Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Creationists, explain to me why humans and dinosaurs....

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
joeyjock wrote:
emceeMC wrote:
A theory is an exercise in logic. Using Exton's example of Swans, a theory is something that gives us an assessment of the facts as we know them.

We have observed that all swans are white. Through testing, we have confirmed that all swans are white. Our Theory then is that all swans are white.

The Theory describes the facts. However, it offers no scientific mechanism as to why the facts are as they are.

Evolutionists state that because we have observed similar organisms in different time periods throughout history, and the concept of survival of the fittest is real, that evolution from protocells must have taken place. However, they have never observed this evolution. How then, can we determine what causes something if we have never witnessed it, and cannot replicate it in experiment?


No...this is where you're wrong
the "theory" you describe is what we call a hypothesis (an educated guess) then you apply the scientific principles to either prove or disprove your hypothesis
that's where intelligent design and creationism are at the present time...
it's your responsibility if you want it to be taken seriously by science to either prove that it has taken place or thru your experimentation that it doesn't ...
you don't come to the Scientific community and say..."well prove to me that it Doesn't exist" It doesn't work that way...


See, this is what I do gladly support of the ID community: applying the scientific principles to their hypothesis of Intelligent Design. I believe Baylor University has a program of study focused on ID. Good for them!

University study is a great place for Intelligent Design, who knows what might come from it. But what sulleys the view of ID is the anti-evolution camp that wishes to rewrite the rules of the scientific method for them. They make ID a political issue, not a scientific inquiry, and they push it to lay people where they can attempt to manipulate perception of the arguments.

The ID community needs to do serious peer-reviewed research and stand up and debate the issue rather than attempting an end-around the scientific method.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The very concept of "intelligent design" is a farce. It's not scientific in any sense, nor can it be.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
... nor can it be.


Here is where I disagree. In ID's current form, this is a true statement. Where I disagree is with the future tense used here "... nor can it be." I don't propose to know the future. Darwin's initial hypothesis about "evolution occuring in a slow continuous progression" turned out to be incorrect, or at least, incomplete.

What I am stating is that I am not supportive of "closing the academic door" a priori without giving the proponents of the idea the opportunity to explore the idea and prove their case. This is the way of science - hypothesize, test, and verify.

Personally, I believe they (the proponents of ID) will be unable to formally test and prove their hypothesis. But if they truely believe they are correct and ID is the basis of the world we live in, then prove it and stop trying to circumvent logical methods of understanding the world for purely religious reasons.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The problem is with the hypothesis itself - it is not, in any way, based on observation or evidence. There is no actual indication that design is involved in anything in the universe, much less life in particular. It trully is just a religious belief.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A couple of speaking bushes that are also on fire, that might be some great evidence.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
The problem is with the hypothesis itself - it is not, in any way, based on observation or evidence. There is no actual indication that design is involved in anything in the universe, much less life in particular. It trully is just a religious belief.


I say let them attempt to prove it. I agree with you that they will be unable to, at least when presented with peer review. Behe throws up a lot of math but it always falls apart at his premise of irreducible complexity. But, maybe a mathematical means of measuring 'design' might come out of the study?

I'm saying let them try, the scientific community should be open to study, within the parameters of the natural world. The ID proponents would first need to drop their insistance that the scientific community accept a supernatural premise.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
joeyjock wrote:
emceeMC wrote:
A theory is an exercise in logic. Using Exton's example of Swans, a theory is something that gives us an assessment of the facts as we know them.

We have observed that all swans are white. Through testing, we have confirmed that all swans are white. Our Theory then is that all swans are white.

The Theory describes the facts. However, it offers no scientific mechanism as to why the facts are as they are.

Evolutionists state that because we have observed similar organisms in different time periods throughout history, and the concept of survival of the fittest is real, that evolution from protocells must have taken place. However, they have never observed this evolution. How then, can we determine what causes something if we have never witnessed it, and cannot replicate it in experiment?


No...this is where you're wrong
the "theory" you describe is what we call a hypothesis (an educated guess) then you apply the scientific principles to either prove or disprove your hypothesis
that's where intelligent design and creationism are at the present time...
it's your responsibility if you want it to be taken seriously by science to either prove that it has taken place or thru your experimentation that it doesn't ...
you don't come to the Scientific community and say..."well prove to me that it Doesn't exist" It doesn't work that way...


See, this is what I do gladly support of the ID community: applying the scientific principles to their hypothesis of Intelligent Design. I believe Baylor University has a program of study focused on ID. Good for them!

University study is a great place for Intelligent Design, who knows what might come from it. But what sulleys the view of ID is the anti-evolution camp that wishes to rewrite the rules of the scientific method for them. They make ID a political issue, not a scientific inquiry, and they push it to lay people where they can attempt to manipulate perception of the arguments.

The ID community needs to do serious peer-reviewed research and stand up and debate the issue rather than attempting an end-around the scientific method.

But that's directly the point they CAN'T because there is NO scientific basis for study
If you have no factual basis how can you do peer review studies?
ID..Creationism -- call it what you will is a farceand will always be so
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
joeyjock wrote:
But that's directly the point they CAN'T because there is NO scientific basis for study
If you have no factual basis how can you do peer review studies?
ID..Creationism -- call it what you will is a farceand will always be so


I'm not disagreeing with you that I think they will fail, but read what you are writing: "they CAN'T because there is NO scientific basis for study". It sounds rather dogmatic. Is that the intention? to discount them before they present their findings (assuming, of course, they have "findings" to present).

The question I have for everyone that is saying that the ID community can't have a hearing in the scientific world is: If an Intelligent Design proponent offered a publication for Peer Review, should they be permitted into the scientific process?
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:

But, maybe a mathematical means of measuring 'design' might come out of the study?


It can't, because that's not what the ID folks are trying to do. They start out being convinced that life is designed; they cannot tell the difference between design and lack of design, because they refuse to do so. They aren't trying to investigate a hypothesis - they're trying to rationalize a preconceived view of the world.

There are, of course, ways you can look at things while keeping the possibility of design in mind. But it's not easy to do that because natural processes can easily result in things that appear to be designed.

It's really just a matter of asking one's self is something appears more designed than not. Which the ID folks do, but they miss one huge, critical aspect of it: they refuse to think of it in terms of engineering.

When an object is built, it is built for a reason, and the structure of it reflects that objective. The ID folks flat out refuse to look at life from that perspective for two reasons: life shows no sign of having been built for some particular reason, *and* they already have a reason in mind. They won't talk about it, though, because it's thoroughly religious in nature.

And even then, thinking about purpose can and does fail. Consider modern art; in many cases, the artwork looks very much like something haphazardly thrown together. The truth is that if you have something at hand that doesn't look at all designed, it may still be artwork - but in that case, the only way to show that it is artwork is to identify the artist. Otherwise, it's far more likely that it's the result of a natural process - after all, there are a lot more natural things going on than there are artists. And, again, the ID folks refuse to look at it from this angle, because they are already convinced that the alleged artist it is the god of their religious beliefs - and this is something that they cannot possible prove, or even justify..

Quote:
The ID proponents would first need to drop their insistance that the scientific community accept a supernatural premise.


That's the problem; by it's very nature, ID requires supernaturalism.

Don't confuse it for a legitimate scientific hypothesis - it isn't. Science, such as things are, is perfectly well-equiped to identify signs of intelligence, and there are plenty of people (legitimate scientists and such) who work on this.

The only reason that "ID" exists as a separate incarnation is that religious believers want to push their beliefs back into mainstream society, and they cannot do that without at least the appearance of scientific validity.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just to be perfectly clear here, in my opinion: Intelligent Design is not science AS DEFINED BY THE "ID" COMMUNITY. It is an attempt to dress up creationism as a scientific hypothesis.

That's just to make it clear that I am in no way defending the ideas of Intelligent Design. I'm not sure exton or joeyjock are clear on that: I am not defending the claims of Intelligent Design.

What I am saying is that science does not and can not know everything about reality. Since that is a truism, study of things/ideas/concepts must be done. What I am defending is the process of scientific investigation, which if left true to its form, does not discount a hypothesis out of hand or ignore a serious attempt at inquiry because they do not like the source of that inquiry.

exton wrote:
fellfire wrote:

But, maybe a mathematical means of measuring 'design' might come out of the study?


It can't, because that's not what the ID folks are trying to do.


Dembski is a mathematician, as such it is possible that something could be salvageable from his work. I don't think it will be anything close to what he wants it to be: proof of a Godly creator; but since it is not necessary that his work be completely useless then, logically, it is possible that his work could have some use.

exton wrote:
Quote:
The ID proponents would first need to drop their insistance that the scientific community accept a supernatural premise.


That's the problem; by it's very nature, ID requires supernaturalism.

Don't confuse it for a legitimate scientific hypothesis - it isn't. Science, such as things are, is perfectly well-equiped to identify signs of intelligence, and there are plenty of people (legitimate scientists and such) who work on this.

The only reason that "ID" exists as a separate incarnation is that religious believers want to push their beliefs back into mainstream society, and they cannot do that without at least the appearance of scientific validity.


Don't worry, I am not confused in the least. I know what the current proposals are from the ID proponents and I know all about their "wedge strategy" and the political motivations behind their work. However, Michael Behe and David Snoke published a paper in the peer reviewed journal Protein Science which is great for them for trying. The article was highly criticized for not demonstrating the conclusions they reached, but that's the way scientific inquiry works.

Again, what I am not doing is telling them they are not allowed to heard simply because I don't like what they are saying.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:

Dembski is a mathematician, as such it is possible that something could be salvageable from his work....since it is not necessary that his work be completely useless then, logically, it is possible that his work could have some use.


I'd grant that it's possible in the same way that it's possible for a unicorn to pop into existence on its own.

It's really always a given that anything is possible (unless we know everything, which we don't). I don't see that as being a particularly practical qualification for anything - it doesn't lend any merit whatsoever to dembski or his "work". His work is *still* hand-waving and bullshit; it just so happens that it's not strictly impossible for bullshit to, somehow, some way, find a use.

Quote:
Again, what I am not doing is telling them they are not allowed to heard simply because I don't like what they are saying.


I don't think that that's even worth mentioning, for two reasons. One, you don't actually have the power to silence anyone, so it doesn't really matter whether or not you think they should be allowed to be heard.

Two, saying that someone's ideas are total bullshit, a waste of time, and an insult to real science is *not* the same as saying that people are not allowed to discuss or promote those ideas. It's not really even related; telling someone that they're full of shit does not qualify as an attempt to silence them.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Quote:
Again, what I am not doing is telling them they are not allowed to heard simply because I don't like what they are saying.


I don't think that that's even worth mentioning, for two reasons. One, you don't actually have the power to silence anyone, so it doesn't really matter whether or not you think they should be allowed to be heard.

Two, saying that someone's ideas are total bullshit, a waste of time, and an insult to real science is *not* the same as saying that people are not allowed to discuss or promote those ideas. It's not really even related; telling someone that they're full of shit does not qualify as an attempt to silence them.


Actually, it's worth mentioning because the "scientific community" does have the capacity to silence a study - by a priori discounting the idea and preventing publication. We in the scientific community rely on publication in respected sources and peer-review of those publications to promote and expand scientific ideas. If publications refuse to allow a study into the peer review process (which may or may not lead to publication), then they effectively silence that study for the scientific community.

That is what I am "mentioning" - the argument that the scientific community can stifle scientific endeavors is not implossible. After all, scientific study is a human endeavor and all human endeavors are rife with human prejudice and bias.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are NO Scientific endeavors to silence...
Intelligent Design is NOT Science
Nothing has been provided to offer a scintilla of evidence...nothing
when the "ID" community Can get something that is worthy of investigation then we'll look at it
...until then it lipstick on Creationism's ear...
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
joeyjock wrote:
There are NO Scientific endeavors to silence...
Intelligent Design is NOT Science
Nothing has been provided to offer a scintilla of evidence...nothing
when the "ID" community Can get something that is worthy of investigation then we'll look at it
...until then it lipstick on Creationism's ear...


The logic of modalities has its derivation through philosophers and scientist from ontological arguments "proving" the existance of God. The ontological arguments for God are still argued in philosophical circles, but from the "study of the the existance of God" science has gained the development of modal logic.

Yes, the Intelligent Design hypothesis has no basis in reality and, IMO, is utterly false. But, the study of anything - even of unicorns popping into existence - could lead to lines of thought and reasoning that ultimately extend our knowledge.

Now, if someone finds value in studying the problem of unicorns popping into existence willy-nilly, hey, more power to them. I mean other people find value in studying the possiblity that life on this planet poofed into existence by an Intelligent Designer.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think what we are arguing here is the process of Scientific investigation rather than if Creationism is true science or not...

Yes ... you can investigate if fairies truly exist or not
but the first step in your investigative analysis will have to include a basis for further investigation in the form of some concrete evidence
..you can't say "well I feel that fairies exist because the woodlands are too complex for them not to be there"

The reason the Scientific community will not listen to the ID people is for this aspect alone
If they came up with something that looked interesting and could lead to further study...by all means -- have at it
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 4 of 10

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites