Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
251 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, nwr, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 245 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,214 Year: 4,326/6,534 Month: 540/900 Week: 64/182 Day: 36/16 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists
Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 196 of 214 (384310)
02-10-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by randman
02-10-2007 8:26 PM


Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
randman writes:

One of the objections towards ID is that science can never, by definition, deal with the reality of God as a causal agent for the universe and physical reality. My hope is you can see this is wrong.

Well, yes, of course it's wrong, but that's not the way the argument goes. Science doesn't exclude God any more than it excludes pink dragons. Science can consider any phenomena of the natural world, which means anything we're able to detect. To the extent that you can detect God and his causal actions on the universe, he is natural.

So the argument that you were attempting to summarize isn't that science cannot, by definition, deal with God. It's that science cannot, by definition, deal with undetectable phenomena, and we have not so far been able to detect God using any scientifically devised experiments or observations.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 8:26 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Fosdick, posted 02-11-2007 1:07 PM Percy has replied
 Message 200 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 2:37 PM Percy has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4736 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 197 of 214 (384416)
02-11-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
02-10-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
Percy wrote:

It's that science cannot, by definition, deal with undetectable phenomena, and we have not so far been able to detect God using any scientifically devised experiments or observations.


While I do agree that God is scientifically undetectable, your comment caused me to think of "phenomena," if I may, that science actually does deal with, but which are still empirically undetectable. For example, scientists are often concerned with:

• absolute zero
• action at a distance
• gravity waves
• neutrinos
• dark matter
• speciation
• abiogenesis

These may be considered fair game for scientists as relevant theories, but not yet qualifying as natural "phenomena" (I am often bothered by the question of whether or not phenomenology is the best paradigm for today's science). My own opinion is that Occam's razor effectively "deals with God" by shaving Him off the face of science as both theoretically and empirically unnecessary.

—Hoot Mon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 9:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 2:17 PM Fosdick has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 198 of 214 (384428)
02-11-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Fosdick
02-11-2007 1:07 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
If you read back in the thread you'll see where Randman and I agreed upon a definition of "detectable". It doesn't refer only to things that *have* been detected, but to everything that *can* be detected given time and appropriate technology.

Looking through your list it looks like in some cases you're just unaware of what science has actually accomplished, and that in other cases you're confusing indetectable phenomena with phenomena for which we haven't yet detected an actual instance in nature, but were one to occur it would be perfectly detectable. Reviewing your list:

  • absolute zero

    You're right about this one, nothing's ever been measured at a temperature of absolute zero, but that's not a temperature that can be reached through cooling technology. Absolute zero is just the low end of the temperature scale that happens to coincide with complete cessation of molecular motion. We've never observed 30 gazillion degrees, either, but temperature itself is eminently detectable.

  • action at a distance

    I assume you're referring to what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", and what we know today as quantum entanglement. I don't know why you've included this one in your list because the phenomenon is detected all the time. Quantum entanglement is beginning to form the basis of practical applications, such as secure communications, and the principle is the foundation of quantum computing.

  • gravity waves

    I looked this up over at Wikipedia, and the preferred term is apparently gravitational waves. That article also says that they haven't been directly detected yet, but have been show indirectly to exist. In fact, surprisingly, and I didn't know this, the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for this work. Scientists are at work now devising experiments for the direct detection of gravity waves.

  • neutrinos

    Like action at a distance, this one also doesn't belong on your list. Neutrinos are detected all the time. There are a number of neutrino detector experiments going on around the globe at any given time.

  • dark matter

    This is yet another one that does not belong on your list. Dark matter was detected because of its effect on the formation and structure of galaxies.

  • speciation

    Yet another one that does not belong on your list. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.

  • abiogenesis

    I don't think this belongs on your list, either. Were abiogenesis to be carried out in a lab it would be a perfectly detectable phenomena. The fact that the abiogenesis event that resulted in us occurred about 3.8 billion years ago when we weren't around to observe it directly doesn't mean it is an indetectable phenomenon. And if any evidence is left over from the process (doubtful because of the passage to time, plate tectonics, and the strong possibility that life would have considered pre-life a handy food source), then we might find evidence of it.

So after going through your list in detail, it doesn't appear that you included any accepted scientific phenomena that are indetectable.

My own opinion is that Occam's razor effectively "deals with God" by shaving Him off the face of science as both theoretically and empirically unnecessary.

Given currently available evidence, I agree.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Fosdick, posted 02-11-2007 1:07 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 2:35 PM Percy has replied
 Message 202 by Fosdick, posted 02-11-2007 3:16 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 199 of 214 (384434)
02-11-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
02-11-2007 2:17 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
Percy, we do detect God, however, by detecting design in the universe. It is clear that some sort of Intelligence is involved in the creation of the universe. We also have evidence that without consciousness for observation, according to guys like Wheeler, the building blocks of matter cannot take on form, and so the universe cannot exist without Intelligence.

This discovery within QM is predicted by ID or design theory. In other words, we see design which from everything we know stems from intelligence, and we would predict that prior to any physical form, if there is a God, Intelligence must exist, and lo and behold, we find that Intelligence and Consciousness are prerequisites to the formation of matter.

The fact we cannot perhaps directly observe God does not change that we indirectly do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 2:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 4:17 PM randman has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 200 of 214 (384435)
02-11-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
02-10-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
Well, yes, of course it's wrong, but that's not the way the argument goes. Science doesn't exclude God any more than it excludes pink dragons.

You believe that percy? You really think evos are not saying God is off-limits to science a priori?

You want me to go through some posts here on EvC or statements elsewhere to demonstrate that evos do hold this position?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 9:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 4:27 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


(1)
Message 201 of 214 (384437)
02-11-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Percy
02-10-2007 9:02 PM


Re: half-parody of evos, but real also
I genuinely believe if you would divorce yourself from the beliefs these discussions entailed, you would see I have acted better, not worse, than my critics. It seems, however, you are bent on ignoring an objective view of the facts, as I tried to show in getting you to see where the exact same post was lauded by a poster that wanted discussion and other posters immediately criticized it and started down a path of ridicule, hostility, rules-breaking, unfounded accusations, etc, etc.....all without censure, as is normal.....I did not reply in kind, but it made no difference in ameliorating these guys wanting to make things personal because the issue isn't my posting style or my attitude. The issue really lies with coddling evo posters that feel justified and empowered and indeed are empowered, to continue the worst behaviour possible with only a few facing any serious moderation whatsoever.

If Jesus Himself was posting here and took the same arguments I have made, I suspect you guys would say he wasn't a nice guy either and would have a lot of problems with Him as well, accusing Him of intellectual dishonesty, a bad attitude, etc.....

You basically have a very partisan moderation group with a couple of less active creationist posters, as far as I can tell, but at least with Buzz I can say this....His stance, like many Christians however, is that the Christians and IDers and creationists should behave better than the others to win them over. That is all fine and well and good. However, it should not lead to varying standards where effectively one side in debate is given leeway to make false accusations and personal insults and attacks all day long, as is the case with evos here, and creationists and IDers are considered somehow to blame. I am not saying that buzz is contributing to that, but I do think it is a risk considering his beliefs.

What would be better is to see a creationist of ID moderator e given the leeway someone like Nosy has, who routinely moderates so biased as to be near laughable. Not saying the IDer should be biased liek Nosy and some others, but if they were to weigh in continually to force evos to behave and be given leeway to do that, you might see an improvement.

I have noticed that when you have had creationist posters in the past moderate an evo, it often as was the case with me, it led to their dismissal. Imo, this is once again evidence that it's not the creationists here causing the problems, but rather the coddling of evos being given a pass to falsely smear and attack their critics on a personal level.

It's no accident that most well-reasoned critics of evolution are eventually forced and harassed from this site. It isn't that their arguments are ever defeated, but that they are harassed by the biased moderation and false accusations, and just to be clear, although this is not "nice", you are empowering this and undermining your stated goal of "discussion" in a civil tone by continuing to blame IDers and creationists rather than the evos that are actually igniting and driving the poor tone, lack of civility and personal attacks.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 02-10-2007 9:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 4:30 PM randman has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4736 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 202 of 214 (384442)
02-11-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
02-11-2007 2:17 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
Percy wrote:

If you read back in the thread you'll see where Randman and I agreed upon a definition of "detectable". It doesn't refer only to things that *have* been detected, but to everything that *can* be detected given time and appropriate technology.

Looking through your list it looks like in some cases you're just unaware of what science has actually accomplished, and that in other cases you're confusing indetectable phenomena with phenomena for which we haven't yet detected an actual instance in nature, but were one to occur it would be perfectly detectable.


OK, the operational idea here is detectability. Given that, you agreed with absolute zero but you disputed action at a distance:

I assume you're referring to what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", and what we know today as quantum entanglement. I don't know why you've included this one in your list because the phenomenon is detected all the time. Quantum entanglement is beginning to form the basis of practical applications, such as secure communications, and the principle is the foundation of quantum computing.

I'll have to agree. I knew about quantum entanglement, but I was not entirely sure if that qualifies as "action at a distance." And if it does how is it detectable? Can it be observed microscopically? (Or is that question too reductionistic for quantum theory?) Macroscopically, perhaps?

Re: gravity waves, which I had in mind concering the question of gravitational action at a distance, and also re: neutrinos and dark matter, I was unaware that they are considered detectable. Thanks.

However, regarding speciation, I still don't think the event itself is detectable, while I do agree that the result certainly can be detected.

Finally, concerning abiogenesis:

The fact that the abiogenesis event that resulted in us occurred about 3.8 billion years ago when we weren't around to observe it directly doesn't mean it is an indetectable phenomenon.

I disagree with you here. For one thing, I don't think it is a fact that abiogenesis occurred on Earth. Given what little we know about it, abiogenesis could have occurred somewhere else and life could have arrived here by way of panspermia. For another, as with speciation, I don't think scientists know enough about abiogenesis to detect the event itself. But of course they can detect the oucome.

What is the temporal criterion for detectability?

—Hoot Mon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 2:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 4:42 PM Fosdick has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 203 of 214 (384449)
02-11-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by randman
02-11-2007 2:35 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
randman writes:

Percy, we do detect God, however, by detecting design in the universe.

That isn't an accepted idea within science. As I said in the For Herepton and any others interested thread, and you agreed, the task before intelligent design advocates is to design sets of experiments and/or observations whose results can help build a consensus for their ideas across the community of scientists.

We also have evidence that without consciousness for observation, according to guys like Wheeler, the building blocks of matter cannot take on form, and so the universe cannot exist without Intelligence.

Even if Wheeler believed as you think (and I don't he did, but that's a different discussion), this isn't an idea that has much acceptance within the scientific community today.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 2:35 PM randman has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 204 of 214 (384451)
02-11-2007 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by randman
02-11-2007 2:37 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
randman writes:

Well, yes, of course it's wrong, but that's not the way the argument goes. Science doesn't exclude God any more than it excludes pink dragons.

You believe that percy? You really think evos are not saying God is off-limits to science a priori?

You want me to go through some posts here on EvC or statements elsewhere to demonstrate that evos do hold this position?

I have no doubt that the argument is often misstated, but you said that one of the objections against ID is that "science can never, by definition, deal with the reality of God as a causal agent for the universe and physical reality. My hope is you can see this is wrong."

I answered, "Well, yes, of course it's wrong..." It's not a valid rebuttal because it misstates the position of science on issues for which no evidence exists. Last time I checked I wasn't omniscient, omnipresent or all-powerful, so there is little I can do to counter misstatements of the nature of science other than to correct them when I encounter them in discussion.

The way you often see science's position on God stated, and it's been expressed this way at EvC Forum many, many times, is that science cannot say anything one way or the other about God. Science cannot say that God exists because there is no evidence, and science cannot say God does not exist because absence of evidence cannot be construed as evidence of absence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 2:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 4:35 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 205 of 214 (384452)
02-11-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by randman
02-11-2007 2:54 PM


Re: half-parody of evos, but real also
Well, at least when all is said and done you'll be able to say you did it your way.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 2:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 6:10 PM Percy has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 206 of 214 (384453)
02-11-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Percy
02-11-2007 4:27 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
The way you often see science's position on God stated, and it's been expressed this way at EvC Forum many, many times, is that science cannot say anything one way or the other about God.

I'd say it's half and half......half the evos say this, and others ridicule this concept. Brenna, for example, was critical of Dawkins over this basically, and Crash insisted that the only reasonable inference is hostility towards faith in God or some such. But maybe most are like you here....we'd have to poll folks.

More significantly, the shapers of evolutionism have essentially taken the opposite view of your's and held to the belief that Darwin's significance is to discredit the concept of a Creator God. When asked on the Charlie Rose show for example, Wilson and the other guy (just forgot his name) made that abundantly clear and ridiculed any scientist having faith, one of them saying they knew of no scientist, and I assume they mean credible scientist that believed, and the other corrected him, if my memory serves me correct, and they admitted they knew one. Rose confirmed it was Charlie Rose.

