Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

tkess wrote:

I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.

I suggest that modern high-energy particle physics does not necessarily follow the idealizations of parsimony alone (as per my provided prior definitions) and thus I'm not sure I'm as sanguine as you appear to be about the efficacy of the scientific notion of parsimony alone if you were to use parsimony alone to provide your rationalizations.

Remember I don't specifically refer to a designer, but to the principle you embrace given that if there were no particle accelerators there would be no modern high-energy physics.

That is why I asked: 1) Wouldn't it be fair to say that it's only a logical fallacy if you can aptly demonstrate that the mechanisms by which you assess this lack of proof are up to the task of doing so? 2) Can parsimony alone provide sufficient credence for modern high-energy particle physics given, at a minimum, its inherent complexity let alone its apparent challenges to (what were once) more established thought?

Quote:

Well, what is this parsimony thing, anyway?

The principle of parsimony is defined as "a scientific rule that states that if there exists two answers to a problem or a question, and if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accommodation need be made, then the simpler of the two answers is much more likely to be correct."1 Put a simpler way, parsimony is "a principle that states that the simplest explanation that explains the greatest number of observations is preferred to more complex explanations".2

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/parsimony.htm

Quote:

In probability theory, credence means a subjective estimate of probability........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credence

0 Replies

tkess-

They tend to use "scientist" on this thread a bit like you use "exploding".

I notice that the response to the rather out-of-date and twee quote from Dr Greer consists only of silence. I have been aware since I came on here that the anti-IDers (I'll go back to that now ID-iot has vanished) had no clue that religion was a vehicle for the control and management of human sexuality.

The "nitty-gritty" of this debate is about who does the controlling. It's either the uptight, Government appointed puritans of the scientific consensus (the what!!??) each with their own pecadilloes or the wise Fathers of the Church with the wisdom of the ages at their command. No control is not an option. Dr Benway or The Pope.

Some of these sects which don't contain the institution of auricular confession (the spark of the autobiograhical style of Western thought) and a celibate priesthood are hardly up for the task for reasons too delicate to explain at this time.

wande quoted-

Quote:

An Illusion of Harmony is a rich mix of intellectual history, philosophical reasoning and personal insight, which takes as its starting point the paucity of scientific discovery in Islamic cultures in recent centuries. Is this a consequence of political repression and economic underdevelopment, or has Islam itself been a factor in holding back scientific progress?

That is the sort of question for which you need Spengler to get started on giving an answer to.

In a similar way some now think that Christianity is holding back scientific progress in a few important areas of biology. Maybe, in 1,000 years they will ask such a question of us. The science of a culture eventually runs up against a limit where the diminishing return principle accelerates and the feather-bedded can't change their ways. They pack up science and have conferences and press handouts written by the publicity department just as they do with movies and, indeed, books.

Within Islam one wouldn't expect them to understand the concept of "holding back" scientific progress.

One may as well expect monkeys to have a sense of holding back evolution because they won't give up all the disgusting habits they have.

Such a thing is only possible with small and highly refined theological groups or when viewed with hindsight from the outside for the purpose of pontificating pompously. Monkeys haven't got the theological elite gene.

Perhaps I might indulge myself in entertaining the hope that now Ms Greer has made a proper appearence on this thread those of my previous posts which were deemed "incoherent",(and worse), may become a little clearer. And the farce at Dover may become more obfusticated and possibly clouded in mystery.

0 Replies

There's a way Foxy of defining science which has been accepted down the ages and if it is not adhered to everything might be said to be science.

Hence the use of strange terms as a sort of window dressing and other methods. They go in and out of fashion from time to time.

Science is the disinterested pursuit of knowledge springing out of the playfulness of curiosity which, as you possibly know, killed the cat. Of course the knowledge, once got, may well become subject to the scientist's interests, we are mostly all human after all. Then he's no longer a scientist in the strict sense though he's hardly likely to wish to swap his title for that of businessman.

But Joubert said that anything that can't be said in ordinary language isn't worth saying and "science " has now built an infrastructure of language which only they understand and which they assert is worth saying. It's like bullshit really in that you spread it on the fields and stuff grows fast.

Still- it doesn't do to be too strict otherwise everybody would know what others were talking about. I am only being strict because this is a scientific debate forum.

We call our garbage men Refuse Technologists. I'll not tell you our term for massage shop staff. Once you get legally licensed you pay tax and occupation has to be given on the forms, and no doubt others, and Wanker Off wouldn't look very good.

0 Replies

Not in a Christianised world I meant.

0 Replies

What on earth are you smoking Chum?

0 Replies

Creationism Class In Community College:

Class questioned
(McCook Gazette, April 7, 2007)

Dear Editor,

The following was sent to McCook Community College:

I am writing this letter to question the decision to allow Mr. Jim Garretson to teach Physics 2990: Creation Science, as though creation science is a serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. Mr. Garretson's proposal exhibits a profound lack of an understanding of science and/or an exceptional academic dishonesty on his part. In either case, I am concerned about the impact of this decision upon the integrity of science education in out state Nebraska.

To be clear, I would be writing an equivalent letter if a McCook Community College science instructor was allowed to teach Chemistry 2990: Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Quintessence, as though Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Quintessence is a serious scientific alternative to the Atomic Theory of Matter. The essential point is: The subject matter of Physics 2990 is not relevant to any course in a science curriculum. This point may be demonstrated in a variety of ways, from simple logic through complex arguments involving methods, precepts, relationships to other subject matter, et cetera ad nauseam. This point has been demonstrated so many times that many of us in the science community have lost patience with those who promote Creation Science/Intelligent Design.

Clearly, no one would ever propose teaching the above-mentioned Chemistry 2990, so why is Mr. Jim Garretson proposing to teach Physics 2990 as described? Perhaps I should conclude, he does not understand what constitutes science. I would be very distressed to learn that he actually does understand what constitutes science. Because, if he actually does understand what constitutes science, then I must conclude that he is guilty of exceptional academic dishonesty! If the first conclusion is true, then he should be supervised by a more competent individual. If the second conclusion is true, then?Mr. Jim Garretson should be relieved of his teaching duties.

Sincerely,

Dr. Robert I. Price,

Associate Professor of Physics

University of Nebraska at Kearney

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What on earth are you smoking Chum?

Dr. Zaius,
how goes your position as Minister of Science and Chief Defender of the Faith?

Zaius not Seuss although that might be funny too.

0 Replies

wande quoted Prof Price saying that-

Quote:

Mr. Garretson's proposal exhibits a profound lack of an understanding of science and/or an exceptional academic dishonesty on his part.

If Mr Price is concerned about academic dishonesty he might benefit from going to live in a re-mate cave. Stress is known to be bad for one.

One does wonder how ordinary academic dishonesty might affect the professor. Or even unexceptional academic dishonesty.

The use of "exceptional" tends to show that Prof Price hasn't much idea what science is either. Well- it's meaningless. Not "exceptionable". That's not meaningless. It means in this context that it renders the sentence in which it appears meaningless.

After that one might suffer oneself to forbear reading the rest of it.

0 Replies

It is considered very bad form in the male union to try to get a colleague sacked.

Mr Garretson could teach that the moon was made of cheese and it wouldn't make any difference. I can't remember one thing I was taught in school physics lessons except that a feather fell as fast as a lump of lead in a vacuum and I already knew that from the comics and cartoons I had seen years previously.

I rather think the Prof has seen an opportunity to satisfy an urge to show how well he can write and, by making an invidious comparison with what may very well be an excellent teacher in most respects, to demonstrate his scientific credentials. It could come to pass that if the Prof gets his wish and his co-worker gets the bum's rush he will be replaced by some tweeting ninny who's PC with the Prof on evolution but who can't teach a 3yr old to lick an ice-cream.

Teachers are human beings. They are not perfect. They should be judged in the round. Not on some petty foible they might have. Did the little monsters they had a brief contact with benefit from it on the whole is what really matters. He might be the best school football coach in the
state. And Prof Price is working his little pen to deprive what might be one or two All American stars of the future of his expertise and ability to
enthuse.

That's nearly as bad form as trying to get a co-worker sacked.

0 Replies

Quote:

Darwin's doubts revealed in his letters to friends
(By Anthony Barnes, The Independent, April 8, 2007)

As he crafted his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin crossed intellects with some of the finest minds of his age, testing and refining a theory that would change the very nature of mankind's view of itself.

Now, previously unpublished letters reveal the thinking behind the book that unleashed a scientific and religious furore in the 19th century.

The correspondence with Darwin's friend and theological sparring partner Asa Gray, an American botanist and God-fearing Christian, spans decades, beginning in 1854, five years before the publication of Origin, and continuing until Darwin's death in 1882.

Despite Gray's committed Christianity, he went on to become Darwin's greatest champion in the US, where ideas about so-called intelligent design have re-ignited the debate about creationism.

Darwin himself had a trying relationship with God. Though he was a firm believer in his early years, his theories forced him to question his faith and any commitment to Christianity that remained was extinguished with the death of his daughter in 1851. In one letter to another correspondent, Charles Lyell, he made his position clear: "Many persons seem to make themselves quite easy about immortality & the existence of a personal God by intuition; & I suppose that I must differ from such persons, for I do not feel any innate conviction on any such points."

The relationship between Darwin and Gray was good natured, if combative. In one letter, Darwin tells Gray: "An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe that God designedly killed this man? Many or most persons do believe this. I can't and don't."

Gray responds: "You reject the idea of design, while all the while bringing out the neatest illustrations of it!" Darwin, rather self-conscious of his large nose, writes: "Will you honestly tell me that the shape of my nose was ordained and guided by an intelligent cause?"

The letters have been re-cast into a play, Re:Design, intended to bring Darwin's work to a new audience.

The source material is also being published online by scholars who are opening up the archive at Cambridge University Library, which holds the world's largest collection of Darwin's papers.

Dr Alison Pearn, assistant director of the Darwin Correspondence Project, said: "There is a great deal of subtlety about Darwin's thinking on religion. Like most people, he didn't necessarily think the same thing at all times. He was prepared to say things in correspondence that he wouldn't say in print. So there is immense value in making the complete texts available."

As well as intellectual ideas, the two men discuss matters such as the American Civil War, and how to annoy their wives by beating them at backgammon.

The play, which was written by Craig Baxter, who has worked on a number of BBC Radio 4 dramas, is soon to tour theatres nationwide.

Darwin, who was born in Shrewsbury in 1809, developed his ideas about the "transmutation" of species after his five-year voyage as a geologist on HMS Beagle, which eventually evolved into his theory of natural selection. Such talk was viewed as heresy by his contemporaries who felt it undermined their convictions on divine creation.

The online archive tackling his difficult relationship with religion features some 5,000 letters.

Dr Paul White of the Darwin Correspondence Project said: "The letters reveal that debate over design engaged a wide range of participants, and in a manner that was both frank and respectful of differences in religious belief. In contrast to much of the current debate, Darwin and his circle of correspondents seem more tolerant and more humble."

0 Replies

wande quoted-

Quote:

In contrast to much of the current debate, Darwin and his circle of correspondents seem more tolerant and more humble."

It follows that those speaking intolerantly and bombastically on the subject are at odds with the memory they are patronising.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande quoted-

Quote:
In contrast to much of the current debate, Darwin and his circle of correspondents seem more tolerant and more humble."

It follows that those speaking intolerantly and bombastically on the subject are at odds with the memory they are patronising.

0 Replies

foxy

Quote:

I would probably be somewhere in between Darwin and his religious friends as I don't have any problem reconciling ID and the Theory of Evolution nor do I need to reject one in order to accept the other.
_________________

Nothing that a bit more education couldnt resolve

0 Replies

the article wrote:

The relationship between Darwin and Gray was good natured, if combative. In one letter, Darwin tells Gray: "An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe that God designedly killed this man? Many or most persons do believe this. I can't and don't."

The debate described above is a religious debate, it's not a debate over evolution or science.

the article wrote:

As well as intellectual ideas, the two men discuss matters such as the American Civil War, and how to annoy their wives by beating them at backgammon.

More debates which have nothing to do with Darwin's work on natural selection.

the article wrote:

Dr Paul White of the Darwin Correspondence Project said: "The letters reveal that debate over design engaged a wide range of participants, and in a manner that was both frank and respectful of differences in religious belief. In contrast to much of the current debate, Darwin and his circle of correspondents seem more tolerant and more humble."

Darwin and his contemporaries didn't have over a hundred years of incontrovertible evidence for evolution and natural selection.

