Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Attn IDers, what would it take...?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 21 of 86 (243904)
09-15-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Warren
09-15-2005 5:15 PM


And what exactly would you count as evidence that they were designed?
Personally, I don't have a problem with that. I see cells as being designed during meiosis, and manufactured via mitosis. But it isn't the kind of external designer that ID proponents assume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 5:15 PM Warren has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 49 of 86 (244376)
09-17-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Warren
09-17-2005 12:10 PM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
A machine is a thing consisting of several well-matched interacting parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy in performing a basic function.
Wouldn't that make billiards a machine?
I'm not convinced that there is a good definition of "machine". Our usage of the term would exclude billiards. It would also exclude chess, although it would allow for a chess machine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 12:10 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 1:55 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 60 of 86 (244516)
09-18-2005 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Warren
09-17-2005 1:55 PM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
In any event, I don't have to prove that something in nature is a machine. I only have to have a good reason to suspect it is a machine. Investigations begin with suspicions not absolute proof.
That sounds a little silly. Science starts with clear definitions. "I suspect that xxx satisfies the definition" doesn't sound very clear.
If a scientist were wanting to investigate this, but found the term "machine" too vague, he might simply introduce a new term and give it a clearer definition.
In any case, I'm not sure where you are going with this. Even if you show that some biological thing is a machine, that would not prove intelligent design.
Note that I don't have any principled objection to ID. I have only a pragmatic objection, due to it not being science. If the ID proponents would do something to make the investigation scientific, that would be fine with me. I have indicated how I think it could be made scientific in Message 6.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 1:55 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Warren, posted 09-18-2005 11:11 AM nwr has replied
 Message 63 by Warren, posted 09-18-2005 11:25 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 81 of 86 (244967)
09-19-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Warren
09-18-2005 11:11 AM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
Warren: I agree that at the present time ID is not a scientific theory. But as one ID theorist puts it:
"Scientific inquiry proceeds in the absence of theories. Scientific theories do not come into the world like Athena springing from the head of Zeus, perfectly formed. 'The transition from data to theory,' argued the philosopher of science Carl Hempel (1966, p. 15), 'requires creative imagination....and great ingenuity, especially if the [new ideas] involve a radical departure from current modes of scientific thinking, as did, for example, the theory of relativity and quantum theory.'
There's your problem right there. With ID, there has been no attempted transition from data to theory. There is no data on which to base such a transition. Instead, ID has started as a philosophical hypothesis, and has attempted to jump straight into the theory stage without data.
Since you agree that ID is not scientific (in its present form), I'm not really sure that we have much of a disagreement. If the ID folk can actually start collecting credible data, enough to transform their philosophical ideas into a genuine scientific theory, then that would be great. Until they do, it does not belong in the science curriculum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Warren, posted 09-18-2005 11:11 AM Warren has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 82 of 86 (244968)
09-19-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Warren
09-18-2005 11:25 AM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
NWR: Science starts with clear definitions.
Not always. Biology is rarely captured (in a clean sense) by definitions. Any biological definition becomes fuzzy and unclear when you probe deeper.
Sciences generally have both clearly defined terms and vague terms. There can even be vague terms in mathematics.
The clearly defined terms are needed to set the criteria for collecting and evaluating facts. For example, a traditional part of biology has been classification (systematics). This requires clear criteria on which to base the classification.
The general term "species" may be somewhat vague. The defining characteristics of particular species are usually clear. Where to draw the boundary line between two species may be uncertain, and might require an arbitrary decision. But once that decision has been made, the criteria are usually clear. I'll grant, however, that nature is messy, and there can sometimes be ambiguity.
The problem I was trying to point out for ID, is that the basic terminology of the field is not defined well enough to set the criteria that are needed for collecting data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Warren, posted 09-18-2005 11:25 AM Warren has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024