Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I did not say in #7 or anywhere else that I.D. is a fact because millions of people believe it.

I have said that I believe in I.D. because I have shared an experience that millions of people have shared.

Conversely, I have said that I do not expect or require those who have not experienced what I have experienced to know or understand or believe in what I have experienced.

Those who have not experienced what I (and millions of others) have experienced are in no position to say what I have or have not experienced.

Right or wrong, however, the fact that millions of people have expressed a belief in a theory is ample proof that such a theory exists. It is not proof that the theory is correct, but it sure as heck exists.

And those who do not wish to accept these truths will continue to change what is said into something they can more easily attack......or......

.....they will continue to say that the evidence is dumb or insane while they have zero evidence to support their opinion.

0 Replies

Oh bittersweet irony....

I agree with Foxfyre about alot of this...

Mark the date! Sign of the apocalypse!

0 Replies

Well that's for sure. The day that Setanta and Snood agree with me on anything on the same day is the day we probably need to make our peace with God whether you believe in him or not.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I did not say in #7 or anywhere else that I.D. is a fact because millions of people believe it.

I have said that I believe in I.D. because I have shared an experience that millions of people have shared.

Conversely, I have said that I do not expect or require those who have not experienced what I have experienced to know or understand or believe in what I have experienced.

Those who have not experienced what I (and millions of others) have experienced are in no position to say what I have or have not experienced.

Right or wrong, however, the fact that millions of people have expressed a belief in a theory is ample proof that such a theory exists. It is not proof that the theory is correct, but it sure as heck exists.

And those who do not wish to accept these truths will continue to change what is said into something they can more easily attack......or......

.....they will continue to say that the evidence is dumb or insane while they have zero evidence to support their opinion.

Yes, Foxy. The belief exists in the minds of millions of people, now, in the past and most likely far into the future. That's easy.

The concept you seem to be having trouble with is more abstract. Let me try to illustrate:

One of these things is not like the other. One of these things doesn't belong:

1. A planet

2. a ghost

3. God

4. a soul

5. a fairy

6. a being (either living or dead) from Mars

Can YOU find the one that doesn't fit?

Can you tell me why?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I did not say in #7 or anywhere else that I.D. is a fact because millions of people believe it.

I have said that I believe in I.D. because I have shared an experience that millions of people have shared.

Conversely, I have said that I do not expect or require those who have not experienced what I have experienced to know or understand or believe in what I have experienced.

Those who have not experienced what I (and millions of others) have experienced are in no position to say what I have or have not experienced.

Right or wrong, however, the fact that millions of people have expressed a belief in a theory is ample proof that such a theory exists. It is not proof that the theory is correct, but it sure as heck exists.

And those who do not wish to accept these truths will continue to change what is said into something they can more easily attack......or......

.....they will continue to say that the evidence is dumb or insane while they have zero evidence to support their opinion.

Yes, Foxy. The belief exists in the minds of millions of people, now, in the past and most likely far into the future. That's easy.

The concept you seem to be having trouble with is more abstract. Let me try to illustrate:

One of these things is not like the other. One of these things doesn't belong:

1. A planet

2. a ghost

3. God

4. a soul

5. a fairy

6. a being (either living or dead) from Mars

Can YOU find the one that doesn't fit?

Can you tell me why?

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

At one time, everybody on this planet thought the earth was flat.

Don't be so daft c.i. They would have thought it was full of humps and hollows. It's just as daft thinking it's round as it is thinking it's flat. A billiard table is fairly flat and the balls you play with are fairly round.

0 Replies

Lola-

Do you remember when Norman Bates was sticking the big knife into the runaway in the showers. It's very well known that millions experienced a visceral presence. That was one of those ghosts of 'lecricity. And real enough. In the moment the planet was liquidated.

Fairies are as real as that for children. When one gets older they are metaphors which might not work very well without the childhood experience preceding and conditioning them. Was Rhett Butler a real person? Or the Jack of Hearts?

0 Replies

Fox wrote:

The day that Setanta and Snood agree with me on anything on the same day is the day we probably need to make our peace with God whether you believe in him or not.

Ah yes, i suspected irony would fly right over your head. Science cannot prove ID, because ID is not scientifically based. Science is also not concerned to "disprove" ID, because science does not seek to prove or disprove the supernatural, and the appeal of ID is ultimately to the supernatural, for all that proponents of ID consistently lie about their motives, and attempt to weasel on the nature of the "intelligent designer."

But as for whether one " . . . need to make our peace with God whether you believe in him or not"--how do you know that God is a "he?" How do you know that gender applies to "God" at all? If you assert that your experience teaches you this, what evidence can you present us so that we may experience the same thing? If you assert that we cannot experience the same thing as do we, why should we believe you?

A scientist can assert to me that mixing baking soda (NaHCO3) with vinegar (active agent, acetic acid, CH3COOH) will produce a noxious gas. I can experience this for myself, by combining the two in an enclosed space, and standing there until i am overcome by increase in carbon dioxide in the air. Of course, i won't profit from my experience unless i have made provision for someone to drag me out of the room when i could no longer get enough oxygen from the air.

Which is rather like what happens when one subscribes to silly imaginary friend theses such as Fox's. You won't be able to profit from the thesis unless and until someone drags you out into the fresh air of skeptical investigation. However, those who fear the real world can always to continue to hide in their god fairy tales.

0 Replies

Settin' Aah-aah wrote-

Quote:

Ah yes, i suspected irony would fly right over your head.

One would expect irony to pass a lady by rather than just suspect it would. Ladies are not tempermentally given to irony for very good reasons. Some ladies, fortunately a very few, attempt to fake it in order to seem more masculine but in the main ladies haven't an ironic bone in their bodies and one can only presume that is an evolved characteristic and perfectly normal.

It highlights how some misogynists haven't bothered to find out the simplest of things about ladies.

0 Replies

Chemistry is the one science at which i excelled in school. There was nifty little experiment we did when we were studying aromatic hydrocarbons (and if you don't know what an aromatic hydrocarbon is, i advise you never to sit in an enclosed space with an open can of gasoline).

One takes a handful of ground coal, about the consistency of pea gravel, and places it in a retort. The retort is then suspended above a bunsen burner, and the retort is stoppered with a rubber stopper with a single hole in it. One places a small diameter glass tube (about 1/4" outside diameter) in the stopper, and about four inches long. Above that, and reaching below the top of the small glass tube, one suspends a larger diameter glass tube (about one inch inside diameter) about six inches in length. One lights the bunsen burner, and when one can smell the gas produced, one can light that gas as it escapes the large glass tube. Paraffin (an alkane hydrocarbon, with a formula of CnH2n+2, where n is equal to or greater than 20--it is a complex version of the exclusively carbon and hydrogen compound Methane) will condense on the large glass tube as a byproduct of the burning of the gas which is produced by heating the coal in the retort.

That is a practical example of how scientific experiments are replicable--which is to say that science predicts that such a process will produce paraffin as a by-product, and this can be proven by carrying out the experiment under the same conditions in every case.

ID differs from this in that it is not predictive, it is not replicable, it is not falsifiable, and it does not rest upon naturalistic evidence. It can only be true if one accepts a supernatural intervention. As such it is not, and never can be science. Which is exactly why i agreed with Fox in the single contention that ID cannot be proven or disproved by science--because it is no more science than is Christian Science.

0 Replies

Settin' Aah-aah wrote-

Quote:

However, those who fear the real world can always to continue to hide in their god fairy tales.

Is that supposed to impress us that you don't fear the real world? It's whistling in the dark.

0 Replies

Ive been gardening most of today and have come inside to batten down for the Biblical Flood that is to overwhelm us tonight.. However miht I quote foxy's post

Quote:

Right or wrong, however, the fact that millions of people have expressed a belief in a theory is ample proof that such a theory exists. It is not proof that the theory is correct, but it sure as heck exists.

More accurately, this should state
" the fact that millions of people have expressed a belief in a "Conjecture" is ample proof that such a conjecture exists".
You are totally misapplying the word "theory" in an attempt to slide one under the tent flap.
A theory is a bit more rigorous to a scientist than to a religionist. Lets , therefore , not glom onto words and use them incorrectly.

A THEORY IS AN EXPLANATION OF A PHENOM IN WHICH ALL THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS AND NO EVIDENCE REFUTES. So the "right or wrong" part youve included in your explanation of "what millions of people believe" is just right out and renders your use of "Theory" incorrect.

Just wanna state that for the record before I go eat supper.

0 Replies

And according to the MToM all these conjectures, theories and whatnot are physical states of the brain/mind/body trinity and thus whilst they are in these states, for very short periods of time in their entirety, if the body they are in exists these objects exist.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So.......in a discussion of what can and cannot be proved . . .

Nothing is provable. I think we've established that. To quote Richard Feynman one more time:

"[on the subject of science being a method of finding things out] All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But 'prove' used in this way really means 'test,' . . . 'The exception proves the rule is wrong.' . . . [In science] if there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong." (The Meaning of It All, pp. 15 - 16)

The defining difference between observatory "proof" and your proof of sensation is not that one can provide an absolute answer while the other cannot. Science is limited to questions of "If I do this, what will happen?" A burned hand is observable, a planet is observable. Assertions that a given sensation constitutes proof beyond doubt is dogma.

Wande's original question for this thread is not, as you said, whether a thing or experience can be proven, but rather, "Is ID science." And to the extent that ID depends on unobservable assertions, it is by definition not science.

So the Sesame Street question of which thing doesn't belong has nothing to do with whether you've experienced a sensation or not. The differentiating factor has to do with whether or not something can be observed. You have observed a sense from within yourself that God exists. But have you seen God? Have you observed a soul?

Quote:

This isn't what you were looking for, I know, but I have to be consistent in the argument . . . .

Consistency of a fallacious argument does not eliminate the fallacy. It simply makes the argument consistently fallacious.

Quote:

While I cannot see how this is in any way relevant to the argument I have made . . .

I see. It is as we expected. Foxy is either not able or is too defended to get it. The first case has to do with capacity. And in the second (which I more suspect it to be) there is something entirely too important in her psychic organization to allow understanding. Having proven this point beyond a reasonable doubt enough ad nauseum times, I would suggest that we take mercy on Foxy and leave her to organize herself in whatever way she finds necessary. However, this is only possible to the extent that she doesn't try to force her methods on others.

ID is not science, it is ruthless, coercive evangelism, pure and simple. True scientists try to disprove a rule as quickly as possible by the use of observation. ID evangelism is based on dogma. IDers start with an answer and search for a way to "prove" it. When it comes to defending one's rights against the march of the Onward Christian Soldiers, there can be little mercy.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Ive been gardening most of today and have come inside to batten down for the Biblical Flood that is to overwhelm us tonight.. However miht I quote foxy's post
Quote:
Right or wrong, however, the fact that millions of people have expressed a belief in a theory is ample proof that such a theory exists. It is not proof that the theory is correct, but it sure as heck exists.

More accurately, this should state
" the fact that millions of people have expressed a belief in a "Conjecture" is ample proof that such a conjecture exists".
You are totally misapplying the word "theory" in an attempt to slide one under the tent flap.
A theory is a bit more rigorous to a scientist than to a religionist. Lets , therefore , not glom onto words and use them incorrectly.

A THEORY IS AN EXPLANATION OF A PHENOM IN WHICH ALL THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS AND NO EVIDENCE REFUTES. So the "right or wrong" part youve included in your explanation of "what millions of people believe" is just right out and renders your use of "Theory" incorrect.

Just wanna state that for the record before I go eat supper.

You want to make the belief into something based on conjecture. I insist on making the belief based on experience as it is my experience to which you have no authority to address.

A theory is indeed an exlanation of a phenomenon in which all the evidence supports and no evidence refutes. I have a 'cloud of witnesses' all testifying to the same experience to support the theory of I.D. And you have what evidence to refute it?

0 Replies

NO.

1Its not a theory
2 Its a tale told about a campfire.
3Theres no data to support --We deal with data and evidence not campfire stories.
4There is evidence to refute, based upon ID's own "manufacturers"

Now, if you, like spendi, believe in a different brand of ID (as he calls"pure ID) then you have to tell us the rules, but as Phil Johnson and Mike Behe and the others have stated. "The rules of ID would have to include astrology as science". I assume you buy into that,

If your rules demand a "purer ID" which may be unknown to but a few, then how do you explain

1Intermediate forms of animal fossils? -- ID should have gotten it correct the first time?

2Sudden appearnace thats not so sudden, then is followed by evidence of further modification

3Irreducible complexity -thats not only not irreducible, but clearly evidenced by coalescing evidence from many disparate fields.

$ Specified complexity-Dembskis newest "fall back position" -he states that only a few key forms have been designed and the rest have evolved from these common ancestors. He never defined which ones were so "defined"

0 Replies

Lola wrote-

Quote:

Nothing is provable.

I don't agree with that for a start. It is easy to prove that if a handsome gallant with larger than average feet waves a fist full of large denomination notes, symbolically of course, like Mathos does only he's an ugly runt, there are certain physical conditions which result and which are very predictable.

In some nunneries the large feet are a sufficient cause.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

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.

I still don't think you're understanding the problem. Modern high-energy particle physics is based on the simplest (most parsimonious theory) that fits the facts. If there is a more parsimonious theory, but it does not fit the facts, then it should be rejected, of course.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And Lola cherry picks quotes to attack and ignores the supporting information to go with them. Like so many of the anti-I.D. crowd, her only tools are those which sound intellectual but which give only an unsupportable illusion of an indefensible position.

The best the anti-I.D.ers can come up with is I don't want to believe I.D. and therefore anybody who does is nuts or misguided or defensive or delusional or fanatic or.....insert your uncomplimentary adjective of choice here........

The best the pro-I.D. group can come up with, at least the I.D. group I am aligned with, is that our experience supports the theory and so far nobody has been able to use anything other than personal insults or a "because I said so' mantra to refute it.

Your theory is not science.

The entirety of ID is based on the assumption that, if there are some things which modern evolutionary biology cannot explain, GOD (or an intelligent designer) must have been responsible for these things.

As I have stated before, this is analogous to traveling back in time 150 years and saying "we cannot explain how electric fields work with current physics, therefore GOD must be creating them".

This is why the criteria of naturalism and parsimony are favored so highly in science. They stop nonsense like that at the door.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know