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 (5,665 Views)
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
abradf2519
May 18 2006, 04:11 PM
Yes ID requires a designer, because the evidence of the designer is the theory. We cannot say who the designer is, because as soon as we do, the theory becomes religion (unless the designer reveals him or her self). This argument serves no other purpose than to provide a nifty catch 22 for ID proponents. Unfortunately it also ignores evidence. Science should never do that, because you then corrupt science into accepting only what what fits into our own little box that excludes all the things we don't like. The fact that ID may be true becomes irrelivant.

Ok... what's the "evidence of the designer?"

ID becomes religion because it is a religious belief and not a scientific theory by how the world of science understands scientific theory.

Perhaps, considering the frailities of the human frame, we could offer a theory of Unintelligent Design. A truly intelligent designer would have done a much better job of designing people.

And what's with the mosquito? What Intelligent Desiger would think THAT a good idea?

I think I could get behind UD.

You have yet to offer ANY evidence to support D - either I or U.



Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
abradf2519
May 18 2006, 04:37 PM
If a scientist studying biology for example ran across what looked like “tool marks” on some sample he/she was studying, using the rules of science we are currently applying, the scientist would be required to ignore the “tool marks”, because “tool marks” are evidence of ID and ID is not science. What then is the result? We ignore the truth even though it is staring us in the face, because it does not fit our accepted idea of what science is.

Let me know when you come up with a list of these "tool marks."

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
abradf2519
May 18 2006, 07:43 PM
teryt
May 18 2006, 09:18 AM
OK.  Sounds logical. But I know nothing.

You gave up too easy....

I can't believe I missed out on this thread. :faint:

Yeah, I know. But while I am an analytical, I know little about scientific methodology & it's defense thereof, when coming to something like ID. Plus I was too busy & was waiting for you! (looks like a good opening too)

"Please don't get hung up on my example. I am not accusing anyone of being prejudiced toward black men. I am just using the example because it shows how we ingore the truth to support our old ways of doing things." Boy, I'm glad you made that disclaimer, cuz I was all ready to be majorly offended! :floorrollin:
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
 
Lon Frank
Member
"This is scientific prejudice, the process of ignoring facts because they don’t fit our old accepted ways of doing things."

Alan, you know I'm not a proponent of intellegent design over evolution. (I think evolution is about as intellegent system as I could imagine, but that's another discussion).

However, you do raise a viable concept. So much so, that I will start a separate thread dealing with it, apart from religious overtones (for the time being, anyway).

And Eric, should you come to my new thread, please remember that I am a babe in the quantum theory woods. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan "ID does make predictions, is falsable and is testable, but cannot do these things relating to the designer only. In other areas of the therory it does. So making blanket statements that ID is not testible, falsable or predictable is wrong."

Precisely because those parts of ID that are scientific are borrowed from science.


"I don't agree with the Ockham's Razor critisizm because the designer is not being used to support part of the theory, the designer IS the theory."

I agree, and "designer is theory" in a nutshell is the logical flaw of ID and the designer.


"We cannot say who the designer is, because as soon as we do, the theory becomes religion (unless the designer reveals him or her self)."

Mathematically speaking, designer = theory = religion.


"The fact that ID may be true becomes irrelivant."

Most truisms are. Some call them cliches.


"This is scientific prejudice, the process of ignoring facts because they don’t fit our old accepted ways of doing things."

Actually, that's the prejudice of people, be they scientific, religious or whatever. The scientific method, which requires hypotheses that are testible by others, guards against this prejudice. Religion, because it requires conformity to an authority, does not provide this safeguard.
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
I have a theory that evolution was intelligently designed.
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
I agree. Evolution is not what happened, it is an explanation of what happened, a scientific one, the best explanation man, assuming he is intelligent, has designed so far.
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
DocInBird
May 18 2006, 11:46 AM
I'm with Jane on this.  There is a college course called "Critical Thinking", that really needs to be taught in high school or Jr high.  How do you read (or hear) something, take it apart, find they key arguements, and evaluate it?

Reading and math skills are appalling.

Don't even need to take a course in critical thinking. Most libraries have a copy of Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark."

A short, quick read - it would do much to develop our bull-shit detectors and that, at the basics, is one of the goals of critical thinking.
Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 19 2006, 11:14 AM
I agree. Evolution is not what happened, it is an explanation of what happened, a scientific one, the best explanation man, assuming he is intelligent, has designed so far.

