Posted by: Ezekiel
Slapp!
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Slapp! - 20/12/2005 17:40
Best part of the story, the judge who wrote the majority opinion is a GWB appointee. His cerebral implant must have been on the fritz.
I'll take it, though. This ruling, and the leadership shown by Arlen Specter this year, make me proud to be a PA resident.
I'll take it, though. This ruling, and the leadership shown by Arlen Specter this year, make me proud to be a PA resident.
Posted by: Robotic
Re: Slapp! - 20/12/2005 17:51
Quote:
HARRISBURG, PA., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances "a particular version of Christianity."
Beautiful. (bold is mine)
You want to teach ID in schools? Fine- teach it in a religion survey class, not biology.
Not beautiful. (while we're in PA-land)
Posted by: Ezekiel
Re: Slapp! - 20/12/2005 18:12
Quote:
"I can't lock up his guns. They belong to him, and he has a right to use them whenever he wants to use them."
Yes, you can! He's ELEVEN.
What an extraordinary example of lack of any good judgement.
-Zeke
Posted by: ManDownUnder
Re: Slapp! - 21/12/2005 19:25
Quote:
Yeah-uh!
Judge strikes down ID in PA.
I'm glad to see reason prevail for once.
Flame suit on.
-Zeke
This news made it down in little ol' Ne Zealand too. I love it (and think the judge did the right thing). For me the core of the question was "Is ID actually creationism using different words".
A resounding yes to that one. It is (of course) up to the good people of the US to decide whether religion could/would/should be taught in schools...
MDU
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 21/12/2005 20:30
I don't think that there's any restriction now in teaching the history of religion, or even comparative religion in school. Of course, I don't know of any schools that have such a class. But, regardless, it should be in a liberal arts class, not a science class.
Posted by: Gallagher419
Re: Slapp! - 21/12/2005 21:41
Quote:Quote:
"I can't lock up his guns. They belong to him, and he has a right to use them whenever he wants to use them."
Yes, you can! He's ELEVEN.
What an extraordinary example of lack of any good judgement.
-Zeke
Well the air up there in the hills is a little thin and his mother and father are most likely brother andn sister!
Edit: fixed broken tag
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Slapp! - 21/12/2005 23:44
I just want to know how something can exist without being created. So if the Big Bang created the Earth, then what created the Big Bang? That is all I want to know, and then I´ll be ok with it being taught as science.
Something can not be made of nothing according to science. Energy can not be destroyed or created; it can only be transferred. So where did the energy come from? Exploring the Big Bang and similar theories is science, but it's not proven fact, and teaching as such only comes off as brainwashing, telling children that what their mommy & daddy taught them isn´t true.
The government shouldn´t trump a parent´s authority. I´m not saying children should be indoctrinated with creationism in public school, but they also shouldn´t be indoctrinated with something that goes against their family´s core beliefs.
Something can not be made of nothing according to science. Energy can not be destroyed or created; it can only be transferred. So where did the energy come from? Exploring the Big Bang and similar theories is science, but it's not proven fact, and teaching as such only comes off as brainwashing, telling children that what their mommy & daddy taught them isn´t true.
The government shouldn´t trump a parent´s authority. I´m not saying children should be indoctrinated with creationism in public school, but they also shouldn´t be indoctrinated with something that goes against their family´s core beliefs.
Posted by: mlord
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 00:31
Quote:
I just want to know how something can exist without being created.
That's a human concept. Some things just *are*. Like the world, or like God, depending on which camp you subscribe to.
Cheers
Posted by: Robotic
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 01:29
Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***
Ah.
Posted by: hybrid8
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 02:30
In the matter of PUBLIC school, you're damn straight the government should trump a parent's authority!
Creationism has no place in any science class in any school with an ounce of self-respect. Otherwise why settle on Christian beliefs when $cientology is so much more profitable? Chemistry, biology and physics should all have a heavy dose of Thetans and a clearing or two.
I went to a Roman Catholic high school. Science class was "Science" - no creationism, no "God." The only place religion factored as curriculum was in Theology class - and each year the focus was quite different. One year was devoted to World Religions and covered Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity (a number of derivatives), Judaism and a few others including Islam. It was interesting. That class was mandatory each year. I can see offering some type of World Religions class in a public school as an elective the same way I can see a Political Science class.
Next thing you know you'll start hear about people trying to get Moses, Abraham and Noah into the history classes.
Bruno
Creationism has no place in any science class in any school with an ounce of self-respect. Otherwise why settle on Christian beliefs when $cientology is so much more profitable? Chemistry, biology and physics should all have a heavy dose of Thetans and a clearing or two.
I went to a Roman Catholic high school. Science class was "Science" - no creationism, no "God." The only place religion factored as curriculum was in Theology class - and each year the focus was quite different. One year was devoted to World Religions and covered Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity (a number of derivatives), Judaism and a few others including Islam. It was interesting. That class was mandatory each year. I can see offering some type of World Religions class in a public school as an elective the same way I can see a Political Science class.
Next thing you know you'll start hear about people trying to get Moses, Abraham and Noah into the history classes.
Bruno
Posted by: RobotCaleb
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 04:20
Quote:Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***
Ah.
It is just as effective and a lot less dickish if you don't announce it. No need to be provocative, especially if you can't read any retorts. I'd rather not wade through something you might stir up in your... whatever it is that compelled you to post that.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 04:39
Unfortunately, responses to blocked posts are not themselves blocked.
Posted by: rob
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 08:29
Quote:
I just want to know how something can exist without being created.
Yes, we'd all like to know that. The only honest answer that anyone on this planet can give you right now is "we don't know". Trying to answer a question of this magnitude with fairy stories is an insult to the intellectual development of our species. We need to understand that it's OK to say we don't understand something, because that's the first step on the path to understanding.
Unfortunately it may be that from our perspective we can never unravel the mystery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, with every last theory subjected to proper scrutiny.
Quote:
I´m not saying children should be indoctrinated with creationism in public school, but they also shouldn´t be indoctrinated with something that goes against their family´s core beliefs.
..and because of this attitude I fear it will take dozens of generations for our species to overcome this hurdle in our emotional development. Somewhere the cycle has to be broken.
Rob
Posted by: Roger
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 10:53
Quote:
Something can not be made of nothing according to science.
Only according to classical science. At the quantum level crazy shit can and does happen. Particles can spontaneously appear and disappear.
Posted by: petteri
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 11:37
Quote:
Only according to classical science. At the quantum level crazy shit can and does happen. Particles can spontaneously appear and disappear.
That is going to keeping me chuckling all day!
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 13:23
Quote:The idea behind ID is saying that a study of science leads us to the reasonable conclusion that something or someone intelligent initiated creation. This is really a rather modest claim, really, seeking to make some headway in the question of our origins without providing a definitive solution. The notion is that you look at all the factors regarding our existence using sciences such as physics, biology, astronomy etc. then the evidence appears overwhelmingly to suggested a well ordered and thought out creation, and therefore an intelligent designer. From a pure science point of view, this seems to be a reasonable exercise if applied correctly- what conclusions can we draw from our observations about the universe around us? Of course, to have this discussion with integrity you'd have to look at both options- is there evidence of order in our existence due to an intentional creation or because it occurred and therefore appears ordered? This application of science seems very appropriate to me if it extends no farther than that which, as conceived, ID was not supposed to do.Quote:
I just want to know how something can exist without being created.
Yes, we'd all like to know that. The only honest answer that anyone on this planet can give you right now is "we don't know".
Unfortunately, it seems that there are too many ideologies wrapped up in the issue for it not to grow beyond such discussions. Even though evolution squarely fits in with the idea of ID as defined above (the intelligent designer could set up evolution in the blueprint for our existence), immediately when ID is discussed it becomes ID vs. evolution- certainly helped by those offering ID as an "alternate theory".
However it was proposed, it seems that ID has become simply another wrapping of Creationism, and certainly that will be struck down in public schools. That's a little disappointing, because once again I think looking at the scientific evidence for order in our existence and then discussing our conclusions could be very useful and scientific.
Quote:And the original idea behind ID was not to answer the question with fairy stories- only to discuss the conclusions we have based on the evidence. The old analogy is that if you see a working clock then you assume someone designed said clock and that it did not spontaneously occur. The thing is, you cannot draw many conclusions beyond the simple existence of the clock maker. Was it a man, woman, or maybe even a machine? Was it a moral person or a mass murderer? There is no evidence from the created thing to suggest any of this- only that the maker exists. The only question ID really asks is whether or not our existence and the world around us equate to the clock. If we feel that it does, then the existence (at some point) of a creator logically follows, though we’d know nothing more about him/her/it other than that. Certainly this logic would fall very short of validating Creation as presented in the Bible.
Trying to answer a question of this magnitude with fairy stories is an insult to the intellectual development of our species.
Quote:That being said, it is reasonable to look at our scientific evidence, draw conclusions, and then discuss those conclusions. In fact, it is even reasonable to apply scientific evidence to non-scientific hypotheses. But the moment your start using non-scientific evidence then you've moved beyond science. Not to say that your hypothesis isn't true, but your evidence must be scientific to be considered science.
We need to understand that it's OK to say we don't understand something, because that's the first step on the path to understanding.
Quote:And in ID we have a reasonable theory, I think. I've read a lot of the evidence for ID and it seems very compelling. Unfortunately, often both the arguments for or against ID end up devolving into a debate about evolution or religion vs. science- at this point I just have to throw up my hands and start ignoring the subject, which I think is unfortunate.
Unfortunately it may be that from our perspective we can never unravel the mystery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, with every last theory subjected to proper scrutiny.
I think ID as originally proposed is compelling and would like to here more about what science really says about the hypothesis removed from ideologies. Unfortunately, there are very few people discussing it that way- until there are more it is not something we can reasonably address in a classroom.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 13:25
Quote:
I just want to know how something can exist without being created. So if the Big Bang created the Earth, then what created the Big Bang? That is all I want to know, and then I´ll be ok with it being taught as science.
Science doesn't need to answer every lingering question in a given discipline to teach that discipline. The Big Bang is taught as theory, because, although there is scientific evidence which supports it, there isn't enough to say conclusively that it happened. That doesn't mean it ought not be discussed, it just shouldn't be taught as fact (which it isn't.)
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has *no* scientific evidence supporting it. ID arguments always take the form of "evolution can't explain X, so X must be the result of a higher power." That is a leap in logic and a leap of faith, two things that science doesn't allow.
To your specific "where did the Big Bang come from" question, science is happy to leave it at "we don't know, but we'll keep looking." That keeps debate open, experiments active, and ultimately leads to a better understanding of our world. Simply filling in all blanks in our understanding with "God made it" leads to complacency, because the question is already answered, with no scientific evidence to back it up. See also, alchemy.
Quote:
Exploring the Big Bang and similar theories is science, but it's not proven fact, and teaching as such only comes off as brainwashing, telling children that what their mommy & daddy taught them isn´t true.
Your assertion that the Big Bang is taught as fact isn't how I was taught, nor does it appear in any science textbook I've ever read. This is how social conservatives keep their cause alive, by making up pretend assaults on their beliefs. It's similar to how jihadist muslims create fear and hatred of the West. Without the reactionary forces of the religious right pushing the idea that secular liberals are trying to take their Jesus away from them, the ID debate would have never even gotten this far.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 13:38
Quote:This is not an ID argument, even if people make it. Proper ID arguments take the form of "we observe x through science which implies a specific design, and therefore a designer."
ID arguments always take the form of "evolution can't explain X, so X must be the result of a higher power."
Regarding the Big Bang- the Big Bang actually implies a specific point in time for Creation and even aligns somewhat with Creation as presented in the Bible (Let there be light, etc.). There are many Creationists who believe the Bing Bang theory is true (and of course, many who don't).
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 13:39
Quote:
The old analogy is that if you see a working clock then you assume someone designed said clock and that it did not spontaneously occur. The thing is, you cannot draw many conclusions beyond the simple existence of the clock maker. Was it a man, woman, or maybe even a machine? Was it a moral person or a mass murderer? There is no evidence from the created thing to suggest any of this- only that the maker exists.
Bzzzt. The flaw in your logic is that we know man makes clocks (we have evidence of that) but we don't know that anything made man, or even that anything made anything which led to man. Science always starts with a question (who made the clock, or the Universe) and it's fine to come up with alternate hypotheses to test. But unless you have means to test them, to turn those hypotheses into theories and eventually into scientific fact, the ID hypothesis deserves as much time as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Science classes aren't concerned with the teaching of every theory that's remotely possible (such as the clock spontaneously materializing, or being put there by aliens.) Science classes are for teaching theories that have at least a modicum of evidence, a metric that Intelligent Design falls short on.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 13:49
Quote:
we observe x through science which implies a specific design
Observing X, Y, or Z through science doesn't imply anything. Observation is a vehicle for scientific discovery, yes, but observation itself doesn't imply. Implications are made by people, usually on the basis of experimentation and logic. You can have a theory with only logic, but you cannot have a scientific theory worthy of teaching in a science classroom without experimentation and evidence. Simply looking around at other sciences and making inferences about the origin of man isn't science at all.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 13:50
Quote:I don't think this is quite accurate. By that I mean that social conservatives do not "make up pretend assults", but rather they truly believe that the world has some agenda against their rightous cause, so any point of contention is truly perceived as an assult to them. I think this is unfortunate because it ruins credibility and devalues the real discussions that ought to be taking place.
This is how social conservatives keep their cause alive, by making up pretend assaults on their beliefs.
I only bring this up because it seems both "sides" accuse each other of assulting and then write off anything said rather than trying to truly understand the other perspective.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 13:55
Quote:
they truly believe that the world has some agenda against their rightous cause,
If so, their delusional paranoia undermines their cause.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 14:12
Quote:Ok, well you left out my next line:Quote:
The old analogy is that if you see a working clock then you assume someone designed said clock and that it did not spontaneously occur. The thing is, you cannot draw many conclusions beyond the simple existence of the clock maker. Was it a man, woman, or maybe even a machine? Was it a moral person or a mass murderer? There is no evidence from the created thing to suggest any of this- only that the maker exists.
Bzzzt. The flaw in your logic is that we know man makes clocks (we have evidence of that) but we don't know that anything made man, or even that anything made anything which led to man.
Quote:I mention this because you make it sound as if I'm an ID proponent ("The flaw in YOUR logic"), which I'm not. I just haven't really heard the issue truly disccussed in the terms it was origionaly presented. Your argument about the knowledge that man makes clocks is a good answer to this latter statement, though I don't really think definitive. I'd like to hear more disccusion.
The only question ID really asks is whether or not our existence and the world around us equate to the clock.
Quote:Not all scientific observations are testable. We have no way to test the Big Bang theory, yet it is still in the realm of science, though it is certainly not presented as fact. We have made observations about the universe and created a theory that fits what science is telling us, a reasonable and scientific approach.
Science always starts with a question (who made the clock, or the Universe) and it's fine to come up with alternate hypotheses to test. But unless you have means to test them, to turn those hypotheses into theories and eventually into scientific fact,
Quote:I don't think this is true. Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life. There are many other scientific observations that align with the premise of ID, something missing for the FSM. Have you looked at the scientific backing for ID? It's certainly there- the question is whether it means what ID proponents say it means.
the ID hypothesis deserves as much time as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Science classes aren't concerned with the teaching of every theory that's remotely possible (such as the clock spontaneously materializing, or being put there by aliens.) Science classes are for teaching theories that have at least a modicum of evidence, a metric that Intelligent Design falls short on.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 14:16
Quote:Yes, delusional parania undermines many causes.
If so, their delusional paranoia undermines their cause.
Posted by: peter
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 14:17
Quote:Quote:
Exploring the Big Bang and similar theories is science, but it's not proven fact, and teaching as such only comes off as brainwashing, telling children that what their mommy & daddy taught them isn´t true.
Your assertion that the Big Bang is taught as fact isn't how I was taught, nor does it appear in any science textbook I've ever read.
That's probably true for the Big Bang, but not for other, better-attested conclusions of science. As a better example of Billy's [edit: not Jeff's] point, the children of some fundamentalists get told at home that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, and became extinct only at the time of Noah and his flood. These same children then get told at school, as plain fact, that dinosaurs and humans never lived at the same time, not by millions of years.
To anyone paranoid or insecure enough to perceive such education as "an assault on their faith" -- well, yes, such assaults are widespread in the US (I'm guessing -- if Calvin and Hobbes are anything to go by, palaeontology is a big thing for US children) and nothing short of ubiquitous in the UK. In a way, a school hasn't done its job unless the children of young-earthers, like the children of flat-earthers before them, go home with the conclusion that what their mummy and daddy told them isn't true. But it's nothing personal, not a specifically anti-Christian agenda: I'd expect the education system to clear up all such misconceptions irrespective of origin. (Watch East Is East for a good film about the conflict between strict religious parenting and modern secular public education.)
Peter
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 14:24
Quote:For the record, not MY point- he was responding to Billy's statement. My contributions to this thread have been isolated to questions about the merits of ID theory as origionally concieved.
As a better example of Jeff's point, the children of some fundamentalists get told at home that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, and became extinct only at the time of Noah and his flood.
Posted by: peter
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 14:29
Quote:
For the record, not MY point- he was responding to Billy's statement.
Oops, sorry.
Peter
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 14:34
Quote:Heh, no problem. It is a thorny issue for me, where what is taught in a public schools and religions collide. I don't like it, but I don't see any easy answers either.
Oops, sorry.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 14:42
Quote:
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life.
Based on the context of the way you made this statement, I'm taking it that this is one of the arguments in favor of ID?
It's funny, because this very concept is one of the ideas that, when I was very young, gave me the epiphany as to precisely how we could have evolved without a creator. The exact opposite of the intent of the argument.
I've mentioned this before on the BBS, but I'll repeat it for the sake of this thread. The idea goes like this:
- In order for us to have evolved, we'd have to be astronomically lucky, in terms of location, timing, and chemistry.
- Shouldn't this make us assume we were deliberately created?
- No. It simply means that the 'verse is a big place.
- Anyplace else, and we wouldn't have evolved the way we did.
- Because of the location, we evolved brains that allow us to sit here and contemplate our own existence.
Here's the other way of looking at it: The man holding the winning lottery ticket would be a fool to throw away the ticket because he thinks he couldn't have won by chance or because he thought the game was rigged.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 14:44
Quote:
Ok, well you left out my next line:
Quote:I mention this because you make it sound as if I'm an ID proponent ("The flaw in YOUR logic"), which I'm not.
The only question ID really asks is whether or not our existence and the world around us equate to the clock.
Sorry about not quoting your whole statement, but I was going after that specific notion about the clock, regardless of whether it's one you support. "The flaw in your logic" meant the flaw in the logic that you brought to the table in this disussion. I'm arguing against ID here (well, against the teaching of it in science classes, more precisely) and if you are not an ID proponent, you're certainly "playing one on TV" for the purposes of our discussion. I'm happy to debate this with you, with the understanding that you're not squarely in the ID camp.
Quote:
Your argument about the knowledge that man makes clocks is a good answer to this latter statement, though I don't really think definitive. I'd like to hear more disccusion.
It's definitive that man makes clocks. We have evidence in the form of clockmakers, clock factories, etc. It's not definitive that anything made a specific clock, but in the presence of millions of clocks we know were made by man (we saw it happen) it's unlikely that any clock we see just materialized.
It is, however, not definitive, nor supported by any science, that anything created man.
QED.
Quote:
Not all scientific observations are testable.
Not all scientific *theories* are testable. Observations need not be tested all, because they're observations, things we see. "Did you see the bacteria in the petri dish die faster than it did with the placebo? Yes? Good, the antibiotic works." Observations are themselves part of the testing of hypotheses, not something to be tested.
Quote:
We have no way to test the Big Bang theory
We most certainly do. Those are scientific observations that support the theory. They do not constitute proof, but they constitute more evidence than the ID theory has (that being zero) so the Big Bang gets discussed in science class, and ID does not.
Quote:
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life.
Show your work, please. With so many galaxies and planets we haven't been to and cannot observe, all we know is that we're on one of the most ideal planets we can observe. How does that support ID?
As for the laws of physics part, I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but would be happy to read your source, assuming a layman like myself can make sense of it.
Quote:
Have you looked at the scientific backing for ID? It's certainly there- the question is whether it means what ID proponents say it means.
I have read summaries of several ID papers (none in their entirety,) but you're going to have to explain the term "scientific backing" to me for me to answer your question. Scientific backing, to me, means evidence, and I've seen nothing that comes close to evidence to support ID. Everything I've read from Dembski and other ID proponents has zero scientific evidence. Show me scientific evidence in any ID material, and I'll be happy to read it.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 15:10
Quote:
It's funny, because this very concept is one of the ideas that, when I was very young, gave me the epiphany as to precisely how we could have evolved without a creator.
Right, that is the other way of looking at the evidence (which I briefly addressed in my first post). What I'm interested in is how to determine the difference between the two.
In fact, I believe I remember an example on the Skeptics Dictionary site talking about a shuffle of cards. The argument was that when you get dealt an extraordinary hand (say a royal flush in poker) that you do not assume that the game is rigged- in fact you know for certain that this improbability is a possibility because you saw it happen. This is analogous to your theory about how we could have ended up in the ideal location for our existence. We know the ideal poker hand can happen because it has happened, and with enough shuffles it’s going to happen at some point.
I find this example particularly interesting because I played a lot of spades in college. One time I managed to rig a deck so that another player got dealt every single spade in the deck. I just wanted to see his reaction, and he immediately laughed and turned over his cards. He hadn’t seen me rig the deck, and being dealt all of the spades is as probable as any other hand you can be dealt. However, he knew (as would you are I) immediately that the game was rigged.
So how do we know whether our “game is rigged”? If we could evaluate the number of shuffles- i.e. were there a number of opportunities for life to evolve and it just needed to find the right set of variables- then I think we’d have a good idea. But just saying that the universe is big, or even infinite, doesn’t convince me that life was waiting for an opportunity to evolve. Certain elements necessary to life as we know it are dependent on variables that are the same everywhere in the universe.
Ah, so how about “Life as we know it?”
Douglass Adams, who was an atheist I trust you know, made the analogy of a puddle of water contemplating its existence. It would assume because of the way the ground around it was perfectly suited to its shape then there must be a creator, rather than attributing its own shape and size to the ground around it. It’s a good argument, however not conclusive. There are plenty of other examples that can be made where an object’s surroundings were created with the object in mind by an intelligent designer- say microphone in a form fitting case- obviously it was created by a designer with purpose and intent- the case was created based on the microphone’s need to be protected, which is the reason it fits so well.
