Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 438 (443820)
12-26-2007 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
12-26-2007 5:01 PM


Making the claim for him
Scary, scary stuff. Hard to believe that Ben Stein is a creationist and a conspiracy-monger to boot!
Why is that scary? What is scary is you calling him a conspiracy-monger because he has doubts about Darwinism. That's scary. He also may not be a creationist. He may be only an ID'ist like me.
You've practically embodied his entire argument in two sentences.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 5:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 12-27-2007 7:54 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 438 (443900)
12-27-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
12-27-2007 8:14 AM


Re: My Personal Reaction
There are a couple questions first. We see it every day here, the effectiveness of the lie that creationism is science just like evolution. How much more effective is the lie packaged up into a slick documentary narrated by a comforting, trustworthy, grandfatherly narrator like Ben Stein?
I can appreciate the fact that you think a lie is being perpetrated against you as an assault on science. I get that part. Did it ever occur to you that this is EXACTLY how the other side feels -- lied to and ostracized for daring to question the paradigm?
Will this documentary, like most documentaries, will be released and disappear? Or will it, like The Thin Blue Line of many years ago, break through into the national consciousness?
You know, at least once a week, there is some magazine or television program that assaults the core of Christianity in its attempt to malign history in favor of a revised version. Its constant. And this coming from respectable sources.
You've never suffered as much of an attack, so forgive me if I don't feel pity for your side. If it is a lie, then there is no shortage of people waiting to debunk it. We live in a marketplace of ideas in a free society. There is no reason why an exchange can't be made with civility.
One can imagine that even if it isn't carried by local theatres that fundamentalist churches in places like Dover, Pennsylvania, and Topeka, Kansas, will be running it nightly for months. Blockbuster and Netflix will likely carry it. Many will buy it.
Yeah, and? We have to suffer Michael Moore, practically the father of all lies. You don't think he does irreparable harm? You are only thinking about this from your perspective. As much as you believe that evolution is case closed, there are some very serious inconsistenties that people want addressed.
Of course, this will all be taking place during a presidential election year. The first primary will be January 8, 2008, here in New Hampshire, and the film's release is just a month later. Candidates who were recently asked for a show of hands of who did not believe in evolution (was it three hands that were raised?) will now be asked their reaction to the charges in the documentary and what they plan to do about it as president.
Which may or not be a coincidence. I distinctly remember Farenheit 9/11 coming out the month before the election too. I guess conspiracies go in both directions.
Given that the intended audience is the American public, which for the most part doesn't know that a year is the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun and can't find Iceland on an unmarked map, is science ready to make their case with effectiveness and clarity? Is it even possible?
Given all of the world's ills, I find it amazing that this boils your blood more than anything else. I can say that evolution very well could be true. It would not affect me in the slightest. I simply have some serious reservations about it, not theologicaly, but scientifically. I am open to the debate. Can you say that you are open to the thought of a fine-tuned universe? Or have you ruled it out a priori, being perpetually off limits?

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 12-27-2007 8:14 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 12-27-2007 1:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 12-27-2007 4:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 438 (443918)
12-27-2007 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
12-27-2007 1:04 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
It at least boils my blood because the "documentary" will be shown to people like these and these and [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=2XkgOdb8tdA]these and these.
About that last one, notice the reasons why people don't believe in evolution. Most of those reasons are faith based.
these and these.
About that last one, notice the reasons why people don't believe in evolution. Most of those reasons are faith based.[/qs][/qs]these and these.
About that last one, notice the reasons why people don't believe in evolution. Most of those reasons are faith based.[/qs]
Unfortunately my sound card is on the fritz, so I don't have audio right now. But I read the gyst of your premise in some of the titles -- you don't want dumb Americans knowing about ID. That, in itself, seems dumb. And just to let you know, dumb and ignorant are not synonymous. There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable and intelligent, yet for one reason or another they are ill-informed, misinformed, or indifferent.
Back in my fundamentalist days when I was in college, some French students humiliated my fellow American christians by drawing a fairly accurate map of the world and asked us to locate regions like Scandinavia, New Zealand, etc. I sat there and watched in awe as the people who I previously thought were smart (probably because of their literacy in the bible) couldn't even point to the general direction of Scandinavia. I have to ask myself this question. Is one of the prices of being religious fundamentalist a life time of ignorance?
To imply that this sort of geographical ignorance is a problem rooted in Christianity is wholly unfactual. I pull any kid off the street and make a mockery of him if I wanted. While I don't personlly understand how an adult can have such a bad sense of geography, you have to remember that some people just don't care. I've always liked geography. My wife doesn't. Just yesterday she said to me, "Did you know there was a country named Mauritania?"
Why doesn't she know where Mauritania is when I did? Because she doesn't care enough about it to know. She is by no means an idiot. She's highly intelligent. One of the very first things that attracted me to her was her mental prowess.
So I think it is foolish (though under-the-gun it admittedly looks bad) to assume someone is stupid because of that.
These are the same people who vote, mind you.
Yes, I am aware. Every presidential candidate banks on the general ignorance of the public. Its why they use so many platitudes instead of, you know, explaining how they are going to accomplish said platitude.

