Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
65 online now:
DrJones*, jar, Meddle (3 members, 62 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,105 Year: 4,853/23,288 Month: 1,758/1,286 Week: 72/353 Day: 19/53 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 6 of 91 (689066)
01-27-2013 11:06 PM


ID as science?
From what I have seen, ID is the exact opposite of science.

Science relies on the scientific method, starting with data and working through hypotheses, testing of those hypotheses, etc. all the way to theory for the single best explanation that 1) explains all the relevant data, 2) survives rigorous testing, and 3) allows successful predictions to be made. Science is conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals and appropriate symposia.

ID is the opposite; it starts with an idea and seeks anything that can support that idea, while ignoring anything that contradicts that idea. It employs misrepresentation, denial, populism, and ultimately its results must be in accord with religious dogma and scripture. It avoids peer-reviewed journals in favor of popular audiences, and avoids subjecting its data to testing. Much of its efforts are aimed at lay or religious audiences using PR techniques. It lacks scientific rigor.

Further, ID was schemed up to get around the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the US Supreme Court which determined that creation science was actually creationism in disguise. The book, Of Pandas and People is good evidence. After the court's decision the term "creationists" was globally replaced by "design proponents" -- but they made a mistake. They ended up with "cdesign proponentsists" in one place. That was a clear giveaway that "creationists" and "design proponents" were considered the same.

Based on all of this, and the famous Wedge Document, I see no scientific merit in ID. It is just one more dishonest attempt to fool school boards and other people who don't know any better.

Edited by Coyote, : spelling


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 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 25 of 91 (689296)
01-29-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2013 12:16 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Christian Creationism evolved into ID because of the Dover Trial. If you don't want to be associated with Christian Creationism, then stop using the ID moniker.

I believe it was the Edwards v. Aguillard case heard by the US Supreme Court (1987).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2013 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 91 (689544)
01-31-2013 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Genomicus
01-31-2013 11:13 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Can you estimate what percentage of IDers are non-creationists?

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 44 by Genomicus, posted 01-31-2013 11:13 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Genomicus, posted 02-01-2013 1:18 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 86 of 91 (689966)
02-06-2013 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Genomicus
02-06-2013 7:21 PM


Rational design? How about Unintelligent non-design?
It is a necessary consequence of rational design of proteins. Rational design refers to a specific mechanism for engineering proteins.

It should not be too much of a surprise that things fit together in certain ways. The following lecture (University of Washington, 2006) shows how many paths lead to the same place. It is well worth watching.

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.


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 85 by Genomicus, posted 02-06-2013 7:21 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Genomicus, posted 02-06-2013 10:09 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 88 of 91 (689974)
02-06-2013 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Genomicus
02-06-2013 10:09 PM


Re: Rational design? How about Unintelligent non-design?
Okay kewl, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to what I said with regards to rational design of proteins as the mechanism of engineering behind biochemical systems? Could you elaborate?

I gathered from that lecture that things tend to fit together in certain ways.

In other words, I would be surprised if that same principle did not extend to proteins as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Genomicus, posted 02-06-2013 10:09 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Genomicus, posted 02-06-2013 11:36 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 90 of 91 (689977)
02-07-2013 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Genomicus
02-06-2013 11:36 PM


Re: Rational design? How about Unintelligent non-design?
Perhaps you should take a look at that lecture. While it is a different example, I think there may be some parallels that might apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Genomicus, posted 02-06-2013 11:36 PM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020