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
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually, just to make a historiographical point since you raised it, ID and related ideologies have NOT been "shut down" throughout history. They have existed in a variety of ways and were not challenged rigorously until the Enlightenment era. People in the Middle Ages and before (and even well into the Renaissance) would not have known the difference between "science" and "pseudo-science." That was only crystalized in the 17th and 18th centuries when scientific fields like astronomy and chemistry distanced themselves from their prior counterparts of astrology and alchemy.

It's perfectly fine to make a very strong claim like "nothing will ever come from [insert here]." Again, astrology and alchemy are good examples. A long time ago, these various disciplines could not be meaningfully distinguished, but now they can. We know that alchemy can, at this point in time, offer nothing for scientific knowledge. ID is much the same.

"Science can never know everything, that is the nature of Science."

Ok but this is a philosophical position, and not everyone may agree with it, including me. I identify as a scientific realist and believe that science can, in fact, come to know everything that relates to the ontological state of the Universe (how it came to be, how it works, and so on).


Last edited by CryxicKiller on Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


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

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
"Science can never know everything, that is the nature of Science."

Ok but this is a philosophical position, and not everyone may agree with it, including me. I identify as a scientific realist and believe that science can, in fact, come to know everything that relates to the ontological state of the Universe (how it came to be, how it works, and so on).


We agree that we both have philosophical positions on this.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The next step is to move beyond just saying "this is my position" and explain why you think you are correct. I've already done that; there are several parts of my replies to which you have not responded.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


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

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
The next step is to move beyond just saying "this is my position" and explain why you think you are correct. I've already done that; there are several parts of my replies to which you have not responded.


You stated: "I identify as a scientific realist and believe that science can, in fact, come to know everything that relates to the ontological state of the Universe (how it came to be, how it works, and so on)."

What is there to reply too? You believe this as much as I believe that science will always be asking a question, thus it will never know everything.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What happens when there are no more questions to be asked?
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
What happens when there are no more questions to be asked?


Why?
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
What is there to reply too? You believe this as much as I believe that science will always be asking a question, thus it will never know everything.


That's not all I stated. There is much that you did not respond to, not that I care too much anyway. I also believe that science will always be asking questions, but these mostly involve questions within the larger frameworks that should, hopefully, be ontologically correct. Even after the laws of physics are fully discovered and accounted for, humans will still be innovative and come up with new stuff. Heck, we still use Newtonian mechanics, established centuries ago and technically wrong, to send space probes to other planets.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


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

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is the nature of Scientific examination....once one question is answered there becomes a whole set of new ones to take its place
ie: the Watson-Cricke DNA model
look what that opened up in regard to a new set of questioning
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
Lester wrote:
What happens when there are no more questions to be asked?


Why?


Wouldn't they then know everything?
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


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

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
fellfire wrote:
What is there to reply too? You believe this as much as I believe that science will always be asking a question, thus it will never know everything.


That's not all I stated. There is much that you did not respond to, not that I care too much anyway. I also believe that science will always be asking questions, but these mostly involve questions within the larger frameworks that should, hopefully, be ontologically correct. Even after the laws of physics are fully discovered and accounted for, humans will still be innovative and come up with new stuff. Heck, we still use Newtonian mechanics, established centuries ago and technically wrong, to send space probes to other planets.


I still did not see much that needed responding to, you stated a number of things regarding views and facts about ID, and it's irrationality, that I am not particularly concerned with. I am not defending ID in anyway, I am defending the idea that science must not be closed-minded out of bias or bigotry. Science should be objective. I have the feeling that we agree on this despite shades of differences.

Even here (regarding the scale of scientific knowledge), we differ by shades. I believe that science will never know everything, you feel they will but will still be asking questions within the framework of the omniscience (I know this is paraphrasing, please forgive). I only see a slight difference in our opinions.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


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

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
fellfire wrote:
Lester wrote:
What happens when there are no more questions to be asked?


Why?


Wouldn't they then know everything?


Why?
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well there was the whole bit about you claiming that ID movements had been "shut down" in the past. This ties in to your claims that studying ID could lead to "new lines of thinking." I can't imagine that given that ID has been studied exhaustively for centuries and millennia already. In fact, design arguments are generally horrible and often commit logical fallacies. It took it a long time, but philosophy finally recognized that.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
Lester wrote:
fellfire wrote:
Lester wrote:
What happens when there are no more questions to be asked?


Why?


Wouldn't they then know everything?


Why?


Because they would have examined all possible thought processes to their eventual ends.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


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

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
Well there was the whole bit about you claiming that ID movements had been "shut down" in the past. This ties in to your claims that studying ID could lead to "new lines of thinking." I can't imagine that given that ID has been studied exhaustively for centuries and millennia already. In fact, design arguments are generally horrible and often commit logical fallacies. It took it a long time, but philosophy finally recognized that.


Well, see, here you are reading things into my posts. I stated ...

fellfire wrote:
ID has been shot down as psuedo-science, in some fashion or another, throughout the ages. Fine, it is shot down, but when you hear people claiming "nothing will ever come from the study of <insert topic>", I immediately get skeptical of the speaker.


... in response to you stating ...

CryxicKiller wrote:

The point is that intelligent design is a subject that has already been studied, and studied thoroughly too. The vast majority of ID propositions coming out now have been made, in one way or another, by people living centuries and even millennia ago. And where they haven't, it is because ID simply "borrowed" evolutionary explanations to sugercoat its suppositions.


I am agreeing with you. ID has been studied in various forms over and over, ie "it has been shot down" by science.

Just so you know and it is plain and clear:

I DO NOT BELIEVE INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. I THINK IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO MASQUERADE RELIGION AS SCIENCE.

Is that clear enough now?

New lines of thinking, I believe can come from all sorts of activity ... yes, even religion (see Modal Logic). Dembski's attempt at a mathematical model to identify "Design", although unworkable and useless for the purposes he attempts to use it for, bases itself on older work but attempts to take a new look.

I am not opposed to the line of study that attempts to find a mathematical principle for identifying "design", science should not be opposed to it either.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mathematical principles are usually both derived or inspired from something in the nomological world or from the human imagination's dabbling in something arcane. ID and design arguments have been rejected as nomologically (and logically) unsound, so they shouldn't be able to offer anything relevant for mathematics....but this seems like a side issue. The point is that they won't be able to offer any "new lines of thinking" for science, or not any worthy ones anyway. Technically speaking, ID has offered some "new lines of thinking," but it's bad thinking.
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 6 of 10

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites