Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dumbing Down Of America, 2
Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,659 Views)
abradf2519
Member
Quote:
 

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.

-- William A. Dembski


Quote:
 
Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable


Quote:
 
Following the triumph of Darwin’s theory, design theory was all but banished from biology. Since the 1980s, however, advances in biology have convinced a new generation of scholars that Darwin’s theory was inadequate to account for the sheer complexity of living things. These scholars—chemists, biologists, mathematicians and philosophers of science—began to reconsider design theory. They formulated a new view of design that avoids the pitfalls of previous versions.


Source


Quote:
 
From an ID perspective, the natural-vs.-supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones.

Mathematician and philosopher of science William Dembski puts it this way: "Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has operated."

Human actions are a case in point: "Just as humans do not perform miracles every time they act as intelligent agents, so there is no reason to assume that for a designer to act as an intelligent agent requires a violation of natural laws."

On the other hand, even if an object were miraculously created, it could still be studied. Take the flagellum, for example. No matter what its origins, a flagellum is a flagellum. We can take it apart, we can examine its components, we can modify it, we can figure out how it works. And we can do that whether it evolved over eons or popped into existence two seconds ago.

In the world of human technology, this is called reverse engineering. But the same process is also used in biology.


Source

You can be a conspericy theorist, looking for conspiracies in everything, or you can just read the published words of the ID scientists.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
May 23 2006, 05:36 PM
And thak you for this gem: "When they are talking to Christians, they assume the designer is Christ....If they talk to scientists, the designer is unknown...."

Do you recognize Janus?

ID is, as you have pointed out, a two-faced lie.

So some ID scientists are Christians. Do you expect them to deny their faith just because they are scientists?

The are not being two faced, they are being real.

Its not what these guys are saying being quoted out of context by sleazy reporters. Its what they are theorising and what research they are doing.

For example, look at this quote from MLK:
Quote:
 
We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision


It appears that he is saying that blacks have "limited vision". The reality, is the quote was taken out of context, and is not what King was saying at all. Source of the quote
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
I repeat my question: Is ID a valid concept?

Anyone want to go on record saying that ID is impossible?
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
abradf2519
May 24 2006, 01:28 PM
I repeat my question: Is ID a valid concept?

Anyone want to go on record saying that ID is impossible?

There is a difference between being "a valid concept" and being a scientific theory.

That there is a huge flock of invisible, purple unicorns (those type unicorns come in flocks rather than herds) in my basement is a "valid concept." There's not a whole lot of evidence to support the existence of those blasted unicorns, but it remains a "valid concept."

A solipsist, who believes that the universe came into existence at the same time he did, is also a valid concept. But who cares?

In religion, Yog-Sothoth is a valid concept; even if Doc and I differ on whether he was the creator or destroyer of worlds.

The world is filled with valid concepts that only assume "reality" (however you wish to measure that) when compared to the universe around us. The valid concepts found in the the mind of a schizophrenic have little to do with how the rest of us live our lives.

ID is, similarly, a "valid concept" for which there isn't any evidence.

So what?





Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 24 2006, 04:26 PM
I'm still curious, Teryt, what does ID offer over, say, IDOID, to be taught in the science classroom? Both have the potential over time to be supported by evidence. Would you thus argue both should be taught along with evolution? Or should we wait until the evidence is in?

Well . . . my point still is that schools should at least be presenting things other than the almighty evolution. To me it is the height of arrogance to just teach only evolution as THE total solution, when it is still a theory (no matter how well researched it seems to be). Their are other viewpoints that deserve some consideration. OK, so lets say a science textbook starts a chapter all about evolution - at least acknowledge that there are other ideas out there! Textbooks I've seen don't do that, but maybe (hopefully) that isn't the case with all of them.

What's so hard about that!?

Quote:
 
I don't agree that the theories were debunked. I am a person that doesn't just agree with something just because it was written or said by someone smarter than me. Sometimes these people are just trying to fool me.
Yes. Research is so often countermanded by something later. After all, we are just all men, no matter how smart we are, how much time's been invested, or how sophisticated our systems are - we still make some pretty big misteaks (sic)!
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
abradf2519
May 24 2006, 12:26 PM
cmoehle
May 23 2006, 05:36 PM
And thak you for this gem: "When they are talking to Christians, they assume the designer is Christ....If they talk to scientists, the designer is unknown...."

Do you recognize Janus?

ID is, as you have pointed out, a two-faced lie.

So some ID scientists are Christians. Do you expect them to deny their faith just because they are scientists?

The are not being two faced, they are being real.

Its not what these guys are saying being quoted out of context by sleazy reporters. Its what they are theorising and what research they are doing.

For example, look at this quote from MLK:
Quote:
 
We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision


It appears that he is saying that blacks have "limited vision". The reality, is the quote was taken out of context, and is not what King was saying at all. Source of the quote

Alan, I provided links. Most of my citations come from the leaders of the ID movement and come their published works.

What is it that bothers you about ID being a new form of Creationism? You're a religious man, you should be happy it is.

What do you call someone who says one thing to some and the opposite to others?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt "Well . . . my point still is that schools should at least be presenting things other than the almighty evolution. To me it is the height of arrogance to just teach only evolution as THE total solution, when it is still a theory (no matter how well researched it seems to be). Their are other viewpoints that deserve some consideration. OK, so lets say a science textbook starts a chapter all about evolution - at least acknowledge that there are other ideas out there! Textbooks I've seen don't do that, but maybe (hopefully) that isn't the case with all of them."

They do, Teryt, evolution is a few pages in a biology textbook. What they teach is evolution is the best scientific explanation to date. The only ones painting evolution any other way is you and Alan.

But it's good to hear you would also support the teaching of IDOID. It's premises and conclusions are identical to ID afterall, except they ask who designed the intelligent designer. And why not, the designer is irreducibly complex.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Quote:
 
ID is, similarly, a "valid concept" for which there isn't any evidence.

To me, this statement is illogical & arrogant. I tell students when they see hyperbole like "any" (or nothing, always, etc.) in a question or statement on a test, that it is likely not valid. The use of the word "any" is an example of modality logic. Saying there isn't any evidence is illogical. You might not like it, or accept it (because it doesn't meet the norms you subscribe to), but . . .

I suppose one man's evidence is another man's folly.
:cool:
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
teryt
May 24 2006, 02:24 PM
...only evolution as THE total solution, when it is still a theory (no matter how well researched it seems to be).

HA! There... he said it! "... still a theory...."

Of course it's a theory and it will ALWAYS remain a theory. That is the mostest fundamental idea behind what a theory *IS*!

And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see why the non-scientific community can't distinguish between ID and evolution.

Thank you, teryt.

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
teryt
May 24 2006, 02:50 PM
Quote:
 
ID is, similarly, a "valid concept" for which there isn't any evidence.

To me, this statement is illogical & arrogant. I tell students when they see hyperbole like "any" (or nothing, always, etc.) in a question or statement on a test, that it is likely not valid. The use of the word "any" is an example of modality logic. Saying there isn't any evidence is illogical. You might not like it, or accept it (because it doesn't meet the norms you subscribe to), but . . .

I suppose one man's evidence is another man's folly.
:cool:

Well, don't just claim it's illogical and arrogant - PROVE it!

I say there is no evidence for ID and you, apparently, are claiming the other side of the debate.

Cite the evidence. That would be a much stronger argument than calling it "illogical and arrogant."



Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DocInBird
Member
teryt
May 24 2006, 12:24 PM
Well . . . my point still is that schools should at least be presenting things other than the almighty evolution.

ID is taught in the schools, but at an appropriate level. It is a course in graduate school in college as one of the options.

Why in the world would you want this rammed down the throats of elementary school kids?
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt, you say, "I tell students when they see hyperbole like "any" (or nothing, always, etc.) in a question or statement on a test, that it is likely not valid."

I agree, when people use all or none, it is likely, to some degree, not absolute.

Now explain your logical leap from what is likely to an absolute conclusion: "To me, this statement is illogical & arrogant."

I suppose one man's evidence is another man's folly.

Why'd you stop attacking evolution and defending ID? That was more interesting to explore.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 24 2006, 10:23 PM
Teryt, you say, "I tell students when they see hyperbole like "any" (or nothing, always, etc.) in a question or statement on a test, that it is likely not valid."

I agree, when people use all or none, it is likely, to some degree, not absolute.

Now explain your logical leap from what is likely to an absolute conclusion: "To me, this statement is illogical & arrogant."

I suppose one man's evidence is another man's folly.

Why'd you stop attacking evolution and defending ID? That was more interesting to explore.

Not sure I understand your question - so now I have to defend what we agree was illogical in Eric's statement?

I don't know that I was really attacking evolution - isn't it assumed that there are unexplained holes in it, that time & research may, or may not validate?

ERIC: We are not communicating well bud! And since communication is one of those two way thingies, I'll assume I haven't done a very good job.

DocInBird: "Rammed down their throats!?" This is partically how I see evolution (even thought I would also defend parts of it).
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt, I was asking if you saw the illogic in your leap from likely to absolutely in your own statements about another's use of words--I mean, why devolve this discussion into a war of words, when the substance is far more interesting?

What holes are you referring to? The ones evolutionary science will find and fill, or those fabricated by IDers? If you could refer to something specific we might be able to discuss it.

Do you mean this one back when you weren't attacking evolution and said: "To me, the biggest stretch of evolution is the original assembly of chemicals, etc. that somehow produces life." Remember that one? Having nothing to do with evolution?

Or this vague non-attack: "But me thinks there is just too much that evolution, as a whole system, hasn't been able to explain"? To which you argued "For instance, when one looks at the billions of codes in DNA, that all perfectly give the map to create the larger organism, it seems to me to smack of someone who has had to put this system together." When it's easy to find scientific explanations, like Evolution of the Genetic Codes, Evolution of Genes, Genomes, and the Genetic Code, and so many more.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
teryt
May 24 2006, 07:26 PM
ERIC: We are not communicating well bud! And since communication is one of those two way thingies, I'll assume I haven't done a very good job.


I thought we were doing just fine.

I just wish you would get down to something specific in your defense of ID rather than generalities. For someone who claims not to know a lot about ID or evolution, you write a whole bunch about them! Not that there's anything wrong with this, of course. I'd just prefer to get down into the mud and rassle over some of these questions rather than worry about logical fallacies and linguistics.

Why do you think ID has any merit at all? Other than the obvious: because it's not evolution.

Alas, this will have to wait. I'm heading out for a 4 day weekend with the camper and telescope where I will spend many happy hours observing objects by means of Optical Theory that are held together and moving according to the Theory of Universal Gravitation and shining brightly by the Theory of Relativity. Some of the more distant objects will be cosmologically red shifted due to the Big Bang Theory and we'll see evidence of the Impact Theory on the moon.

We'll use some sophisticated hardware that works through applications of Quantum Theory and Circuit Theory and a few of the guys will play with stuff that uses Antenna Theory. Finally, we will heat our food and chill our drinks with Kinetic Theory.

Only a theory.... sheesh.

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply