _________________ MESSAGE 91 My fellow Kentuckian;
Bluejay writes: Hi, Dawn. I would like to do one thing. I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines: Four lines? I can’t reduce it to just four lines, but I’ll make it as brief as possible - how about.....nine lines?
1)An example of ID making observations of the natural world. Recent discoveries in the simplest forms of life now show that the initial information content in DNA and living proteins rather than being small must in fact be large, for any evolutionary process to work to begin with.
2)An example of ID formulating a hypothesis based on those observations. Information in the cell could possibly arise in a top-down fashion (where intelligence is already present) rather than the emergent bottom-up fashion of Darwinism.
3)An example of ID experimenting to test that hypothesis. The tracing of pathways towards new organization and machines, whilst obeying all the laws of thermodynamics, consistently shows that new machinery requires a pre-existence of intelligence from an outside source.
4) An example of ID forming a theory based on the results of the experiment. The results of this testing can be applied to DNA, since the basic coding is the cause, rather than the consequence, thus the top-down approach gives another scientific paradigm (theory) for understanding the molecular machinery which is consistent with known thermodynamic principles. This appears to me (as a non scientist / I'll link below to where I condensed this from) to be a combination of two things that don’t go on in mainstream science; 1) a challenge to certain parts of evolutionary theory, and 2) an exploration into the origins of life, which the scientific community constantly assures us has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
If you can provide examples of all of these steps, then I would say that ID has at least passed the barest minimum standards of the scientific method. I suspect that most scientists would require more than just this bare minimum, but it would at least be a start. I suspect it worked for about....20 minutes after being tossed to the wolves, then the goalposts were moved. __________________ MESSAGE 233
Taq writes: I assure you, ALL scientists want to know what ALL of the functional DNA sequences are in any given genome. As I can equally assure you that biological studies within an ID framework can be done without violating the establishment clause of the first amendment, or following any religious rituals or doctrines. We’ll never believe each other, so there we are. But the least I can do is explain exactly why I don’t believe that all (evolutionist) scientists want to know everything about DNA sequences, even if that knowledge cripples their beloved naturalistic worldview.
Dr Adequate writes: marc9000 writes: Biologically reasonable quickly swerves away from any ‘scientific method’. Reasonable to whom? To those in the scientific community who are mostly atheists, or to the general public (that funds them) who are mostly religious? If Behe was suggesting such a vague and subjective test, then I admit that what he is proposing is unscientific.In which case I am at a loss to know why you brought it up. He knows, and I made clear, that Behe wasn’t the one suggesting such a vague and subjective test, it was Coyne and Orr who were suggesting it. Two scientists/authors that are in opposition to ID. He’s trolling, and practically no evolutionist on forums such as this would ever acknowledge it. Neither would most any of the big heavies in the scientific community, such as Dawkins, Myers, or Provine. I can tell by remembering their arrogant smirks in the movie Expelled.
subbie writes: I pointed out that ID starts with the unquestioned assumption that the bible is inerrant. This kind of ridiculousness gets winks and nods from everyone in mainstream science — no one asks him where in any official description of ID he gets this nonsense.
Taq writes: The fact of the matter is that no one is using the IDM to deduce what these functions are. If you think I am wrong then please point me to a peer reviewed paper where someone uses the IDM to discover specific function in a given stretch of DNA. A specific function? A general hypothesis isn’t good enough? Here is a page full of general ones, I assume when they became public, the goalposts moved to a specific function. Chances are the Discovery Institute has it, but hasn’t released it to the wolves yet, because they know the goalposts will move to several specific functions. Then when there are several, there will never be enough.
Please elaborate and keep your focus on the above. --Admin A raggedy abbreviation by me no doubt, but it should get the idea across. I’m sure the goalposts have already been moved beyond it, but for a time, however short, it was the scientific method. __________________________ MESSAGE 244
Coyote writes: But it is interesting that most of the proponents of ID seem to have very different ideas of what it does and how it does it. Perhaps you could all get together and agree on your definitions of terms, methods, types of evidence, hypotheses, and tests. Until you can agree among yourselves you are nothing but a rabble making a lot of noise. ID thought processes are diverse, and many ID proponents can think for themselves. They don’t have to blindly fall in line behind a leader like Richard Dawkins. New knowledge about the cell has come to light only in recent decades, and the ID movement is young. The atheist rabble making a lot of noise about Darwin in the late 1800’s is well documented. ____________________ MESSAGE 259
What is Admin going to do when he sees the current crop of messages? I'll take my medicine like a MAN, and this Thursday I'll give THANKS for it! Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Member is making no effort to address the topic and has been suspended for 24 hours. --Admin
Hello Thylacosmilus
I would like to do one thing. I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines: 1. An example of ID making observations of the natural world. Recent discoveries in the simplest forms of life now show that the initial information content in DNA and living proteins rather than being small must in fact be large, for any evolutionary process to work to begin with.
2. An example of ID formulating a hypothesis based on those observations. Information in the cell could possibly arise in a top-down fashion (where intelligence is already present) rather than the emergent bottom-up fashion of Darwinism.
3. An example of ID experimenting to test that hypothesis. The tracing of pathways towards new organization and machines, whilst obeying all the laws of thermodynamics, consistently shows that new machinery requires a pre-existence of intelligence from an outside source.
4. An example of ID forming a theory based on the results of the experiment. The results of this testing can be applied to DNA, since the basic coding is the cause, rather than the consequence, thus the top-down approach gives another scientific paradigm for understanding the molecular machinery which is consistent with known thermodynamic principles. This appears to me (as a non scientist) to be a combination of two scientific things that don’t go on in mainstream science; 1) a challenge to certain parts of evolutionary theory, and 2) an exploration into the origins of life, which the scientific community constantly assures us has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. My responses to your four lines above were condensed from one on this list of peer reviewed work. A.C. McIntosh, Information and Entropy, about 1/3 down the page. A raggedy abbreviation by me no doubt, but it should make clear that his more detailed peer-reviewed article would clearly and thoroughly address every one of your four steps.
If you can provide examples of all of these steps, then I would say that ID has at least passed the barest minimum standards of the scientific method. How many phases of standards are in the scientific method? Are there bare minimums, medium level, and high level standards? This thread’s central focus is this;
Message 15Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method, for it to be considered science and therefore teachable in the science classroom, regardless of eithers conclusions Most posters in this thread, yourself included, are posting here because they, like the scientific community in general, believe that the ID methodology does not follow the scientific method. Yet we haven’t seen any real attempt by anyone here from that position to concisely define exactly what the scientific method is. Shouldn’t the scientific method be clearly defined, with a commonly used, predictable, unchanging meaning?
I suspect that most scientists would require more than just this bare minimum, but it would at least be a start. Most scientists, but not all? Why not all? A start for what? A political decision? A re-evaluation of what the scientific method actually is? Another central focus of the thread, contained in the above quote by the thread starter is teachable in the science classroom. In other discussions on forums such as these, I’ve been told that what is teachable in the science classroom isn’t political, isn’t a democracy, that it should be left up only to the scientific community, since they are the most qualified to know what science actually is. Don’t you think they should be able to provide a clear definition for what the scientific method actually is? Something unchangeable? Something with one phase, instead of three or more? Edited by Admin, : Temporarily hide content. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content, announce temporary suspension.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024