Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

farmerman wrote:

Irrelevant Design is incapable of making such predictions. By relying on Irreducible Complexity, it releases its ability to be falsified.

farmerman,
What is your opinion of how Karl Popper characterized science? Does intelligent design fail to meet Popper's description of science?

0 Replies

Intelligent design can predict that if we don't mend our ways this lot is all going to end in tears. And not taking millions of years about it.

Evolution theory and science are not interested in tears.

So they have no way of warning us and thus allow us to possibly evade that fate for thousands, maybe millions of years as intelligent design can because it views the whole of things and not just convenient bits which can be teleologised into supporting somebody's "look-at-me" pet theory of the week.

Did more tears appear after The Scream was painted.

Did more bombs drop after Geurnica was painted.

Did more sensibility appear after Mozart.

Did more foreign goods appear after Union Sundown.

What has the 370 million old half fish got to do with anything outside of some narrow self-interest specialisation.

Evolution and science just sit there with their heads in the sand.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Intelligent design can predict........

I'm not aware of ID's predictive claims, care to amplify?

spendius wrote:

Did more foreign goods appear after Union Sundown.

I also am at a loss as to why you infer increased international trade vis-a-vis your Bob Dylan reference, has relevance to the discussion on ID, care to amplify?

0 Replies

Popper himself stated that the scientific underpinnings of evolutionary theory are, of course testable, and falsifiable and thus in pattern with his falsifiability argument. Im not saying that I agree with his "pop" trials of what is , or is not science , but all in all, until there is universal agreement, I suppose itll do.

Jerry Coyne distinguishes ID as "weak and strong" .Strong ID resolves its bases in some form of deity and is theological, whereas weak tries to be a scientific discipline that never quite ascends to the top rungs. Eg, if any "Irreducible complex" adaptrations exist, then any adaptrations that could not have evolved by nat selection are candidates for design . I got this from " Of Pandas and People"An intelligent designer might reasonably expected to use a variety...of design approaches to produce a single engineering solution.Also, even if its assumed that an intelligent designer did have good reasons for every decision that was made, and for including every trait in each organism, it does not follow that such reasons will be obvious to us' Using this as an argument then any adaptation that we dont yet understand by evolution, is, of course a candidate for intelligent design. This is all a pot of warm spit because most all the arguments for ID namely those irreducible complexities such as thevertebrate eye, the mammals jaw, the ear of a whale, even the poster child, flagella on bacteria , have al;l been explained suitably by evidence for evolution. NOT PROOF, BUT EVIDENCE. We deal only in evidence from which we draw conclusions, we cant engage in arguments that demand unqualified proof like a plane geometry theorem, we can only advance a strong argument made of clusters of interlocking separate directions of evidence. SOmething the IDers never can ever approach(or even fathom). AT best, they can make one argument at a time , or a bunch of separate arguments on different points , but non interlocks and so-supportseach other .

Jerry Coynes analysis of "weak ID" states that they cant point to any feature of organisms that canot be evidenced by evolution and its support sciences.

Falsifiablity? Coyne states that "weak ID asserts that organisms contain a mixture of traits, some designed and some evolved. The designer isnt reduced to irreducibility, he/she/it, could have created any trait,even those that look lik theyve been evolved. Add to that the further declaration that we can never know the designers motives and methods (and indeed even mental capacity) and therfore, anythging goes!. An example of relict or poor design? well the designer merely was having a bad day"How an hell do we test or falsify that?

As far as "Strong ID" the only real difference here is that we know who the designer is. Falsifiability negativesince everything defaults back to unknowability and /or the God of Amunhotep.

0 Replies

Wandel, remember, when I quoted from "OF PANDAS..." thats the third edition which was an argument of plausible denialbility in DOver(of course it flopped for the defense), mainly because the first 2 editions contained the words "Creation", or "Creator", which, in later editions was merely substituted with "Intelligent Design" or "Intelligent DEsigner".

The slight of hand and the fraud that was trying its damndest to be perped on the school district was unbelievable. What means of manipulation and outright fraud was used by the ID defense , if it werent so damned expensive, would be light entertainment

0 Replies

All that bullshit is posited upon the idea that an intelligent designer would have the same priorities as fm does. Which is a possibility although I rather think it might be a remote one.

His reasoning being what any intelligent designer would obviously be following thus proving that fm's reason is the only reason any intelligent designer could intelligently envisage.

And he claims I'm an egomaniac.

The intelligent designer might have got flummoxed and tossed it all up into the spaces and let it fall where it might.

0 Replies

Since you now suggest randomization you lose the argument for "design", by strict definition I question such a thing as a random design.

0 Replies

Maybe you have never been flummoxed enough Chum. You must be used to being in full control.

The intelligent designer might be as thick as two short galaxies. Nobody is claiming He was a genius.

0 Replies

He who says...

Quote:

All that bullshit is posited upon the idea that an intelligent designer would have the same priorities as fm does.
Quote:

HOW SO? Did I misrepresent what theyve said? Have you talked with Jerry Coyne or the defense counsel for Dover? I think that youd find that they would agree with me.