I'm sure that if Darwin's friend Gray was trying to convince him that Geese layed golden eggs, that their discussions would have been far more polarized and less tactful.

Today, just as then, we have people trying to tell us that the world is less than 10,000 years old, but today we know better. So is it any wonder that the debate has taken on a different tone.

0 Replies

ros-

It seems that ros either does not read the thread or if he does he chooses to ignore the post I submitted in which Dr Greer was quoted presumably because he prefers the debate to remain at a level comfortable to his sensibilities.

This thread has been a revelation to me of how highly skilled anti-IDers are at running on the spot and complacently assuming that nobody notices. I'm not sure they notice themselves actually being distracted by the sight of their words or the sound of it as they evidently are.

They are generally rather pinched around the mouth regarding questions relating to human sexuality which is what the debate is really about as it also was in Darwin's day. They see it as a sort of reflex action akin to those found in monkey sexuality and for which they have their own scientific answer.

As I said- It's either Dr Benway or the Pope.

Has the spot become so habitual and safe that even a remark like that won't shift them from it. Anti-IDers are promoting Benwayism and the big laugh is that they don't even bloody well know it.

So the debate is about the control of human sexuality assuming it is agreed that control is necessary. The anti-IDers have mistaken the style for the substance probably because doing so enables them to go ranting on for ever and ever about nothing in particular with the least possible effort or persistance.

My posts about Footballer's Wives and certain evidence in the pub, where human behaviour is quite real, went over their little heads because they wanted them to and not because they were "incoherent" as was said at the time.

Dr Greer didn't use the word "disturbing" for nothing and she's no friend of the Church.

So let us ask anti-IDers not just to describe an atheist society they seem determined to promote but to offer a DIY guide to how they propose to control human sexuality when they have eradicated a sense of shame (sin) from the world. Failure to provide a manifesto leaves the rest of us to simply have a blind faith in their personages and those whose careers might well have been caricatured by Mr Burroughs.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxy
Quote:
I would probably be somewhere in between Darwin and his religious friends as I don't have any problem reconciling ID and the Theory of Evolution nor do I need to reject one in order to accept the other.
_________________
Nothing that a bit more education couldnt resolve

More education for whom? Your side? Or mine. Very Happy

0 Replies

fm yet again provides another demonstration of the pointlessness of ignorant, blurted assertions. They do give those they are aimed at permission to redirect them as in the well known school playground "yesitisnoitisntoyesitisohnoit isntohyesitbloodywellisohnoitbloodywellisntetcetc until the spot they are running on digs a big hole in the ground unless only one way megaphones are allowed of course which is highly likely. They have this occult notion that if they say something it is obviously true on the evidence of them having said it. It amazes me that someone with a Jesuitical education could embrace such inanity.

If anything is worrying about the anti-IDers it is the idea that if they come to power they will rule by assertion although it might well be in that event called a diktat or an administative instrument. They do seem a mite incapable of any other way of thinking.

And their silence on the Dr Greer quote, as on many others, shows an equally stubborn attitude to ideas they don't wish to listen to. Add in their total ignorance of how human society works and we would all be slaves to the scientific community with Benwayian treatment centres for those they disapprove of. When the nepotism gets institutionalised, as it inevitably will, you can kiss goodbye to the land of the free.

That is self evident from their contemptuous manners towards anyone not sharing their futile and naive stance.

But as long as they remain only 3% of the population we should be able to hold them off without too much trouble.

They'll have us all on parade at 6am every morning if ever they become a significant force.

0 Replies

Yours of course. Had you had more training in deductive reasoning, youd know Id probably be responding to your question. You dont surprise me with your responses.

The fact that you reconcile evolution and religion means that you probably are opinionated about one with not enough information about the other.

Hey ros, I see the Rt 91 Troll is seeking attention again.

0 Replies

as spendi says nyah nyah nyah again

Quote:

And their silence on the Dr Greer quote, as on many others, shows an equally stubborn attitude to ideas they don't wish to listen to

Please re- post the bloody quote and quit yer damn childish whining ya moron. Ill give it a read since the damn quote was probably sandwiched into the middle of one of your prolix, masturbatory, self congratulatory, "its all about me" lunaticky posts. Try to keep posts relevant and shorter and maybe folks will actually engage you dipper.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know