| 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: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,645 Views) | |
| teryt | Jun 3 2006, 12:16 PM Post #346 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Yeah yeah yeah. I already posted my "disclaimer" at the bottom of that message, guesing how you would respond:
I see little relavence in these questions (that sounds a little like someone I know - LOL):
OK, enough of the "diversions." What I would really like to know is your thoughtful response to the link provided above: Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory? |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 3 2006, 12:45 PM Post #347 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Teryt, explain how their personal views presents "a little foundation to what we are talking about". Do you mean the difference between personal viewpoints and scientific explanations? You say "OK, enough of the 'diversions.' What I would really like to know is your thoughtful response to the link provided above: Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?" I will do that in time--got yard work to do, so may be tonight, tomorrow--no rush, right? But in the mean time I am serious about the questions you dismiss so cavalierly. 1) Are you now claiming the designer is god? That is extremely important to the question of teaching religion in the science classroom. 2) Is the designer your god? The leading proponents of ID, Johnson, Dembski and Behe think it is the Christian God. Is that what you are claiming now? If so, what aspect of ID points to your god? 3) Who designed the designer is the IDOID question. If you accept the ID argument for a designer, then, on principle, you must accept the same argument for a designer of the designer, ad infinitum, recursively, refuting the cosmological argument that Jane is so fond of. Diversion is fine, I'm enjoying this, would enjoy it more if you would engage in dialog, like answering some questions. Of course you don't have to. Speaking of diversion, have you checked out Cafe yet? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 3 2006, 01:43 PM Post #348 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Yeah, ditto on the yardwork. I've gotta pull another outlet on our back patio (DW thinks she wants a fountain there - ain't gonna happen!). On the scientists' personal views, I thought it was interesting, and I think it shows the undercurrent to today's research with these folks. Many held about the opposite viewpoint, but as their research evolved, they came to think there must be a design(er). 1. I stop short of claiming the designer in ID is the Judeo/Christian God. I think that part can be left up to an individual's own thinking. One could conclude it was a superior alien race, or who knows who!? 2. My personal beleif system says this is the Judeo/Christian God. I don't know if anything in ID specifically says that though. Even though the main proponents (Behe et. al.) might think this way, I think ID can stand without projecting those assumptions. 3. The IDOID thing has been around for awhile in one form or another. (We used to muse while having a cold one: "Yes, but who created God?") To me this is purely philosophical, because it tries to determine the intangible from the intangible. ID it based upon the tangible proving there is an intangible (designer), but at least there's one tangible in there! I look forward to seeing your response on that link. Glad you're enjoying this. Please forgive my style if it bothers you. Thanks for referring me to the Cafe. Now on to some vehicle maintenance (I suspect this is really why my DW married me). |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 4 2006, 09:00 AM Post #349 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Terryt "I stop short of claiming the designer in ID is the Judeo/Christian God....My personal beleif system says this is the Judeo/Christian God." Well, which is it? Actually IDOID is based on the same analogy as ID. On principle, the analogy ought to apply in both cases. Denying it in one case denies it, in principle, in the other. "I look forward to seeing your response on that link." Let me preface that with an observation. If you go back over this thread you will see points where I post a lot of reference material just like you have now done. However, mine is done in response to a specific claim, question or challenge--Alan's claim ID is not religion lead to citations from ID founders and leaders statement to the contrary, Jane's claim flagellum had not been explained by evolution. Yours, I must say, is like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if any will stick. IOW, is there something specific you want me to address in the article? Otherwise all I can do is a general review.... |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 4 2006, 09:15 AM Post #350 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Let me limit myself initially to one point. The article is titled: "Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?" This tells us it will address that question. Let's look at just the notion of testable. It explains: "In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone." IOW, ID is a statistical model. It admits: "For many things, especially in the arena of biology, it is difficult or impossible at this time to generate any kind of statistical model to even do the test." Testing it may be difficult or impossible. It paraphrases criticism: "A nebulous theory can never be tested." Others say impossible because "The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test." It responds to criticism: "Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world." But what about testing ID? It states "A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics....The model is testable and falsifiable". OK. It repeats "Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable." But what about testing ID? So testing Biblical stories stand as tests of ID? Got to love its final scorecard on what science tells us. Not only is it completely off its original topic, but all 8 points are false. I'd be happy to discuss any of them. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 4 2006, 09:30 AM Post #351 |
![]()
Jane
|
chris why can't we view the physical laws of the universe (the ones we know about) as evidence of ID? it seems to me you are saying: well, yeh, we have these laws and they appear to be the foundation of of order in the cosmos, but there's no way to tell how they came about, so pffft to ID. even though there might be laws we have yet to discover and laws we don't fully understand, yet, the existence of physical laws point to ID. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 4 2006, 09:37 AM Post #352 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Occam's Razor:
Going back to earlier discussion, you personally are absolutely free to add extraneous assumptions and explanations, but we're discussing science and what should be taught in the science classroom here. I've answered you. Can you answer my oft repeated question: What about the laws of nature/physics point to ID? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 4 2006, 10:12 AM Post #353 |
![]()
Jane
|
without physics, there would be no universe. no atoms or anything else that follows. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 4 2006, 10:46 AM Post #354 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
What follows is the Universe we observe. IOW, the laws of physics accounts for the universe. My question is how does that imply ID? Or, what does ID account for? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 4 2006, 11:00 AM Post #355 |
![]()
Jane
|
ID accounts for their (physics laws) existence. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 4 2006, 11:15 AM Post #356 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
That's a mighty claim. Problem is it adds nothing, it is not explanatory. The laws of physics, e.g., e=mc~2, explain what exists in terms of relationships between matter and energy and such. We know those laws are true from testing via observation, experimentation, and prediction. What does ID explain that we can test? Problem is I could claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster accounts for the laws of nature. How do we distinguish our claims, how do we value one over the other, how do we determine which is true? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 4 2006, 11:54 AM Post #357 |
![]()
Jane
|
nothing mighty about it. the existence of the laws points to an intellect... a WILL.. a First Cause. the intellect may be nothing like we imagine or only half of what we imagine or maybe we've got it mostly right... that isn't the question. ID doesn't explain things. ID is the explanation for why things are the way they are. Now, you can speculate as to the CHARACTER of ID, but in the end, it's only speculation. One man looks around and views his surroundings as "good". egro, ID is "good". Another views it as chaotic and capricious and therefore "bad" or indifferent. Another man shrugs it off as not important. Some folks think the designer is a person and has revealed something of his/her character and wishes for mankind. Etc. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 4 2006, 12:08 PM Post #358 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Jane, you are not answering the question. You are making a claim, and then drawing inferences from that claim, and talking about how people react to it. Nature's laws point to ID. How so? Why? What leads to you to that claim? What is the basis of your assumption? You do realize that the laws of physics differ in nature from man's laws? The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive of proscriptive, they describe nature as it is, they do not compel nature to act a certain way, or not act a certain way. Again, what is the basis of your claim? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 4 2006, 12:21 PM Post #359 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
This goes back to the complexity issue. As many professionals have said, the shear compleity of things, at some point, begs the question of "who did it?" Chris, does this seem all circular to you? We keep going around & around this. You ask the question, but the answers we give you can't seem to accept, because they point to this mysterious intellect/being that created them - and this being is unproveable by standard scientific means. However, again, at some point the evidence gets to be pretty overwhelming (perhaps just to us "smaller" minds), and we have to say "this stuff all had a designer." Just a quick one, as I gotta run as I'm heading to a local mountain for some R & R. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 4 2006, 12:28 PM Post #360 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Teryt "This goes back to the complexity issue. As many professionals have said, the shear compleity of things, at some point, begs the question of "who did it?" Chris, does this seem all circular to you? We keep going around & around this. " Yes, because the complexity issue has been addressed and countered several times. One, evolution accounts for the complexity claimed in every instance--eye, flagellum, etc. Two, WAP (Weak Antropic Priciple) does not account for multiple universes. Three, if "shear complexity" argues for ID then it also argues for IDOID. Progress in discussion requires you to address those counter arguments, not simply repeat yours. Repeating your claim is what begs the question and keeps us in circles. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |









1:28 PM Jul 11