Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 168 (306391)
04-25-2006 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by iano
04-24-2006 6:37 PM


Re: IDEA club
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 04-24-2006 6:37 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ReverendDG, posted 04-25-2006 3:43 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 21 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 4:23 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 39 by nator, posted 04-25-2006 8:13 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 168 (306413)
04-25-2006 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by iano
04-25-2006 4:23 AM


Re: IDEA club
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 4:23 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 5:46 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 168 (306421)
04-25-2006 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by iano
04-25-2006 5:46 AM


Re: Beauty contest?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 5:46 AM iano has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 168 (306618)
04-26-2006 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
04-25-2006 7:16 PM


Re: Non-designed? How to decide...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 7:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 3:31 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 168 (306619)
04-26-2006 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
04-25-2006 8:13 PM


Re: IDEA club
...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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 04-25-2006 8:13 PM nator has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 168 (306630)
04-26-2006 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by iano
04-26-2006 3:31 AM


Re: ID = lots of things
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 3:31 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 5:32 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 49 of 168 (306641)
04-26-2006 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by iano
04-26-2006 5:32 AM


Re: Ego ID superego
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 5:32 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 5:59 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 51 of 168 (306643)
04-26-2006 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by iano
04-26-2006 5:59 AM


Re: Ego ID superego
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 5:59 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 6:31 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 55 of 168 (306667)
04-26-2006 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by iano
04-26-2006 6:31 AM


Re: Intelligable Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 6:31 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 8:46 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 168 (306692)
04-26-2006 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by iano
04-26-2006 8:46 AM


Re: Intelligable Design
quote:
You seem to be arguing that there cannot be two competing theories. The game is "the best theory wins" not "I hold all the best cards already so bugger off"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 8:46 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 10:53 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 64 of 168 (306696)
04-26-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by iano
04-26-2006 10:53 AM


Re: Intelligable Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 10:53 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 11:27 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 66 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 11:58 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 74 of 168 (306736)
04-26-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by iano
04-26-2006 11:27 AM


Re: Intelligable Design
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 11:27 AM iano has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 75 of 168 (306739)
04-26-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by iano
04-26-2006 11:58 AM


Re: All Rise!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 11:58 AM iano has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 77 of 168 (306823)
04-26-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by iano
04-26-2006 5:51 PM


Re: Belligerent designs?
quote:
(as opposed to Paul K's court of ToE)
It isn't mine. I haven't mentioned anything which would fit thast description. If it's anybody's it seems to be yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 5:51 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 6:17 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 94 of 168 (306932)
04-27-2006 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by iano
04-26-2006 6:17 PM


Re: Belligerent designs II
quote:
You seem to me to be asking that potential entrance points into science for ID take account of ToE
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 6:17 PM iano 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