Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2019 11:00 PM
23 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,867 Year: 14,903/19,786 Month: 1,626/3,058 Week: 404/868 Day: 43/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 123 of 285 (684070)
12-15-2012 11:36 AM


Discovery Institute's approach
The Discovery Institute has a budget of several million dollars a year, so what do they do?

They hire lawyers and PR flacks.

Rather than building a research facility they built a propaganda mill.

Hmmmmmm.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 137 of 285 (685679)
12-25-2012 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by tesla
12-24-2012 10:38 PM


Scientific method?
The questions differ, so the fields differ. Geology, biology, astrology, physics, astrophysics, and now someone says intelligent design, like it's a field. It’s not a field, it's a question asked to acknowledge the potential of greater being.

If it was a scientific question, it would be phrased as an hypothesis, and it would be addressed using the scientific method. It would define specific data that it would address, along with a proposed explanation for that data. And most importantly, to be a scientific question, it would have a proposed method to test that hypothesis.

Unfortunately, to date, intelligent design has been addressed primarily through public relations and propaganda (i.e., the Discovery Institute) rather than through science. Even the most "scientific" of approaches, that of Behe, has been shown to be simply religious apologetics in disguise--and that in a Federal court and under oath!

Consider the difference that is made in the evolution of a species when it is manipulated by an intelligent being. Plant cross breeds and hybrids, fox's become dogs. What role does such a tiny planet play in the realm of intelligence in the universe?

That is the real question. Intelligent Design is one proposal as an answer to that question.

But is intelligent design a scientific hypothesis? What is the data set that it purports to explain? And how can it be tested against that data set? Can it successfully make predictions? Is the explanation more parsimonious than existing explanations (existing theories)?

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have been peddling religion in disguise, and thinly disguised at that. Look at that text book, Of Pandas and People and how it evolved. Here is a good link:

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists

After the Supreme Court decision banning creationism, the authors revised a draft of their book to replace "creationists" with "design-proponents." But they didn't do a good job and ended up with "cdesign-proponentsists" in one place. The rest of the text remained the same, but "creationists" was mostly replaced with "design-proponents."

That's not only dishonest, but its a serious boo-boo on their part. Its not that the rest of us didn't know what they were trying to do, but they spilled the beans big time! Major egg on face!

So until you can come up with something that relies on the scientific method more successfully than Behe, and is not just religious apologetics, such as the Discovery Institute and Of Pandas and People, don't expect for intelligent design to be taken seriously by scientists.

It is religion dolled up and pretending to be science, and everyone knows it.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by tesla, posted 12-24-2012 10:38 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by tesla, posted 12-26-2012 6:17 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 145 of 285 (686345)
12-31-2012 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Drosophilla
12-31-2012 12:50 PM


Methodology for ID
The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.

(But don't say that! We've got to pretend we're doing science!)


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Drosophilla, posted 12-31-2012 12:50 PM Drosophilla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Drosophilla, posted 12-31-2012 1:02 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 203 of 285 (688636)
01-24-2013 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Genomicus
01-24-2013 12:25 AM


Grant proposals?
Isn't there that strong possibility for a number of grant proposals? A lot of this depends on your perception, too. For some of you, there's not a trace of a clue that biological life was engineered, while for others there are such clues.

A while back the Templeton Foundation solicited grant proposals to research "Intelligent Design," and funded quite a few of them. The results were very disappointing, leading to the following decision:

The Templeton Foundation Distances Itself from “Intelligent Design”

We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/the-templeton-f.html

So, what you are asking for was tried and abandoned nearly a decade ago.

Face it: "intelligent" design is religion with the serial numbers filed off in a dishonest hope of fooling someone. (That hasn't and will not work.)


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Genomicus, posted 01-24-2013 12:25 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Genomicus, posted 01-24-2013 10:18 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 224 of 285 (690857)
02-16-2013 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by tesla
02-16-2013 10:43 PM


Re: the answer?
I can only lament that though I have failed to convince you of anything, that there is a lot of money the religious will continue to waste on indoctrination because in their minds that is the only way to look for God, who they depend on to explain how existence is possible, instead of legitimate sciences being funded that could lead to a finding such being through the pursuits of the natural sciences, and it's discoveries along the way being beneficial even if nothing is discovered.

And what if there is some kind of natural universal energy field out there, of which all living things partake?

And what if evidence were to be found of such an energy field? Conclusive evidence? Evidence that we could communicate with such a universal field?

What do you think the reaction of the world's 40,000+ different religions, sects, denominations, etc. would be? You think they would say, "Aha! Now we have found the TRUTH at last?"

Not a chance. There are too many egos involved, and too many folks making a good living. And too much belief in unevidenced dogma. There would be lots of good old fashioned "burnings at the stake" over such a discovery. And probably a few thousand more schisms. (That's what you get when you rely on belief instead of evidence.)

Reminds me of Heinlein's comment, "Belief gets in the way of learning."


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by tesla, posted 02-16-2013 10:43 PM tesla has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by mram10, posted 08-16-2014 4:44 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 245 of 285 (735556)
08-17-2014 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by mram10
08-17-2014 10:32 PM


Theory?
There is NO evidence to that, simply theory.

Perhaps before we go any farther, you would explain just what you mean by the term, "theory."


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by mram10, posted 08-17-2014 10:32 PM mram10 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 262 of 285 (735825)
08-26-2014 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by mram10
08-25-2014 7:14 PM


Re: more signs of willful ignorance
Not theory, but proof.

Creationists are always demanding "proof" as opposed to theory.

They either do not know the meaning of "theory" in science, or are just dishonest (probably both).

They must think that in science we progress from idea to hypothesis to theory to proof and then to law or something equally silly.

But I'm not going to explain it (once again) as they are unwilling to learn and it is a waste of time on my part.

Willful ignorance is its own self-inflicted punishment.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by mram10, posted 08-25-2014 7:14 PM mram10 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 331 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 267 of 285 (769537)
09-22-2015 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by MrIntelligentDesign
09-21-2015 11:57 PM


Nonsense
Is any of that "peer review" real peer review?

You know, from real scientists?

And are any of those five or eight publications something other than self-published?

You know, like real publications?

Oh, and in a previous post you were looking for the Nobel Prize in a bunch of different categories. A lot of those don't even exist. The Nobel Prize is awarded for Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, Peace, and Economic Sciences.

"Intelligent design" doesn't qualify for a number of reasons, one of which it is the exact opposite of real science.

[This is not the best place for someone to be posting nonsense.]


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 09-21-2015 11:57 PM MrIntelligentDesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 09-22-2015 3:20 AM Coyote 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