Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 7:34 PM
22 online now:
edge, jar, Jon (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,973 Year: 12,009/19,786 Month: 1,790/2,641 Week: 299/708 Day: 74/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 141 of 219 (640437)
11-09-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by EWCCC777
11-09-2011 2:43 PM


Brief aside on science
I apologize if my rambling is a little murky; I probably still lack the scientific vocabulary that I need in order to sound as professional as some of you.

It is not just a matter of vocabulary, to do science also takes an understanding of the scientific method and how it is applied.

A small example: you write about empirical proof pertaining to evolution or design. Empirical proof is not a part of science.

Here are some definitions I put together an another website some years ago that might help:

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 2:43 PM EWCCC777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 3:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 153 of 219 (640682)
11-11-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by DWIII
11-11-2011 4:16 PM


Is this rock designed?

Is this "designed" and how can you tell?

What consistent rule do you have for determining "design" from "non-design?"

Or, like the Supreme Court Justice, do you just know it when you see it?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by DWIII, posted 11-11-2011 4:16 PM DWIII has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 190 of 219 (642028)
11-24-2011 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Portillo
11-24-2011 11:11 PM


Design
Archaeologists infer intelligent design from rocks routinely to determine whether a stone which is shaped in a particular fashion, is actually just a stone or perhaps a tool used by a human.

We don't just "infer" it, we spend a lot of time working out those details and learning the subject. Some archaeologists spend their entire careers studying lithic technology.

In graduate school one of my professors had a room full of various "rocks" picked up from streambeds, alluvial fans, and other areas which can produce items that appear to be artifacts. By studying both the natural ones and the manufactured ones he, and many other archaeologists, are able to come up with guidelines for determining whether particular items are "designed" or not.

Study some archaeology and you might learn something. That might take a few years though. Archaeology is not always as easy as it looks on TV.

Where are the studies and guidelines established by "cdesign proponentsists" to do the same thing?

What we see is the exact opposite of science. Instead of science we get catechisms, and instead of empirical evidence we get opinions. When we ask for evidence, and for rules to differentiate between design and non-design, we get either gibberish or silence.

What we don't get from creationists, and what has been asked for many times on this thread, is scientific methods for distinguishing design from non-design.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Portillo, posted 11-24-2011 11:11 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 11-24-2011 11:43 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 192 of 219 (642032)
11-24-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by jar
11-24-2011 11:43 PM


Re: Design or not
There is one other important point that needs to be stressed, and that is that the designer when it comes to such artifacts is a known and verifiable entity; the designer is humans and we also have additional evidence from multiple lines that the designer did exist at that time and at that place.

So far not one of the Intelligent Design supporters has presented comparable evidence of the existence of their Designer.


Yes, there is that too.

The science of "intelligent design" seems to be missing a lot of the elements one would expect in a real science.

Starting with evidence.

(See signature, below.)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 11-24-2011 11:43 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 207 of 219 (642726)
12-01-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Robert Byers
12-01-2011 12:26 AM


Evidence
Critics must go a long way to show the universe is not designed.

Those making the extraordinary claims are the ones who need to show their evidence.

And no, the bible does not count as evidence. Nor does your belief.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Robert Byers, posted 12-01-2011 12:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019