Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is science?
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 152 (105558)
05-05-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
05-05-2004 11:31 AM


Re: Science defined
John Paul,
You're actually the one adding extra baggage to the definition of science as knowledge, because 'natural' is in fact the only thing we know objectively. If you'd like to assume as a matter of course that there is anything beyond the 'natural' universe, you're welcome to do so. However, until supernatural mechanisms are discovered, understood, or proven to be of some use in scientific endeavor, they aren't part of science.
regards,
Esteban "Nature Boy" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 11:31 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:51 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 42 by 1.61803, posted 05-10-2004 5:07 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 30 of 152 (106286)
05-07-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John Paul
05-07-2004 11:55 AM


Double Standard
John Paul,
This morning you said
quote:
The theory of evolution can't be objectively tested or measured or verified. All of it grand claims have never been observed.
But three hours later you say
quote:
Science is done via inference. The design explanatory filter is a starting point for investigations.
So there have to be eyewitness observations of evolutionary events, but design events can be inferred. Sounds fair.
regards,
Esteban "Testify" Hambre
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 05-07-2004 11:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 05-07-2004 11:55 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by John Paul, posted 05-07-2004 12:54 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 33 of 152 (106310)
05-07-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by John Paul
05-07-2004 12:54 PM


Re: Double Standard
John Paul,
Quit being so disingenuous. I realize as well as you do that Percy's 'five senses' reference was never meant to suggest that we can witness the entire history of evolution with our very eyes and ears. The empirical evidence is for the mechanisms of evolution, and we infer from the overwhelming majority of the available observations a theory that explains the history of life on Earth.
As for 'naturalism and the grip it has on many people,' I'm unaware of any scientific methodology other than naturalism that has helped us understand the universe better and more consistently. Perhaps you should educate us as to the methodology of supernaturalism and the advances it has helped us make in the history of scientific endeavor.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by John Paul, posted 05-07-2004 12:54 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John Paul, posted 05-07-2004 1:45 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 67 of 152 (109677)
05-21-2004 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by John Paul
05-21-2004 12:48 AM


What We Know
John Paul alleges:
quote:
ID uses all of our current knowledge pertaining to design and comes to the conclusion that life was designed.
I guess the following comprises what we know about design:
1) Designers can design each and every form of living organism which exists or has ever existed on Earth but leave no evidence of their own existence.
2) Designers can produce designs that appear to be the products of billions of years of evolution, with telltale signs that they are related by descent to every other design (even those which are extinct) but are actually special creations.
3) Designers can produce designs that are redundantly, unnecessarily complex, but these designs should still be used to testify to the intelligence of these designers.
regards,
Esteban "I Don't Get It" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 12:48 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AdminNosy, posted 05-21-2004 12:51 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 71 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 7:39 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 83 of 152 (110692)
05-26-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by John Paul
05-26-2004 12:51 PM


John Paul alleges:
quote:
Evolutionists will always think facts and logic are rubbish and goalpost moving misdirection.
Well, when you say 'facts' you mean such shopworn arguments as 'gaps in the fossil record' and 'irreducible complexity.' Any attempt to explain these to you in the context of scientific endeavor is greeted with insults and sarcasm.
Is this thread about science? Then you've got to understand that isolated observations are the basis of evidential empirical inquiry. We don't see the Earth revolving around the Sun, John Paul, we have a heliocentric model of the solar system that organizes and explains all the observations we have available of solar, lunar, and planetary motion. We don't see germs infecting people, but germ theory takes observations from the lab and field and organizes them into a framework that explains the origin of disease and putrefaction. We don't see the evolution of species, but we have a theory of common descent that makes sense of all available morphological and genetic data concerning extant and extinct organisms, in the context of our understanding of heredity and natural selection.
So what's science and how can we use it to formulate frameworks for research? Should it allow us to conclude whatever we want to conclude and ridicule those who point out how our wishful thinking is coloring our inquiry?
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by John Paul, posted 05-26-2004 12:51 PM John Paul has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 89 of 152 (115744)
06-16-2004 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by John Paul
06-16-2004 11:19 AM


Inference and Investigation
John Paul asks:
quote:
The point being that we already have in place processes that aid us in detecting intelligent design. Why would biology be exempt from these processes?
Because biology deals with 'artifacts' that reproduce themselves. It's that simple: if an archaeologist finds an artifact like ones that humans make today, and if we have no knowledge that Nature makes these kinds of artifacts, then we can safely conclude that it was man-made. However, we need that independent knowledge before we can conclude intelligent design. Such an inference is not warranted in the absence of this independent knowledge. An outboard motor is man-made, a bacterial flagellum is natural. A computer is man-made, the DNA molecule is natural. In all of biology, we have never seen anything originate through intelligent design, only natural design.
The investigations conducted by scientists to establish common ancestry make use of just such devices as those used by the forensic scientists you mentioned, and the methodology is exactly the same. The DNA in blood at a crime scene can establish the identity of the person present, because of our understanding of the hereditary molecule. The similarity in certain locations of non-coding DNA between two samples is such a strong indicator of common ancestry that paternity cases can hinge on such evidence. The degree of divergence in certain biomolecules among several species can establish patterns of ancestry among them. All of the empirical evidential inquiry conducted using the genome of organisms has led inevitably to conclusions that the vast majority of scientists and lay people believe enriches not only our knowledge about biology, but also about the history of the world.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 11:19 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:04 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 92 of 152 (115762)
06-16-2004 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by John Paul
06-16-2004 1:04 PM


How To Debate Like John Paul
quote:
We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause.
No, John Paul, we don't know this. You keep asserting this, and you keep asserting this, and you keep asserting this, but it's not true. In the case of many complex systems like computers and cars, we have this knowledge. In the case of many, many, many, many other complex systems like babies and trees and bacterial flagella and so on, that knowledge has NEVER been demonstrated. However, you keep saying that all these things are the product of intelligent design merely because you've already concluded that all irreducibly-complex systems are the product of intelligent design.
I could just as easily say that all things that are the color red are the products of intelligent design, just because I've seen Radio Flyer wagons manufactured. Therefore a ladybug and a red rose have to be the products of intelligent design, because if they weren't, they wouldn't be red. Anybody questions my logic, I'll spit back, "have you ever seen natural processes create a ladybug or a red rose?" Then when some wiseguy points out that these things grow in nature all the time, I'll say that the only way natural processes are responsible for these things is if there is eyewitness evidence that life came from non-life through purely natural, random, undirected mechanistic processes.
Prove that anything in biology, anything at all, anything, has ever been shown to be the product of intelligent design and not natural processes.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-16-2004 12:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:04 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 1:52 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 115 of 152 (115823)
06-16-2004 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by John Paul
06-16-2004 4:20 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul claims:
quote:
The reality is that EVERY time we see specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent (sic) agency.
That is NOT an assertion but an observation based on FACTS.
What facts? Have you ever observed biological organisms or structures being produced through intelligent agency? You're the one who made this claim, and you claim to have facts. However, you have never offered any evidence except that cars and computers were designed, and probably Stonehenge too. I'm talking about the rather large class of complex things in the world of biology, not one of which has ever to my knowledge been observed being created through intelligent design. Please support your claim.
quote:
If you can falsify that then do so and stop whining.
Again, no intelligent agency has ever been observed creating a baby, a tree, a bacterium, or anything in biology. Natural, mechanistic processes such as DNA recombination and cell division are the only ones necessary to explain how these things arise in nature. If, as I suspect, you claim that these processes are themselves the products of intelligent design, please support that claim.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by John Paul, posted 06-16-2004 4:20 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:35 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 124 of 152 (116026)
06-17-2004 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
06-16-2004 6:58 PM


That Science Thing
I think the design argument strikes at the heart of science, which is the search for what nature does on its own. If the weather can be understood in terms of atmospheric pressure and electrical polarity, then appeals to an intervening intelligence need not be made. If a rainbow can be explained by optical refraction and the molecular structure of water, the need to credit a designer is gone. If the biological diversity of life on Earth can be understood through genetic mutation and natural selection, then a designing intelligence is superfluous to our understanding.
John Paul makes this statement in message #88 of this thread:
quote:
Forensic scientists also try to determine natural from un-natural. Arson investigators do the same as do SETI researchers. The point being that we already have in place processes that aid us in detecting intelligent design. Why would biology be exempt from these processes? If nature can create the specified complexity we see in living cells it would stand to reason that nature could create an arrow head or an axe-looking object or any number of alleged tools. IOW by questioning the validity of ID in biology you also question every venue that uses design detection processes.
[emphasis mine]
I have no idea why it should be true that if biological organisms or structures are the product of undirected processes, then every other artifact on Earth must also be the product of the same natural mechanisms. No one here proposed that all specified complexity is the result of natural processes. Our endeavor to understand Nature doesn’t prevent us from understanding the properties and capabilities of human design. In contrast, it seems that in their crusade to find intelligent design, some seekers fail to acknowledge the self-sustaining abilities of the universe.
While they claim to recognize the hallmarks of design in biology due to their similarity to human design, the IDC folks also claim that the identity of the biological designer is irrelevant. The ironic thing is that design research in fields such as arson investigation or forensics depends very heavily on knowing the methods, motives, and identity of the proposed designer. Arson investigators, for example, would have to make a plausible case that a fire started in a way and in a place that a human agent could conceivably have set it. Similarly, the suspicion that a building's owner set the fire for profit would disappear if the building were not insured. Dembski uses a good example in the fraud case of NJ election commissioner Nicholas Caputo. Supposedly the candidate listed first on a ballot usually has the advantage in an election, and the Democrats (Caputo’s party) ended up first on the ballot forty out of the forty-one years that Caputo oversaw the elections. He claimed he tossed a coin to determine the order. Of course I agree with Dembski that this is a clear-cut case of design on Caputo’s part, but that’s just because we know Caputo’s identity, his title, his ability to determine the order of the candidates, and his political affiliation. Would we conclude design if there were no demonstrable advantage to having your candidate appear first on the ballot? Or if Caputo had been a Republican?
Science is about understanding the design that needs no designer. Intelligent design creationists can’t accept the design abilities of Nature. They don’t give due credit to the mutation-selection processes that (over billions of years) have created a biosphere full of designs which are wonderful and unlikely, but completely unlike any designs attributable to purposeful human agency.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 06-16-2004 6:58 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:00 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 127 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:00 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 132 of 152 (116059)
06-17-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:35 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul, in response to my request that he provide an example of intelligent agency being responsible for the design of a biological organism or structure, claims:
quote:
Humans create baby humans. Humans would be considered an intelligent agent. Nature has never been observed giving life. Nature has been observed taking life.
I don't consider this outrageous claim support at all for his position, and if anything it constitutes an admission of defeat. Humans do not sequence the genomes of their offspring and consciously administer the process of cell division that makes a fertilized egg into a baby. This is not an example of intelligent design, it's controlled by the biochemical DNA replication process. This natural process, too, has never been shown to depend on intelligent agency.
However, by John Paul's logic, even trees and bacteria are intelligent agents, since they 'create' other trees and bacteria!!
Once again, John Paul has dodged his responsibility to show one thing in the entire realm of biology that can be demonstrated to be the product of intelligent design.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:35 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:17 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 136 of 152 (116074)
06-17-2004 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by John Paul
06-17-2004 1:17 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul asks again:
quote:
Can you provide any evidence that DNA replication or the reproduction of a cell or cellular differentiation is a natural process, ie created by nature?
Well, the fact that it happens at the subcellular level, acts according to understood chemical laws, and takes place automatically whether or not the organism being replicated intends to be replicated, I'd say it qualifies as a natural process. Once again, if you can demonstrate that such a process requires a directing intelligence, please do so.
But what are we discussing here? There seem to be so many moving goalposts here I can't figure out what we're trying to establish: whether humans are natural, whether a natural process creates humans, whether the process that created the process that created humans is natural, etc. etc.
I answered your question concerning the natural process of DNA replication. Now please offer an example, one example, of anything in biology being created by intelligent design.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:17 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2004 1:41 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 140 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:47 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 137 of 152 (116075)
06-17-2004 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by John Paul
06-17-2004 1:17 PM


Re: How To Debate Like John Paul
John Paul claims:
quote:
Once again MrH has refused to show that nature can do anything in biology.
And yes I consider bacteria and trees to be intelligent agents. You may not understand their intelligence but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
These babies are on their way to WinAce!
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:17 PM John Paul 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