|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3941 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
ID isn't interested in further investigation. They just want to find a biological feature that they can "prove" to be designed. And even that is a far lower priority than producing endless amounts of PR and spin.
ID isn't science. It isn't even trying to be science. It just wants people to believe that it is science.i
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Both Catholic Scientist and Percy were wrong (ID is an umbrella containign many viewpoints - including the view that PErcy mentioned). And Percy isn't an atheist.
I don't see the criticism of ID as fanatical (certainly it is better founded than many of the attacks coming from the other direction). Wealthy believers HAVE been putting money into ID (Where do you think that they get the money to support all the PR they put out ?). And it's gone on producing PR instead of science. And indeed actually doing science would be a very risky strategy since they would either risk getting results contary to their desires or, nearly as bad for them, results that support the views of one view within the movement over others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I am not criticising ID for not being science. I am criticising it for claiming to be science when it is not even making a good-faith attempt to be truly scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
To really get a comnparison tbetween designed and non-designed systems we would need to establish what evolution could and could not do. To ignore that issue is to beg the real question.
Behe's attept to address the issue through the idea of "irreducible complexity" ("IC") failed. He never even finished his original argument. He even tried to introduce a significantly different definition of "irreducible complexity" to try and save his argument, but it never worked. Meanwhile science made progress on working out how the systems he discussed had evolved. I've seen ID supporters even deny that blood clotting is IC. In the Kitzmiller case it was apparent that Behe had simply written off the possibility of progress in workign out how the immune system had evolved, and had ignored all the progress that had been made since he published.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
...because the ID movement is apologetic, not scientific. THey arent interested in doing real rsearch. They just want easy excuses to say that they are right.s
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I don't see why you disagree. If evolution is able to produce things that look more "designed" then the products of other natural processes his is a fact that needs to be taken into account when constructing a distinction between designed and undesigned things. And this is the comparison that is under discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Suppose we do it your way, and it happens to be the case that human design and evolution produce some of the same diagnostic traits. By your method you would tend to infer design in evolved objects, because you hadn't bothered to consider that possibility. Granted that is in keeping with the objectives of the ID movement but it is hardly scientific.
The real issue is whether some living systems are the products of evolution or design. Your method essentially assumes that evolution is not possible which inevitably biases the result.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The only way to determine whether design or evolution was the better explanation involves comparing the explanations. But you have explicitly ruled out that comparison. So really you are ignoring even the possibility of an evolutionary explanation.
Even worse for your case, ID is not interested in developing design explanations. They simply want to stop with "design" without considering "hows" or "whys". But a good explanation, that can be extended to make useful predictions would consider how and why a particualr design was created and implemented. On this issue ID is not just unscientific, ID is refusing to even try to be scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I am not arguing that a particular approach needs to take into account a previous approach. I a arguing that if we are looking for distinguishing features then we smhould make sure that they really are distinguishing features, and not features that would be expected to occur in other cases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That really makes no sense at all. It certainly doesn't reflect the text you quoted from my post. In fact it seems to be closer your position than mine - you're the one arguing that the possiblity of evolution can be ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well my question is, why would you want to set up inaccurate criteria for identifying design ? You still haven't given a good reason for doing so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
SIcne you claim SETI is doing something comparable, then it follows that SETI also excludes some natural means of producing radio signals on the grounds that they don't need to consider alternative sources.
Please provide evidence that SETI actually does this.7
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
So basically your argument for using faulty criteria is that you might fool the (metaphorical) court. That pretty much closes down the possibiity of ID ever being real science.D
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It isn't mine. I haven't mentioned anything which would fit thast description. If it's anybody's it seems to be yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote:I can't see where you would get that impression. What I did say is that any attempt to distinguish design from non-design had to take into account the capabilities of evolution. For the simple reason that evolution is a distinct form of non-design with results markedly different from most non-design processes. I've explained it several times notably when I asked you for evidence that SETI was making a similar arbitrary exclusion of some source of naturally occurring radio waves - since you claimed that SETI was doing the same thing as you were. And I bet that you can't find anythign in any of muy posts that - read properly - implies anything like your "court of ToE".d
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024