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 12-27-2007 1:04 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 12-27-2007 2:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 438 (443967)
12-27-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
12-27-2007 2:29 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
I just think you people are evil for taking advantage of their ignorance.
Why do you insist that is the case? To be evil for taking advantage of impressionable young minds, one obviously has to be cognizant of the fact that they are choosing to believe in a falsehood. Is that really the case?
You really think it's a good idea to let people who can't locate Iran on the map to dictate geography education? If not, why do you want people who don't know what apoptosis is to dictate what goes on in the biology classroom?
I didn't say teach it, I said it is foolish to assume someone is stupid based on their geographical ignorance.
The point is if ID really is valid science, stop trying to promote it among the general public and really present something in the scientific community.
The point of the movie is that proponents of ID have submitted papers for peer review where they run the risk of ridicule, ousting, excommunication, etc.
Again, do you want people who can't locate New Zealand on the map to dictate what should be taught in the geography classroom? If not, why do you want people who don't know the difference between mitosis and meiosis to dictate what should be taught in the biology classroom?
Are you suggesting that someone such as Dr. Behe is so ignorant that he doesn't know what meiosis or mitosis is?
Have you ever honestly read a piece written by an avowed ID'ist? Its not exactly idiotic.

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 12-27-2007 2:29 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 12-27-2007 5:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 12-27-2007 6:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 41 by nwr, posted 12-29-2007 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 438 (444168)
12-28-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taz
12-27-2007 5:59 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
Peer review is a rigorous process. One of my past mentors submitted revision after revision of a paper 4 times before it got published. Not every paper submitted will be published.
Very true. I am aware that it is a difficult process. But it makes it a whole lot harder when people's personal philosophies get in the way of that process. Shouldn't it just be measured on the information available, despite the overtones or (ir)religious implications?
By the way, did you forget to read message 15 by Modulous?
I hadn't read it, no. I've kind of stretched myself thin by being on like 6 different threads. But I will now. Is there something you want me to add to it, or did you just want me to gain a perspective from it?
Ah, but obviously Behe isn't choosing the route of presenting scientific evidence to the scientific community. He hasn't published anything for years. Instead, he's been going around trying to tell people that the god of abraham was responsible for all life on Earth.
No he isn't, because he understands, as I do now, that you can't mix theology with science. Science can't answer those questions, and the Bible, Qur'an, the Vedas, etc, are not science textbooks. They aren't designed to answer those questions, which is why I object to creationism. Creationism puts the cart before the horse, instead of following the evidence wherever it goes.
To me, ID doesn't presuppose any kind of God(s), Goddesses, aliens, robots, flying spaghetti monsters, etc, but rather simply notes that random causes cannot alone deduce the array and complexity of life.
Again, if ID really is valid science, then at least try to make it look like valid science. Instead, we see ID being promoted directly to the general public, the same general public that believe scientists are a bunch of dumbasses.
But they have. And it has been usurped at every chance because they are reticent of battling creationists all over again. I can appreciate that up to a point. But after that point, its just flat out because of the philosophical implications.
Again, why appeal to people who can't place Iceland on an unmarked map or know what the processes of mitosis involve?
You make it seem like they are specifically targeting "dumbasses." They present their information on the web. Anyone can click on the link and make the deduction for themselves. You are obviously undaunted by it, and that's fine. That's your right. But they have a right to put that information out there. It is also a right to combat "bad science," by putting up rebuttals. They have done that too. But it has gone deeper now in to a smear campaign. Truth will prevail in the end. Whatever the truth is, it will unfold.
By the way, I'm a physicist not a biologist. That link of yours I don't feel I have the expertise to comment on. Since you're all-knowing in every field of science known to man, perhaps you'd like to outline to me what that paper says?
I just posted it so you could critique it. I wasn't expecting you to pour all of your heart in to it. You seemed to have thought that ID was so completely inept that they use cartoons for illustrations and say things E = JesusluvsU4eva2!

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 12-27-2007 5:59 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 3:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 438 (444251)
12-28-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taz
12-28-2007 3:14 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
But they do target a bunch of dumbasses in regard to science. The general public has this view that they understand the bulk of scientific knowledge by reading a single article from a popular magazine.
Is targeting anyone who will listen tantamount to targeting "dumbasses?"
You don't know how frustrating it is for someone like me at times to have to answer to questions like "if gravity is real how come rocks don't orbit mountains?" and "if the big bang happened how come there are retrograde planets?" The answers to those questions are quite simple, but you must first have a background to understand the answer.
You are blaming ID'ists for questions like this???? Are ID'ists claiming that rocks orbit mountains? If not, then why do you lay blame against them?
The general public is the worst crowd for scientists to have to deal with, especially since we live in an age when everyone has an opinion on everything.
Well, everyone had to start somewhere. Try and have a little more patience with these people (are they kids or something?). You have to crawl before you can walk. At one time you crawled.
Try to see this from our perspective. You wouldn't want someone like me to tell you how to hold a gun, do you? Why appeal to the general public in hope that they would dictate what ought to and ought not to be science?
No one can lay claim to the best technique for holding a firearm. Some things work better for other people. And I'm never adverse to shooting tips since there is so much more to it than just aiming and squeezing the trigger. But, I understand your analogy. I just don't see this as being a threat. What is going to become of the world should people see design in nature? Is it going to change any physical law?
And during the trial, they were able to find a "missing link" between intelligent design and creationism. They found the word cdesign proponentist. Get it? They probably did it in a hurry so they only highlighted "reation" and left in "c ist".
And you're trying to tell me intelligent design has nothing to do with biblical creationism?
There is little question that creationists have latched on to the idea of Intelligent Design as a way to piggyback off of its success (which is hardly no success at all, but moreso than creationist literature). And it is also probably true that the majority of ID'ists are in fact Bible-believing Christians. But is that something that someone is supposed to apologize for?
I can tell you that I honestly don't like creationism because it emasculates scientific inquiry. Trying to find any reason to have nature conform to a theological text is just not science. I want nothing to do with it for probably the exact same reasons you don't. But I believe they have every right to speak about it. That's their right. And I also believe that ID is vastly different from creationism.
ID is theologically neutral. It just says that it seems possible that the universe was intelligently designed, as opposed to nothingness creating everything. Heck, in my mind, is the greater alternative. But, I digress. We don't need to drag this OT.
Nem, in the academic world, we try to stay close to our field as much as possible.
We're not like you where we feel like we have the right to comment on every subject known to man. I was trained in physics, math, and chemistry. I'm not going to pretend like I could accurately critique a biology paper.
This whole forum is full of people who inject their own beliefs in to any given thing based on their level of expertise or understanding of any given topic.

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 3:14 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 39 by sidelined, posted 12-29-2007 11:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 438 (444432)
12-29-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taz
12-28-2007 7:51 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
Just name a few ways we can do to disprove this ID theory.
I have heard the claim that ID cannot be falsifiable and therefore cannot be considered a science. The irony, as you can imagine, is the swarm of criticism attempting to falsify it.
Since ID is precipiced on complexity, one has to consider how easily or difficult it is to prove. The very thing that would prove ID is the very thing that, in reverse, would destroy all of its credibility.
It is no different than what Darwin concluded -- that if it can be demonstrated that no new species come about by successive modification, his theory would breakdown absolutely.
So if it can be shown that there is no specified complexity, then there is no reason to assume that an evolutionary algorithm is at work through unguided processes.
But see, there is no way to ever discount the possibility of God, or any other intelligence. The intelligence could want it to look as if it were just through happenstance. Evolution could easily fall in that category.
But why place it there unnecessarily? Its the same with specified complexity. If we know the 1050 is considered absolute zero (a chance so unlikely that it is basically referred to as impossible) then raising the stakes at 10150 (which is Universal Probability Bound) will really do the trick.
All one has to do is to turn the table around on the initial claim and it is effectively dismantled. That is how you can falsify ID. ID is specifically precipiced on the notion of specified and irreducible complexity.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 12-28-2007 7:51 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 12-29-2007 1:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 1:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 438 (444519)
12-29-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nwr
12-29-2007 1:01 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
I am dropping back in after a long inactive period.
Return of the prodigal son. Somebody fetch the fattened calf!
Welcome back.
My summary: The author sees an apparent gap, and so chooses to plunk god (as the intelligent designer) in that gap.
Okay, well thanks for your critique.
It is my impression that most biologists don't agree that there is any real gap.
Speaking about gaps in the biological/fossil record is not the topic of this thread, so I won't delve in to why I disagree. But you have to consider that just because they say there are gaps doesn't make it so, just like you saying there aren't doesn't make it so.
The demonstration of said gaps is required.
As for ID when it comes to filling in gaps, no one uses God as a filler, unless it used generically. I mean, when someone mentions God, it is ambiguous. God could mean so very many things.
The trouble with ID is that it tends to see mystery (i.e. gaps) as themselves an explanation.
I don't see that at all. I see it as a natural deduction. It boils down to a contingency vs necessity.
If something is attached to necessary conditions, then that existent property isn't attributed to anything other than itself to explain its causation.
But if something is contingent, then it is subject to probability. The profundity of it is that it ultimately means there is no actual reason why a contingent thing should exist -- or if it does exist, then its cause has to be found outside of itself.
And from these basics, we come to deterministic law.
For face value, given the sheer size of the universe, along with other planetary systems that do not maintain life, it is a good assumption to think that we are here by dumb luck. We just happened to have been situated in such a way, not only to contain life, but for it to flourish abundantly.
But this begs an important question.
All of the fundamental laws of the universe, as they apply to physics, are interdependent upon each other, so that one cannot exist without the other.
Moreover, one has to question why any such laws exist at all, and of them, how did such a thing come to be when one needs the other to necessitate its own existence? This is the crux. And we are always at this paradox with the chicken/egg problem -- how do you have a chicken without an egg, and how do you have an egg without a chicken? Which came first? These are eternal questions, and science is no more equipped to answer it now than in Plato's time.
There seems to be a consensus that the earth is fine-tuned to maintain life. The only objection is its ultimate cause. If a possible variable to explain that ultimate cause is denied, but it is the only correct answer, then why should it be stricken from debate?
See, I agree that there should be a neutrality within science. But it isn't neutral at all! Its lopsided to being completely secular.

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nwr, posted 12-29-2007 1:01 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 12-29-2007 7:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 61 by Meddle, posted 12-30-2007 11:16 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 62 by jar, posted 12-30-2007 11:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 438 (444547)
12-29-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
12-29-2007 1:32 PM


Re: My Personal Reaction
The reason it is unfalsifiable is because intelligent agents are capable of hiding evidence of their existence.
That's kind of a silly objection don't you think, because anyone could just say that evolution was caused by God, giving the impression of capriciousness?
If that is the sole qualifier for (un)falsifiability, then I hardly see the objection.
That is why evolution doesn't rely on disproving specified complexity, but in gathering positive evidence for the hypothesis.
I'll tell you this much: The way to advance the evolutionary model is to advance shared genetic mistakes. Similarities between genes of a species begs the question. But showing that organisms share the same insertions/deletions would do so much more, because otherwise it is totally subjective. Categorizing organisms with similarities is like finding people who look alike, arranging them in a specific order, and saying, "Aha, they are related." Obviously, it begs the question. But sharing mistakes is almost a surefire way of getting around then subjectiveness. Food for thought.
It is the only real convincing argument I've ever heard from the evolutionist camp.
There is no reason to think that an entity with no motivation might be motivated to manufacture evidence to cover up its own existence. Indeed there is much evidence that evolution has happened.
Well, for me, I know there has been an evolution of sorts. I have no doubt about it. Looking at different breeds of dogs can quickly and unambiguously support that. My contention is that attempting to trace it down to an amoeba, with all of the links in between, remains totally unconvincing to me. Its held together by a general assumption -- one that is totally exclusive to anything other than capriciousness.
Now - an intelligent designer could have made all of this happen and done so 'using' the mechanism of evolution.
Sure, but that would mean that evolution isn't guided by chance + natural selection.
And yet, when they are falsified as links to a designer - ID remains - how?
Obviously they object to the supposed falsifications. You would all but have to concede the point that for centuries upon centuries mankind assumed an Intelligence beyond itself. Why did they come to that conclusion? Because life sure as heck, in almost every way, appears to be purposeful. It was only until evolution came along that some people said, "But what if it is all capricious and the only reason it appears to be intelligently designed is on account of natural selection that weeds out aberrations.?"
The greater point being that life hangs in the edge of a knife. Chaos tends to be chaotic, unless, for philosophical reasons, you want to factor out God. Laws indicate purpose, unless you want, for philosophical reasons, factor out God.
You see the design all around us. Penis and vagina, bees and flowers, solar system and entropy, etc, etc, etc. People see it, whether it evidently is true or not. I should assume that you could at least appreciate that much, even if you believe that it is ultimately jumping to a wrong conclusion.
Irreducible complexity was shown as not only a bad indicator of design, but (in its biochemical form) as a prediction of evolution!
Or a convenient scapegoat to get around the obviously flaw... I mean, its like punctuated equilibrium. After years of not seeing any real evidence connecting the dots, they erected a strawman, the fact that we see no evidence is in itself the evidence! Huzahhhhh! Know what I mean?
Irreducible Complexity demonstrates the necessity of an intelligent agent.
and
Specified Complexity demonstrates the necessity of an intelligent agent.
Have both been falsified.
If they have been falsified, as you allege, then ID is falsifiable, because those two arguments in conjunction with one another are the foundation of the theory.
"ID" can never be falsified since it refuses to describe the agent, or its methodology for implementation
That's silly though. That's like saying gravity never existed before it was proven because gravity didn't have a face. Surely you can see how the logic is faulty here.
As soon as we get a 'how' that would leave a certain type of evidence that cannot be explained better by some other theory
The "how" is what the investigation of ALL science is about though! Everyone knew, long before a law was ascribed to it, that what goes up, eventually comes down. But these are useless facts. The "how" is what science is concerned with, and always has been, and presumably, always will be. But you want the "how" part up front. That's not how it works. We don't how an intelligent designer created life anymore than we know what the First Cause was. Science wants to find it out. So let them!
ID will have itself a theory that might lend itself to actual falsification. However, we still find 'a designer did it' is unfalsifiable.
Nobody is content with the "Goddidit" hypothesis, least of all, me. But you use this rather erroneously. When asked how a pakicetus eventually became a whale, you could just say "evolution did it." Assuming evolution is true, that would ultimately be the correct answer, but so what? That kind of answer castrates scientific inquiry to the point where it makes science unnecessary. No one wants those kind of answers, because they are no answers at all.
My next question is one of motivation:
Suppose you were asked to take a poll. This poll dictated whether or not the writers of a new science textbook would allow the introduction of the Steady State theory to be juxtaposed by the Inflationary model.
What answer would you give them, and why?

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 1:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 9:15 AM Hyroglyphx 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