|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...which they don't do, ever, anyway. From everything I've ever seen, their "proof" is never any kind of positive evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, you mean that they should continue to not do science at all but be allowed to call it science in order to "level the playing field"?
quote: So, what you are saying is that by lowering our standards of quality, research it will result in better science? Curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Er, no. Pseudoscience never gets closer to being science. Ever. "Pseudo" means "false".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Not really. From the wiki For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the "Logos" is typically credited to Heraclitus (c. 535-c.475 BCE), a Pre-Socratic philosopher, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments.[10] Plato (c. 427-c. 347 BCE) posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle (c. 384-322 BCE) also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) Cicero (c. 106-c. 43 BCE) stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."[11]
The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae[12] (thirteenth century), design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802), where he uses the watchmaker analogy, which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century such arguments led to the development of what was called Natural theology, the study of biology as a search to understand the "mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer. Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of natural theology seeking to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory. As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed. But the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. In the past, examples that have been offered included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacteria flagella (see irreducible complexity). The earliest known modern version of intelligent design began, according to Dr Barbara Forrest, "in the early 1980s with the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Thaxton worked for Jon A. Buell at the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) in Texas, a religious organization that published MoLO."[13] Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation - it merely states that one (or more) must exist. While intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god. Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from science-teaching has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Your post implied that there is some kind of progression from psuedoscience to protoscience to real science. That is not the case. Yes, of course a concept or idea formerly promoted in this way, if examined properly and found to have real scientific merit will find a home within legitimate science. Pseudoscience is something that is not science in any respect that it's promoters dress up in a lab coat and have it hold a beaker. They seek to gain the respectability and prestige and legitimacy of the appearance (terminology, writing structure, etc) of science when the idea is not scientifically valid. In a word; illegitimate, false, snake-oil hucksterism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: My point is that current IDists like to portray the latest version of ID to be something new and fresh and visionary when it is not. Intelligent Design has been around for a very, very long time in various forms, even hundreds of years before Christianity was a twinkle in the Virgin Mary's eye. As real science has continued to learn more and more about the natural world and universe, creationism's old, tired ideas continue to be recycled over and over again using different examples contemorary to the age in which the movement rises up. So, these days it's bacterial flagella and blood clotting mechanisms instead of the eye instead of the sun's transit accross the sky. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-26-2006 08:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Your post implied that there is some kind of progression from psuedoscience to protoscience to real science. quote: I didn't imply it...I stated it. Pseudo science can never be science and is not behind proto science on some progression towards real science. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-27-2006 04:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Not at all. Of course, "evolutionary ideas", as it were, have clear led to a huge increase in our understanding of life, especially within the last 150 years or so. The ToE is an incredibly fruitful theory which has spawned many related fields of research. ID has not, to date, increased our understanding of any part of nature, even though it has been around for millenia.
quote: Sure it has. Read cut-n-paste from the wiki I provided.
quote: Read the wiki. It's been around since 500 BCE, at least. It was a view that was definitely popular among Darwin's contemporaries as well. It's all there in the wiki, ian.
quote: Like I said. ID is just the same old stale Creationist arguments using the "incredible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum (modern) instead of the "incredible complexity" of the eye (100 years ago).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
1. have to accept that the ToE has been a very sucessful theory so far. quote: Successful at PR? Only among the people educated in Biology does the ToE enjoy widespread acceptance, and the less educated a person is and the more fundamentalist Christian a person is, the less likely they are to accept the science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You are confusing Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism. The former is the method used by scientists which states that nature is composed of that which we can observe with our 5 senses, and it ignores the existence of the supernatural. The latter is the philosophical position that there exists nothing but the natural/the supernatural does not exist. Science is based upon the first but NOT the second. Also, God could have poofed the first life on Earth into existence and it wouldn't change a single thing about the ToE. It wouldn't make the ToE religious in the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It's already had quite a lot longer than that, actually.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024