Personally, I think these esteemed evo gentlemen's remarks ought to be eye-opening and that rather than try to defend those remarks, I think it's important for you and others to see that indeed they do believe science disproves the existence of God. I agree that this is an absurd and nonsensical position, but I also believe they understand evolutionary theory much better than you do, and they are rightly communicating it's heart and logic in their denunciation of the concept of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 4:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 5:17 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 207 of 214 (384454)
02-11-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Fosdick
02-11-2007 3:16 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
Hi Hoot Mon,

I think you're still missing what detectability means. Wherever abiogenesis takes place, whether here or elsewhere in the universe, whether now or billions of years in the past or future, it is still thought to be a physical and chemical process that is eminently detectable. Whenever and wherever it occurs, if there's someone there then they'll be able to monitor the process.

I think you're hung up on some kind of "If a tree falls in the woods when no one's around did it make sound" misunderstanding. Things that happen when no one's around aren't indetectable phenomena, they're merely unobserved phenomena. Imagine there's a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy where a lightning bolt suddenly splits the night. That's not an indetectable phenomena. If there's intelligent life on that planet then they'll detect it just fine. But it is a phenomena that we here on earth will never observe.

Another way of defining natural is anything that can have an effect on the universe in which we live. Naturally there are tons of things going on this universe that we'll never actually observe ourselves, but that doesn't mean they're not natural.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Fosdick, posted 02-11-2007 3:16 PM Fosdick has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 6:14 PM Percy has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 208 of 214 (384459)
02-11-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by randman
02-11-2007 4:35 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
randman writes:

When asked on the Charlie Rose show for example, Wilson and the other guy (just forgot his name)...

Oh yeah, that other guy, discoverer of the double helix and author of the timeless book by the same name, good old Nobel Prize winning what's-his-name. :D

Continuing:

...made that abundantly clear and ridiculed any scientist having faith, one of them saying they knew of no scientist, and I assume they mean credible scientist that believed, and the other corrected him, if my memory serves me correct, and they admitted they knew one. Rose confirmed it was Charlie Rose.

I don't think you mean that Rose said it was himself. I think you meant to say Francis Collins. Collins is a convert to evangelical Christianity. He believes in a personal God. That's why I made the point in that thread that Wilson and Watson's comments about God's existence were in the context of a personal God. Had they had in mind scientists who believe in a God of any type, including an impersonal God who perhaps set the universe in motion but otherwise lets it run its own course, then they would have been able to name many, many scientists, some of them very well known such as scientist and author Paul Davies.

So what Wilson and Watson were saying was that they believe that Darwinian evolution makes it impossible to believe in a personal God. Watson's fellow Nobel Prize winning scientist Stephen Weinberg likes to say that science didn't make it impossible to believe in God, it just made it possible to not believe in God.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 4:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by randman, posted 02-11-2007 6:08 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 209 of 214 (384468)
02-11-2007 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Percy
02-11-2007 5:17 PM


Re: Science Studies Only Detectable Phenomena
Oh yeah, that other guy, discoverer of the double helix and author of the timeless book by the same name, good old Nobel Prize winning what's-his-name.

Civility? I waa aware to a degree of his accomplishments.....just couldn't think of the name for a sec, and yes I saw the smiley.

Oh, and really the thing that they only were talking of a personal God is a stretch. If that was the case, why not say that?

Moreover, there are plenty of other scientists that believe in a personal God. What they were saying and did say is that they believe science and Darwin's discoveries exclude belief in God. If you want to whitewash it and claim they only meant the Christian or Jewish God or a personal God, it really makes no difference at all for this discussion. It's still nonsense and yet that nonsense is the very heart and soul, or as they said the primary "significance", of Darwinism.

So what Wilson and Watson were saying was that they believe that Darwinian evolution makes it impossible to believe in a personal God.

Which just shows that it's possible to make an advance in a field of science without having a clue about what science actually is, it's significance, nor what reasonable logic is either. I suppose this is the result of the specialized nature of science, but it's still quite pathetic and delusional on their part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 5:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 7:55 PM randman has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 210 of 214 (384469)
02-11-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Percy
02-11-2007 4:30 PM


Re: half-parody of evos, but real also
That's what you should expect intelligent, independent thinkers to do....:cool:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 02-11-2007 4:30 PM Percy has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022