Sounds like you may have a different theory than me, i.e., that man was the intelligence behind the design of evolution.
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
 
abradf2519
Member
teryt
May 19 2006, 08:34 AM
cmoehle
May 19 2006, 11:14 AM
I agree. Evolution is not what happened, it is an explanation of what happened, a scientific one, the best explanation man, assuming he is intelligent, has designed so far.

Sounds like you may have a different theory than me, i.e., that man was the intelligence behind the design of evolution.

Yep. Abiogenesis is the only theory that fits with the information we currently have under the constraints we currently have. This is why I think the constraints are too tight, choking off any new theories like ID.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
ngc1514
May 18 2006, 02:40 PM
Ok... what's the "evidence of the designer?"

Actually Ockham’s razor could be used to support ID. An example that pops into my mind is the clam. A clam has a “foot” that is used to push it from one place to another, presumably in the pursuit of food. The evolutionist will talk about how the clam evolved the foot to help it survive. This brings up the obvious question of how did the footless clam survive long enough (millions of years) to evolve the foot? The answer is that maybe the food situation was a little better, and a foot wasn’t really needed, but clams that evolved feet, survived better.

The more simple and straightforward explanation is that the designer gave the clam a foot so it could move where there was more food, evidence of ID!
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
teryt
May 19 2006, 09:34 AM
cmoehle
May 19 2006, 11:14 AM
I agree. Evolution is not what happened, it is an explanation of what happened, a scientific one, the best explanation man, assuming he is intelligent, has designed so far.

Sounds like you may have a different theory than me, i.e., that man was the intelligence behind the design of evolution.

Sounds like you missed the word explanation.

Evolution, Intelligent Design, Creation Myths, these are all attempts at explaining the process of life, they are not the process themselves.

E=mc² explains the connection between energy and mass, it is not the relationship itself.
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
abradf2519
May 19 2006, 10:20 AM
teryt
May 19 2006, 08:34 AM
cmoehle
May 19 2006, 11:14 AM
I agree. Evolution is not what happened, it is an explanation of what happened, a scientific one, the best explanation man, assuming he is intelligent, has designed so far.

Sounds like you may have a different theory than me, i.e., that man was the intelligence behind the design of evolution.

Yep. Abiogenesis is the only theory that fits with the information we currently have under the constraints we currently have. This is why I think the constraints are too tight, choking off any new theories like ID.

But those constraints, called scientific method, guard against prejudice and preconception.

You said elsewhere, iirc, that Christianity is the oldest known belief system, right? Isn't that possible because, generally speaking, religious beliefs are immutable? Isn't ID immutable?

Question. As more information is discovered by the scientific method, scientific theories are modified and corrected, even to the extent of paradigmatic revolutions. But as more information is discovered, what of ID theory that life was (or was not) intelligently designed, could possibly be modified and corrected?
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
abradf2519
May 19 2006, 11:20 AM
Yep. Abiogenesis is the only theory that fits with the information we currently have under the constraints we currently have. This is why I think the constraints are too tight, choking off any new theories like ID.

A minor correction: abiogenesis - as it might relate to the initial formation of life on earth - is NOT a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. Abiogenesis is a line of scientific research that may lead to the creation of artificial life (whatever THAT means!) in the lab, but no matter how many times life is created, we will never know if one of those processes was the process that created life on earth. It's a fascinating field of research, but it is no more a theory than saying "astronomy" is a theory.

Abiogenesis is offered as a possible explanation of how life formed on earth; Evolution doesn't care how it started, just how life developed once it got goin'.

I've asked more than once, but you have yet to provide any evidence showing ID is a scientific theory or offered any suggestions on how it might be falsified.

Let me ask just a couple:

How do you define irreducible complexity?
How do you decide a system is irreducibly complex?
Is the Intelligent Designer irreducibly complex and, if so, how do you know. And, if not, was he a design of some more complex designer?

ID lives and dies around the concept of irreducible complexity. These should be fundamental questions in your theory and fully addressed. As one of the more ardent ID'ers on here, you must have already reached answers to these questions. I'd like to hear those answers.

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Eric "A minor correction: abiogenesis - as it might relate to the initial formation of life on earth - is NOT a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable."

I'd always thought it was so, thanks for the info.
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
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply