Intelligent Design is not creationism

Setanta wrote:

I asked you a question germane to the titular proposition, why is it so hard for you to answer? Why do you keep avoiding that?

It isn't hard and I don't avoid it. I made my position clear on the literal topic question several pages back, and I believe you have already noted that. You are using this to rationalize your childish behavior. What motivates it? -- you haven't answered that question either.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

I asked you a question germane to the titular proposition, why is it so hard for you to answer? Why do you keep avoiding that?

I'll answer it.ID is one possibly answer to pointlessness.It may not be correct but without an answer to pointlessness we are pointless.Are you aware of the consequences of a population sold on pointlessness which is what you are arguing for.

God provides a point.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, decoded it means i don't give a f*ck about your dypsomaniacal ramblings.

Why respond then.One proves one does give a f**k by responding.

0 Replies

rosborne979 says:

Quote:

They say that because a vast majority of people pushing ID are just desperate to get their pet God theory accepted alongside scientific theories.

That's no excuse. It's very easy to determine that the concept of ID has nothing to do with God, religion, the Bible, the supernatural etc.

rosborne979 says:

Quote:

But even if you don't claim the "designer" is supernatural, the theory still isn't science. It doesn't meet the basic requirements of a scientific theory (which have been posted on A2K many times before).

Nonsense. ID and blind watchmaking hypotheses appear to be methodologically equivalent with respect to a wide range of demarcation criteria--that is, both appear equally scientific or equally unscientific provided the same criteria are used to adjudicate their scientific status and provided philosophically neutral criteria are used to make such assessments.

rosborne979 says:

Quote:

But putting strict definitions aside, it's pretty obvious that Intelligent Design exists for only one reason, and that's as a wedge to crack the basis of science and to slip religion into the mix. Just because they flower it up and put fancy scientific words around it doesn't change what it is.

Pure rubbish. There's not a sliver of truth in that statement.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Teleologist wrote:
Would you agree that studying the supernatural is beyond the scope of science?
No at all, the scientific method has been applied to the claims of the supernatural very successfully.

Chumly, I'm not sure I agree with your answer on that one.

While it's true that science can be used to investigate "claims" of the supernatural, science itself is not capable of studying anything which is truely supernatural (even though nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated).

By "very successfully" I mean that the scientific method has shown that the claims of those people who say they:

can raise the dead
have witch's powers
can read taro cards
can read palms
read fortunes
have extra-sensory perception
have telekinesis
can levitate
can read minds
can predict the future
use astrology to know what best to do
can heal with the hands
built a perpetual motion machine
use pyramid power
(the list is endless)

have all been shown to be false. To disprove a claim using the scientific method is successful science.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

spendi
Quote:
And what happens then in the staff room at breaktimes when the religious teachers are mixing with the evolutionists? Is it anything like on here?
One would be inclined to expect that it would be if one was focussed on real life rather than abstract notions in which people are puppets of the imagination.

I believe that the loons have all migrated to Canada for the summer. You can still catch up if you hurry.

The border is closed, the rooms are booked for the season, and this dog can hunt.

0 Replies

Doktor says:

Quote:

Now if measurable indications of design were found through pure research, and further investigated and tested/repeated, assuming evidence of design was found, it would be a different story. But they haven't been.

Well, why don't you tell me what you would count as evidence for design. If you have no criteria for what counts as evidence for design then your claim that it hasn't been found is worthless as you could be looking right at it and not recognize it.

As for ID not being science I refer you to this statement from Stephen Meyer:

Quote:

Is design in biology real or apparent? Clearly, there are two possible answers to this question. Neo-Darwinism provides one answer to the question and intelligent design provides the opposite answer. By almost all accounts the Darwinian answer to this question is a scientific proposition. But what then is the status of the opposite answer? If the proposition "Jupiter is made of methane gas" is a scientific proposition, then the proposition "Jupiter is not made of methane gas" would seem to be a scientific proposition as well. If the proposition "humans have free will" is classified as a metaphysical (rather than scientific) claim, then the proposition "humans do not have free will" should logically be classified in the same way. The negation of a proposition does not make it a different type of claim. Similarly, the claim "the appearance of design in biology does not result from actual design" and the claim "the appearance of design in biology does result from actual design" are not two different kinds of propositions; they represent two different answers to the same question, a question that has long been part of evolutionary biology. Indeed, it is impossible to understand Darwin's argument in The Origin of Species apart from understanding how he argues against the 19th-century version of the design hypothesis. The Darwinian mechanism (which functions in Darwinian thought as a kind of "designer substitute" ) and the theory of intelligent design are dialectical complements. Thus, if one is scientific, then it would seem, prima facie, that the other is scientific as well.

0 Replies

Tele, your comparison is dishonest because it assumes 'the darwinians' (whoever they are, I suppose you mean mainstream science) have made the claim 'there is no design', and hence claiming 'there is design' is the other side of the same coin. They have not, they simply make no unneeded assumptions whatsoever either way.
Starting with a conclusion (it has been designed/hasn't been designed) can never yield good science.

What would I accept as evidence of design? Anything not more easily (as per occams razor) and logical explained by naturalism. So far, nothing of the sort has been uncovered, as far as I know.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Chumly wrote:
farmerman wrote:
Idiotic speech, like hate speech can only be shown for what it is by letting it be expressed and inspected for the double talk that it is.
Post WW II Western Europe Nazis v. Jews; the Jews would likely differ on the level of acceptable speech, and here in Canada we have hate laws and a recent shut down and fines for a skin head website.

This shows your views are not shared by all, and those who wish higher levels of censorship than you do, may do so with rationality & merit.

Measle, I am mixed, but biased towards complete freedom of speech baring the shouting of "fire" etc.

But you do have to wonder if the Nazi propaganda machine had been quelled, whether events would have turned out just the same anyway, or whether the Nazis would have had a harder time of gaining power and implementing their pogroms etc.

That someone's views are not shared by all is no argument at all, and, in fact, constitutes the argumentum ad populum fallacy, which posits that something must be true because lots of suckers believe it.

The argument about free speech which runs that it does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theater was articulated by Mr. Justice Holmes of the United States Supreme Court, and simply posits that free speech does not extend to the incitement of criminal activity. We have hate speech in this country, certainly, and if its intent is to incite to crime, or it is concommitant with criminal activity, it becomes a violation of the law. But hate speech which is not an incitement to criminal activity is as well-protected by our Constitution as is any other form of speech--and so it should be.

FM was simply pointing out that "stupid speech," like "hate speech," will be its own worst enemy. Such a statement does not in any way merit your hysterical response, complete with a confirmation of Godwin's Law, which could not previously have been invoked in this thread.

You missed my point.

Firstly it was not an argumentum ad populum. There was no inference to his views being popular or not popular simply because I said farmerman's "views are not shared by all". Understand I said his "views are not shared by all" only to contrast an alternate perspective that "the Jews would likely differ on the level of acceptable speech".

Understand that in order for my text to launch into an argumentum ad populum, I would have had to (at the very least) exempted my reasoning that others have rationality & merit for a higher level of censorship based on (as per the example) a quelled Nazi propaganda machine possibly producing a better net result. Recall it's confirmed that the hate speech (as per the example) was to incite crime.

Secondly I essentially pointed out that farmerman considers idiotic speech similar to hate speech to the extent that they "can only be shown for what it is by letting it be expressed and inspected for the double talk that it is".

I then followed it up by raising the question of the potential for censorship's efficacy by asking "But you do have to wonder if the Nazi propaganda machine had been quelled, whether events would have turned out just the same anyway, or whether the Nazis would have had a harder time of gaining power and implementing their pogroms etc."

Get it now?

Godwin - abide by it if you wanna, not me.
Hysterical response - eccentric description for my post.

0 Replies

teleo said

Quote:

That's no excuse. It's very easy to determine that the concept of ID has nothing to do with God, religion, the Bible, the supernatural etc.

Again you are dead wrong. This is somewhat like saying that the drafters of the Constitution had no stake in it.
The history of ID is clearly religious, that alone is undeniable. The continuous hammering that ID has no connection with religion is totally disengenuous , since its original intent was to skirt the requirements imposed by the US SUpreme Court upon the State of Louisiana in Edwards.
Both Creationism and ID begin with an unsopportable conclusion and try, by argument alone, to "fill in" evidence acquired by debate alone.
Thats not sciece, therefore if its not science, its something else.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

rosborne979 says:

Quote:
But even if you don't claim the "designer" is supernatural, the theory still isn't science. It doesn't meet the basic requirements of a scientific theory (which have been posted on A2K many times before).

Nonsense. ID and blind watchmaking hypotheses appear to be methodologically equivalent with respect to a wide range of demarcation criteria--that is, both appear equally scientific or equally unscientific provided the same criteria are used to adjudicate their scientific status and provided philosophically neutral criteria are used to make such assessments.

Among other things, a scientific theory must offer testable hypothesis. Please state the testable hypothesis behind ID.

The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is.

A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense.

Teleologist wrote:

rosborne979 says:

Quote:
But putting strict definitions aside, it's pretty obvious that Intelligent Design exists for only one reason, and that's as a wedge to crack the basis of science and to slip religion into the mix. Just because they flower it up and put fancy scientific words around it doesn't change what it is.

Pure rubbish. There's not a sliver of truth in that statement.

That's what all the nut cases say as they are being dragged off to the asylum kicking and screaming. Enjoy your dream.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Both Creationism and ID begin with an unsopportable conclusion and try, by argument alone, to "fill in" evidence acquired by debate alone.
Thats not sciece, therefore if its not science, its something else.

Could it not be a hypothesis.It is scientific to have a hypothesis and until there's irrefutable proof that a big IDer in the sky doesn't exist the jury is still out.And always will be.

It is what to do about it that matters.Continually making heartfelt pleas to the jury is fatuous.The jury will never decide. The only way these pleas are not fatuous is if they are motivated by self interest and that's not scientific either if I may lengthen the list of non-scientific things.

0 Replies

Hypothesis are not exclusively tied into being about science -- you can't infer that something is science purely from a conjecture posed for an argument.

ID is motivated by self-interest -- to get religion taught in public schools. This is where it gets tangled up with creationism -- it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. One can deny that to their last breath, but failing to get creationism into curricula, the creationist have merely attempted to change their color (hard to tell if they are wolves or chameleons) to advocate ID. There is no way to logically describe this other than a supernatural being -- one entirely undetectable by any scientific means. Come up with any empirical evidence based on any scientific study that there is a master designer of the universe and you'd have something. Otherwise it hasn't even reached the level of a simple hypothesis, let alone a theory.

Continue the argument that ID is not science but is science friendly -- that will remain true as long as ID is kept out of science classes and in churches.

0 Replies

OK LW-

You just keep going around then. The others will have to do something about it without your help.If you think the classroom and the church are separated in a community because of the walls or something then going around and around is what you're going to be doing forever.They are intimately connected in fact though less so in cities than in small towns and rural areas. The whole subject is vastly complex and can't be dealt with in simplistic terms even though it is attractive to think otherwise.

0 Replies

There's nothing vastly complex about it at all -- churches teach religion, public schools teach science. Science and religion cannot be amalgamated like Hungarian goulash. Where are the scientists who back up ID being taught in public schools? There's certainly enough clerics advocating teaching ID alongside science for some vague notion that many scientists have stated that cosmology and evolution can co-exist with all forms of religion. This is not something that can be taught, however -- both science and religion have to be subjects of attraction, not subjects of promotion. I know it pays to advertise but the commercial for ID is reaching no rational person.

0 Replies

I'm amazed, LW, that you let yourself be drawn by the drivel that member posts . . .

Quote:

. . . until there's irrefutable proof that a big IDer in the sky doesn't exist the jury is still out.

That's horseshit--no one is obliged to disprove an extraordinary claim. Those making the claim have to provide the proof. Don't waste any more of your time, LW, he just makes **** up as he goes along.

0 Replies

Setanta has nailed it. He doesn't want dialog. He wants to force his personal unsubstantiated belief into the classroom at any cost.

0 Replies

There is no, never was, never can be any question of disproving the existence of some all-responsible, all-causing celestial imaginary freind, and to present that any such question exists, let alone be predicate to a requirement for validation of scientific naturalism is a flat out bald-faced lie. It is incumbent upon those who press the claim for the case of the imaginary freind to demonstrate their case. In over a dozen millenia, they have failed to do so, but rather, merely have persisted with pressing the claim.

0 Replies

"The jury is still out" is what made me laugh. What jury? The case hasn't even been taken. You can't have a jury until you have a case. There is no viable case -- maybe someday it will be brought up again as a cold case. I suspect it will be just as frigid an idea then as it is now, if not more so as the evidence is still mounting up for evolution and a Big Bang. One simply needs to read about the findings and understand it. I have a feeling the later is out of the question for some.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

There is no, never was, never can be any question of disproving the existence of some all-responsible, all-causing celestial imaginary freind, and to present that any such question exists, let alone be predicate to a requirement for validation of scientific naturalism is a flat out bald-faced lie. It is incumbent upon those who press the claim for the case of the imaginary freind to demonstrate their case. In over a dozen millenia, they have failed to do so, but rather, merely have persisted with pressing the claim.

This appears to encapsulate your central thoughts on the matter. However I'm not sure I follow it all. If I am correct it goes - in its several parts - as follows;
1. It is not possible to disprove of the existence of a god or creator.
2. It is a lie to pretend that such a question exists.
3. It is also a lie to assert that the existence or non-existence of a god or creator is a question that must be resolved as a basis or validation of scuientific naturalism.
4. Those who assert the existence of a god or creator have a burden of proof that, over 12 millenia, they have failed to meet.

This is consistent with what you have put forward in other posts, however I believe it involves some internal contradictions or at least inconsistencies.

With respect to the several parts;
1. I agree
2. The question of whether there is or is not a god or creator is one that appears to have perplexed nearly everyone who has ever lived at some time in their lives. The existence of the question in the minds and writings of writers pver the ages is demonstrated in the historical record beyond doubt. Does the question have logical validity? (perhaps that is your point here.). Certainly philosophers on both sides of the matter - from Aquinas to Kant have engaged it directly.
3. Here I agree with you. Natural Science can logically and scientifically be developed without reference to the existence or non-existence of a creator. Indeed the body of what we call science looks only to the natural world for the resolution of questions it engages, and so far has developed a deep, though incomplete, understanding of the processes of the natural world. It is incomplete because no explanation can be found within the natural world for its existence. As a result science always rests on singularities.
4. I infer you believe that the burden of proof rests only on those who assert the existence of a god or creator, and not on those, like yourself, who deny it. This is inconsistent with your earlier assertion that science can be developed independently of this question. It leaves you accepting, without question, the unexplained magic of the big bag, quantum multiverses or other like infinite regressions. This logically is hardly superior to the literalists who insist on the biblical Genesis.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know