I wouldnt call your post bullshit exactly, its merely a pbb version of some Quentin Tarrantino lines.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

we can only advance a strong argument made of clusters of interlocking separate directions of evidence. SOmething the IDers never can ever approach(or even fathom). AT best, they can make one argument at a time , or a bunch of separate arguments on different points, but none interlocks and so supports each other .

That is a very important distinction between evolutionary theory and ID. Thanks, farmerman!

Chumly: I haven't seen you in a while! Everything okay?

0 Replies

chumly

Quote:

I question such a thing as a random design.

. Thats great cause it means that youve not yet lost your faculties from listening to the sputum of spendi.

0 Replies

Why don't you try answering some points fm.

You are blurting like a schoolgirl who has had her skipping rope interfered with.

Do you really think your last post is anything other than a tantrummy blurt.

They should get one of those yellow heads to stick its tongue out going mmrrhhuhh!!.

Save you all that typing.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Chumly: I haven't seen you in a while! Everything okay?

I'm fine and all is well, very kind of you to ask. I do hope all is well with you also. I took lots of holidays, and also decided life beyond the internet is a good thing.

0 Replies

So now you are back Chum one has to presume that life beyond the internet was not quite such a good thing after all.

I'll refrain from further comment.

0 Replies

Karl Popper's Explanation of Falsifiability:

Quote:

Karl Popper also gave the following as examples:

Quote:

Source: Lecture on the Philosophy of Science given by Karl Popper at Cambridge in 1953

0 Replies

I can defend astrology from a scientific point of view which is eminently refutable.

Unfortunately it is quite complex and depends upon probabilities.

A quick version of it is under my name on the Trivia threads not too long after I joined A2K. I think the Questions Game. Anyone interested enough ought to be able to find it.

I remember that it impressed two or three of the lady intellectuals who at that time played on the game.

I think Mr Popper was probably talking about the charlatans who operate with the remnants of the idea which doesn't lend itself to modern societies although it may still be true but in a more diluted form.

A social fossil so to speak. Like religious and racial and topographical effects on character formation. It involves common sense and considerations of emotional and physical states related to life chances.

The configurations in the heavens being mere signifiers. Signs.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

So now you are back Chum one has to presume that life beyond the internet was not quite such a good thing after all.

I'll refrain from further comment.

I'm not convinced your mandated presumption sits on firm ground.

spendius wrote:

I can defend astrology from a scientific point of view which is eminently refutable.

What exactly is eminently refutable, your defense of astrology or the scientific point of view?

For entertainment value may I ask: is the impending execution of Saddam Hussein part and a parcel of ID?

0 Replies

Chum wrote-

Quote:

spendius wrote:
I can defend astrology from a scientific point of view which is eminently refutable.
What exactly is eminently refutable, your defense of astrology or the scientific point of view?

I'm sorry Chum. It was a clumsy sentence viewed from a pedantic point of view I will admit.

What I meant was that I can defend astrology using the scientific method and anybody who wishes to refute my theory with certainty, a tenet of the scientific method, has a lot of work to do in the archives of our culture.

I'll agree that I also have a lot of work to do to prove my defence valid but it is only a hypothesis of mine and proving it is not my job. Peer-reviewers have that task.

Your last question relates to an incident and is thus beneath my radar.

I would have sentenced him to be the door-opener and shoe-black in the White House GENTS in perpetuity.

But hey- I have style.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What I meant was that I can defend astrology using the scientific method and anybody who wishes to refute my theory with certainty, a tenet of the scientific method, has a lot of work to do in the archives of our culture.

Interesting spendi might grasp at astrology -

A while back, refering to the Dover decision, [url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1739835#1739835]timber[/url] wrote:

The defense was the equal to anything the Marx Brothers ever came up with. Behe's under-oath concession that astrology would have to be considered a science under the same reasoning required to consider ID-iocy a science didn't help their case much either.

Oddly, almost eerily, apropos in present context, eh?

spendi also wrote:

I'll agree that I also have a lot of work to do to prove my defence valid but it is only a hypothesis of mine and proving it is not my job. Peer-reviewers have that task.

No argument you've "a lot of work to do" ... as in first, you need to formulate and state a coherent hypothesis. That aside, unsurprisngly, you've gotten how peer review works precisely bass-ackwards

Driving yet one more nail into the coffin of his credibility, spendi then wrote:

Your last question relates to an incident and is thus beneath my radar.

I would have sentenced him to be the door-opener and shoe-black in the White House GENTS in perpetuity.

OK- you've earlier, and more than well and often enough, established a proclivity for outlandish, elitist, misogynistic pronouncements - now, by implication at least, it would appear you edge toward the realm of racism. Quite a piece of work.

Quote:

But hey- I have style.

Indeed you have. So did Torquemada ... or, for that matter, Stalin (though to be fair neither Ol' Joe nor his handlers had anything close to your erudition).

Oh, and I'd love to see your scientific defense of astrology - the entertainment value promised has me positively atwitter with anticipation.

0 Replies

He who, says

Quote:

What I meant was that I can defend astrology using the scientific method and anybody who wishes to refute my theory with certainty, a tenet of the scientific method, has a lot of work to do in the archives of our culture.

. Now this makes even less sense. Are we sloshed again?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know