Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 9:57 PM
133 online now:
Meddle, Tanypteryx (2 members, 131 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,446 Year: 3,483/19,786 Month: 478/1,087 Week: 68/212 Day: 29/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
WS-JW
Junior Member (Idle past 4184 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-04-2007


Message 61 of 107 (404844)
06-10-2007 3:17 AM


www.wildersmith.org

- Media Library

Evolution V Creation

Is Man A Machine?

These will help you my friends.


Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 06-10-2007 5:13 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 06-10-2007 8:03 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2007 10:59 AM WS-JW has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 107 (404846)
06-10-2007 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by WS-JW
06-10-2007 3:17 AM


WS-JW,

These will help you my friends.

No, it won't. We don't debate websites. It would be nice if you actually responded point by point to our replies.

This is a forum for debate, not prosetylisation. It goes like this, you make an opening post, I reply, you respond to my replies & so on.

What you are not going to be allowed to do is make an OP, ignore all responses & then provide URL's for websites. THIS IS NOT DEBATE.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by WS-JW, posted 06-10-2007 3:17 AM WS-JW has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 63 of 107 (404858)
06-10-2007 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by WS-JW
06-10-2007 3:17 AM


These are from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

  2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Dr. Wilder Smith does not appear to be relevant to the issues raised in the discussion so far, so if he actually is relevant then you need to explain how he is relevant and how he supports your position in this discussion and provides rebuttal to the points raised by others in opposition to your own. You should do this in your own words, using a link to his website merely as a supporting reference.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by WS-JW, posted 06-10-2007 3:17 AM WS-JW has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 64 of 107 (404873)
06-10-2007 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Brad McFall
06-09-2007 5:45 PM


Re: disjunction can be continuous in discontinuous space
Brad,

I'm not clear how QM relates to this, this is thermodynamics, right? If so, it comes under the heading "environment".

are you fully for reductionism or not?

Not really. It's like a tomato grower needing to know the values of the five forces in order to give his plants the right nutrients. Ultimately some or all of the main forces are involved, it just isn't necessary to know them in order to feed tomato plants.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 06-09-2007 5:45 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Brad McFall, posted 06-11-2007 9:27 PM mark24 has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 65 of 107 (404882)
06-10-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by WS-JW
06-10-2007 3:17 AM


Thanks for providing us with a bare link. Is there any part of the content of that website which you think is true and would like to discuss with us?

PS: Happy birthday.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by WS-JW, posted 06-10-2007 3:17 AM WS-JW has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3106 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 66 of 107 (405204)
06-11-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by mark24
06-10-2007 10:42 AM


Re:Thermodynamics, evolution and QM
Yes, it is thermodynamics…

Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge
.
quote:
Thermodynamic Self-Organization as a Mechanism of Hierarchical Structure Formation of Biological Matter in Progress in reaction Kietics and Mechanism Vol. 28 2003 pages 157-188

But what seemed to be lacking, in our EVC discussion prior (on information vs “Gladyshev” entropy was) this;
quote:

Click to enlarge
Macrothermodynamics of Biological Evolution Aging of Living Beings in Internation Journal of Modern Physics B Vol 18. 2004 1-25
.

Dr.Gladshev had said,

quote:

Click to enlarge
op. cit. 180
.
Taken at face value this paragraph may inhibit someone from getting out of the habit of using “information” entropy when writing Macrothermodynamics but when read in conjunction with(Georgis’ marginalization’s are in pen, mine in pencil)
quote:

Click to enlarge
other op. cit. 21

quote:

Click to enlarge
other op. cit. 23

I am of the opinion that where Gould relates this figure


Click to enlarge

quote:
Structure of Evolutionary Theory page 872

, Gladyshev’s differential equations would permit a complete circuit (from A to B,to C,.. to a choice …) I digrammed below(of course transmission of the information in thelines is being erased somewhat ( I can redraw them if you cant follow the gaps).

Click for full size image

QM directions would come into play, in the series, where the paths cross back to the begining. I can describe this in a little more detail if necessary.


Click to enlarge

This may narratively put phenomenological thermodynamics in the place of De Vries' "rare mutable periods"

Click to enlarge

quote:
Structure of Evolutionary Theory page 435

and seems to respond to De Vries' use of Galton’s polyhedron depending on whether it is via the blue, red, or green arrow that after the choice-QM-wise one returns, in-cirucit shockingly over time.


Click to enlarge

quote:
Structure of Evolutionary Theory page 435

Part of the reason for not noticing this seems to be the failure to develop hierarchical homology.

See PDF upload on my website(hierarchicalhomologyPDF)
http://axiompanbiog.com/comparisons.aspx

The double slit phenomenon would arise in terms of the relation of the width of the colored lines to the choice going around, this involves the place of biogeography, hence SOME space. It is my opinion that the hierarchical data expression of both biology and physics can only be worked out along the diagram such as this-


Click to enlarge

which utlizes Shipley's ideas on importing econometrics into path analysis.

I am working slowy on this circle turning via programming objects, see;
http://www.powerballs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2607


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 06-10-2007 10:42 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by mark24, posted 06-12-2007 7:46 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 67 of 107 (405310)
06-12-2007 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Brad McFall
06-11-2007 9:27 PM


Re: Re:Thermodynamics, evolution and QM
Brad,

In laymens terms what does this mean?

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Brad McFall, posted 06-11-2007 9:27 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 06-13-2007 7:20 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3106 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 68 of 107 (405492)
06-13-2007 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by mark24
06-12-2007 7:46 AM


Re:laymans' Thermodynamics, evolution and QM
I think it means that QM matrix algebra separations may indeed be related to the meaning of the code. If you press me for some details on what it means for the genotype I will have to do/write quite a bit but in out-line it means:

The variability in the environment (fractal structure of its description, including temperature changes) can produce large apparent changes (disjunctions/new topologies) in the phenotype (morphology); these surviving living things in a later environment that has gradual trends (no matter the prior variability (different physical parameters of the Gladyshev thermostat I propose) create a smooth bifurcation in the relation of genotype to phenotype such that RM&NS change the form-making and translation in space either in the extremes of in the centre of the “fan of diversity” (see http://www.axiompanbiog.com for my quoting of Gould on Darwin on this aspect of diversity).

Whether it is the edge or the central portion depends on complicated aspects of the relation of hierarchies to the motion around so I may to try to describe this further.

Depending on precisely how the deviation from the circle form occurs, I doubt, no matter what the genetics involved, that this scenario can be accomplished in the thousands of years. It probably requires millions at least. In order to accomplish this explanation I had to recognize that the term “environment” is over-valued. I know this is not how Gould uses the word, but I disagree with him on many points. He has tried to use the words “reptile design” in the same thought that uses “anatomical design”. I find this is confusing the relation of creation and evolution precisely in the time it may take to show that herps may have gone in this path overtime even if I end up creating a place for design”” at the outer time limits of my accomplishment. Gould made it clear he was not trying to speak of “new genetics” and thus I see no reason for not using his notions when trying to show the meaning of the code.

Of course it could be that I have made it more complicated than it is. We do not have really a clear(fully reductionistic) understanding of how to “read” gene sequence data (even though Watson thinks we have the method for research "to say" we do do), I only suspect that this lack (or disagreement about future of molecular biology) is reflected on larger taxonomic levels. Panbiogeographers find that higher taxa groupings have meaning (findable by looking at common distributions among many taxa) where people like Gould have stuck to a more linear discussion of history from Linneaus down *past* the Genus to the deme for any dissaggreation of via sexuality between generations. I dont really find as much controversy here as can be gleaned from reading the literature in all.

I don’t know if this post is any clearer. Let me know. Thanks, Brad.

Also, Dr. Gladyshev has written briefly on QM ("superposition") and includes reference to materials studied by QMers (polymer structure) so it would be possible for me to make some rather direct predictions but this would take me time than I probably have at the moment to repose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by mark24, posted 06-12-2007 7:46 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 69 of 107 (406317)
06-19-2007 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Doddy
06-06-2007 9:06 PM


Concerning someone's statement that what is not repeatable is not science it was replied:

Tell that to a forensic scientist trying to investigate a murder scene.

If you believe that applying logic to ascertain if a death has been caused by murderer's design, is a science, do you then also believe that detecting intelligent design in biological systems is a science?

If not why is investigating to detect evidence of death by design is science but investigating to detect evidence of life by design not a science?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Doddy, posted 06-06-2007 9:06 PM Doddy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2007 9:26 AM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 06-19-2007 9:30 AM jaywill has responded
 Message 72 by dwise1, posted 06-19-2007 2:41 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2007 4:35 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 107 (406324)
06-19-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:30 AM


If not why is investigating to detect evidence of death by design is science but investigating to detect evidence of life by design not a science?

Forensic scientists are not required to invent "intelligent murderers" from whole cloth in order to explain a suspicious death. It's sufficient to observe that the Earth is populated by humans with intelligence, and therefore that one of them is almost certainly responsible.

Forensic scientists can usually provide physical evidence that someone was at the scene. Intelligent design advocates have never provided physical evidence for God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:30 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 71 of 107 (406325)
06-19-2007 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:30 AM


Processes
If you believe that applying logic to ascertain if a death has been caused by murderer's design, is a science, do you then also believe that detecting intelligent design in biological systems is a science?

Forensic science isn't just about ascertaining if a death has been caused by design. It is about ascertaining exactly how a person died, whether it was murder or accident. Was it the blow to the head from the rock at the bottom of the lake that killed them, or the subsequent drowning? It is about identifying real and observable processes that leave certain pieces of evidence of them happening, and understanding how those processes begin.

However, detecting intelligent design in biological systems can be a scientific process. The point is that no intelligent design has been scientifically detected in biological systems. If we were doing it scientifically (as in forensic science) we'd have to describe a process that would lead to the final result (the evidence). So far the ID movement, which you allude to, has been unable to describe a feasable and repeatable process that could interact in a predictable fashion to the development of life.

Until they describe a natural process then what they do isn't science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:30 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:59 PM Modulous has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3308
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 72 of 107 (406364)
06-19-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:30 AM


If you believe that applying logic to ascertain if a death has been caused by murderer's design, is a science, do you then also believe that detecting intelligent design in biological systems is a science?

If not why is investigating to detect evidence of death by design is science but investigating to detect evidence of life by design not a science?

If the "intelligent design" (ID) community were actually and earnestly "investigating to detect evidence of life by design", then there could be a chance for their efforts to be considered science. But they're not. They're not ever attempting it. ID is not science. It's politics, and PR, and swaying public opinion, and battling against a strawman philosophical foe (ie, falsely accusing science of depending on philosophical materialism, whereas science actually employs methodological materialism). And, although its founders probably did not intend it this way, it's a smokescreen for creationists to use now that their own brand of nonsense has been exposed and so is useless outside of their own churches.

But that's only the least of ID's problems. Far worse is that it is firmly based on the false theology of "The God of the Gaps" (GOTG). GOTG tries to protect God from the advance of science by saying that God exists within the gaps of our knowledge; ie, even though science can explain how natural processes do most of the things that the gods used to get credit for (lightening, rain, etc), God still does the things that we cannot explain. So in that scheme of things, if we encounter something that we cannot explain, then goddidit. Which is precisely the basis of ID, isn't it? Find things that you believe that science cannot fully explain and claim that that's proof of an "intelligent designer" (gotta be careful, for legalistic and judicial purposes, to avoid capitalizing it, right?). That is GOTG, pure and simple. What really alerted me to the GOTG basis of ID was an article by co-founder Phillip Johnson (the lawyer who wrote "Darwin on Trial"), in which he explicitly gave his reason for opposing evolution as being because "it leaves God with nothing to do". And so they're fighting to make science include God as an explanation.

Why would that be such a bad thing? Think about it for a moment. We're scientists and we encounter something that we cannot explain, a mystery. You, as an ID scientist, would throw up your hands and proclaim "goddidit!" and walk away thinking that that's yet another mystery solved. But that mystery wasn't solved. "goddidit" doesn't explain anything at all. Nothing was discovered or learned that could raise more questions and foster further research -- the best answers in science are the ones that raise more questions, because those new questions show us where we need to look next. goddidit does the exact opposite; it raises no further questions and stifles any further research. goddidit is the antithesis of scientific inquiry.

Let's apply that to the forensics analogy to a case in which the cause of death is not immediately apparent, let alone whether it was due to foul play let alone whodonit. Traditionally, the forensics team would continue their investigation until they did finally find the cause of death -- they saw a mystery and they endeavored to solved it. The ID forensics team would conclude that death was due to supernatural causes and break for lunch early. If they ever came out with a new spin-off TV show, CSI: ID, they would be unable to produce any show longer than 5 or 10 minutes.

Furthermore, once goddidit has been invoked, the ID scientist has very strong motivation to prevent any further research. As Wakefield expressed so well at the end of his article on his field investigation of Robert Gentry's polonium halo claims: when a scientist sees a mystery, he wants to solve that mystery; when someone who equates mystery with God sees a mystery, he wants it to remain a mystery. In CSI terms, if any new evidence were to come to light, it would be ignored and suppressed.

ID is not science; it is anti-science.

But that's not the worst thing about GOTG. Even though it purports to protect God from science, it actually creates the means to use science to disprove the existence of God -- remember, it is a false theology. Because even though it "safely" hides God within the gaps of our knowledge, science does continue to advance and to narrow and even close up those gaps. And so the GOTG just becomes ever smaller and ever more frightened of the advance of science. A puny, insignificant god.

Now comes the disproof of God. GOTG is based on the premise that natural causes of phenomena is disproof of God. That is to say, if something is found to be caused by natural forces or processes, then that proves that God didn't do it, didn't have anything to do with it. Therefore GOTG theology sets up tests by which science (ie, providing a naturalistic explanation for things) is used to disprove God's involvement and ultimately, once that final gap in our knowledge is closed, to disprove God altogether. And even though it is not humanly possible for us to close that final gap in our knowledge, believers in the GOTG must still view science as the enemy of God and of religion, even though it is not. Furthermore, as nonbelievers hear the believers make their GOTG pronouncements, they too come to believe that science opposes religion and that science disproves God, just as those who hear young-earth creationists proclaim that if the earth is older than 10,000 years then their religion is false and God doesn't exist take those claims seriously and conclude that God obviously doesn't exist.

Allan H. Harvey is a practicing scientist and a practicing Christian who has written a number of essays. His essays are at http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm. In particular, read his discussion of GOTG in "Science and Christian Apologetics" at http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html. The God of the Gaps is a false god. Rather the Christian god is supposed to be Sovereign over Nature and be able to use the natural forces and processes that He had created in the first place. Just because we can identify the natural forces and processes that cause a particular phenomenon doesn't mean that God wasn't involved. For a believer in God, the Sovereign over Nature, goddidit is a given for everything and so has no special significance as an explanation. How goddidit is the real question to which they will seek real answers, not GOTG excuses to give up the search.

Science cannot possibly disprove God nor does it even want to try. goddidit is utterly useless and counterproductive in science, and so it is not used. That is why supernaturalistic explanations have no place in science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:30 AM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 73 of 107 (406379)
06-19-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:30 AM


If not why is investigating to detect evidence of death by design is science but investigating to detect evidence of life by design not a science?

Investigating the question is science.

Pretending that you've proved the answer is "yes" is not science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:30 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 74 of 107 (406405)
06-19-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Modulous
06-19-2007 9:30 AM


Re: Processes
Forensic science isn't just about ascertaining if a death has been caused by design. It is about ascertaining exactly how a person died, whether it was murder or accident.

So its scope is larger than what my question implies. That's OK with me. I don't think that changes the issue for me.


However, detecting intelligent design in biological systems can be a scientific process.

I take this sentence to mean (if not a typo) that you don't deny that ID research is science.


The point is that no intelligent design has been scientifically detected in biological systems.

That sounds debatable. That sounds arguable. But let's say I take your statement at face value. So ID should give up because of this?

Should SETI also give up because no intelligent signals have yet been detected from outer space? Are you going to tell students of science who are interested in ID that they are wasting their time? Or should some continue to explore the possibilities?


If we were doing it scientifically (as in forensic science) we'd have to describe a process that would lead to the final result (the evidence). So far the ID movement, which you allude to, has been unable to describe a feasable and repeatable process that could interact in a predictable fashion to the development of life.

This is a little allusive to me being a laymen. Rather than saying "Yes Sir. Whatever you say." I'll try to look more into this "feasability" / "repeatability" matter.

I'm not sure how "repeatable" the Big Bang event is. Yet it is agreed upon by many as a valid scientific theory.


Until they describe a natural process then what they do isn't science.

The natural process by which the Big Bang occured is described in detail?

Has the natural process which keeps a star burning been completely described in total? Does the shortage of a complete description of star formation make astro physics not a science?

I have asked MIT science students to describe exactly the natural process by which one piece of magnetized metal comes together with another piece of magnetized metal. They described proximities and distances and formulas to predict when the attraction will take place.

Then I pressed them further as to why these two pieces of metal move towards each other. I was told that on a "low level" they do not yet know why it happens.

Does that make research into electro magnetism not a science because the natural process of magnetism is not yet completely described?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 06-19-2007 9:30 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 06-19-2007 10:09 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2007 11:00 PM jaywill has responded
 Message 77 by Wounded King, posted 06-20-2007 5:02 AM jaywill has responded
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2007 9:35 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 75 of 107 (406420)
06-19-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Processes
Hi Jaywill!

Modulous can speak more than well enough for himself, but since he hasn't replied yet I'll take a swing at this.

jaywill writes:

Modulous writes:

The point is that no intelligent design has been scientifically detected in biological systems.

That sounds debatable. That sounds arguable. But let's say I take your statement at face value. So ID should give up because of this?

Modulous wasn't suggesting that if at first you don't succeed you should give up. As I think he pointed out in other parts of his message, the problem isn't that ID hasn't yet found scientific evidence of design in biological systems, it's that they aren't even trying to find evidence of design in biological systems. Their efforts don't go into research for submission for consideration to the scientific community. In fact, they largely ignore the scientific community, except for when they're castigating them.

Where ID is actually placing their efforts is in writing books, creating websites, making presentations and so forth to the lay public. Their efforts go into trying to convince school boards and legislatures that ID is science when if ID was really science they would instead be trying to convince scientists that ID is science.

Are you going to tell students of science who are interested in ID that they are wasting their time?

I would encourage students of science to study whatever areas attract their interest, but to definitely not study ID as an example of how to carry out a research program. ID as currently practiced is more an example of how to conduct a publicity campaign.

I'm not sure how "repeatable" the Big Bang event is. Yet it is agreed upon by many as a valid scientific theory.

This misunderstanding of scientific replicability is widely shared. Replicability doesn't refer to reenacting ancient events. That's patently silly. What replicability means is that anyone with the appropriate understanding, expertise and equipment can repeat the same experiments.

In other words, the Big Bang is not an experiment, and so it is not something that needs replication. What requires replication is the experiments by which the Big Bang was deduced and later detected. Anyone with the proper knowledge and equipment can look out into space and see that distant galaxies are all receding from our own at a velocity proportional to their distance, and from which we first came to realize that if the universe is expanding, then a long time ago it must have been much smaller than it is today, ultimately a mere point in space that "exploded" (extremely rapid expansion is more accurate) as the Big Bang. Anyone with the proper knowledge and equipment can measure the cosmic background radiation that is the remnants of the Big Bang, and from which we confirmed that this Big Bang event that we inferred from the recession of galaxies was something that actually took place.

Until they describe a natural process then what they do isn't science.

The natural process by which the Big Bang occured is described in detail?

Has the natural process which keeps a star burning been completely described in total? Does the shortage of a complete description of star formation make astro physics not a science?

...etc...

Complete detail isn't a requirement of science. It couldn't possibly be a requirement of science, because it simply isn't possible to know everything in complete detail. The goal of science is to know more than yesterday while realizing that it is less than it will be tomorrow, and to do this through the scientific method.

So it isn't that ID doesn't describe a natural process in detail, it's that it doesn't describe any natural process at all. In fact, IDists such as William Dembski argue strenuously that ID cannot know anything about the processes by which the designer accomplished his goals, or even anything at all about the nature of designer. Right there IDists define themselves as not doing science.

Notice that IDists are not saying that the processes of the designer and the nature of the designer are more properly the realm of some other field, which would be fine. Biology does the same when it places the origin of life (abiogenesis) in a separate field from evolution. What the IDists are doing that is so wrong scientifically is ruling a priori what can be scientifically investigated and what cannot. Science rules out nothing that is observable and/or detectable in the real world, and so when ID starts doing this they reveal themselves to quite clearly not be doing science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:59 PM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019