In both cases of the microphone and the puddle, scientific observation can tell us whether specific design was involved. The question is whether science can tell us that about our own existence (either way).
Posted by: Roger
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 15:12
Quote:
Not all scientific *theories* are testable.
I'd go further than that. It isn't a scientific theory unless it is testable. If it's not testable, it's just hearsay and hypothesis.
This is one of the foundations of the scientific method. A theory must (as I understand it):
- explain current observations
- be verifiable
- make a testable prediction of something that's not been observed yet (otherwise it could have been tailored to fit what we already know).
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 15:27
Quote:Just to clarify, I believe in an Intelligent Designer (obviously), but I'm not certain whether scientific observations can lead to the reasonable conslusion of one as ID claims. That claim is what I would like to see discussed rather than the Creation vs. Evolution bit that always gets dregged up.
if you are not an ID proponent, you're certainly "playing one on TV" for the purposes of our discussion. I'm happy to debate this with you, with the understanding that you're not squarely in the ID camp.
Quote:Ok, good clarification of terminology. The idea behind ID, though, is that scientific observations support the existense of an Intelligent Designer.
Observations need not be tested all, because they're observations, things we see. "Did you see the bacteria in the petri dish die faster than it did with the placebo? Yes? Good, the antibiotic works." Observations are themselves part of the testing of hypotheses, not something to be tested.
Quote:This being the point of interest. The observations that I've heard have been very convincing, though also offered in a vacume without a chance to hear from non-ID.
more evidence than the ID theory has (that being zero)
Quote:Hah, nice jab.
assuming a layman like myself can make sense of it.
I think you've probably got a better handle on science than I do.Quote:If I get a chance I'll try to re-locate some of the sources talking about the scientific evidences that support an Intelligent Designer. Truth be told, I've gotten rather tired of the discussion because of how it's been twisted into something else for ideological reasons, but as I stated in my first post, I'm actually interested in hearing real discussion on the topic.
I have read summaries of several ID papers (none in their entirety,) but you're going to have to explain the term "scientific backing" to me for me to answer your question. Scientific backing, to me, means evidence, and I've seen nothing that comes close to evidence to support ID. Everything I've read from Dembski and other ID proponents has zero scientific evidence. Show me scientific evidence in any ID material, and I'll be happy to read it.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 15:30
Quote:Does the Big Bang theory meet these requirements? We cannot verify that it happened, though our observations (see the link above) indicate it is a reasonable conclusion. We also cannot make a testable predicition of the Big Bang, since it was a non repeatable one time occurance.
- explain current observations
- be verifiable
- make a testable prediction of something that's not been observed yet (otherwise it could have been tailored to fit what we already know).
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 15:36
Quote:
We also cannot make a testable predicition of the Big Bang, since it was a non repeatable one time occurance.
There are actually a whole lot of testable predictions that can be measured with things like radio telescopes. Stuff like background radiation. Astronomers and astrophysicists are constantly reporting about the results of those kinds of tests.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 15:44
Quote:Right, and a lot of that info is in Tony's link to wikipedia. I guess I'm just trying to nail down the definition of what we mean by "testable". However, all of this is good insite into what would be required for ID theory to qualify as science. If we decide the evidence is strong that there is an Intelligent Designer, what tests would we be able to run, what would we expect to find upon further investigation, to support the theory?
There are actually a whole lot of testable predictions that can be measured with things like radio telescopes. Stuff like background radiation. Astronomers and astrophysicists are constantly reporting about the results of those kinds of tests.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 16:00
Quote:
If we decide the evidence is strong that there is an Intelligent Designer, what tests would we be able to run, what would we expect to find upon further investigation, to support the theory?
Yup, that's the crux of the question.
Your post about the rigged card game is an interesting one. We could, following that idea, get a sample of the number of "shuffles" (planets in the universe), and if we knew all the variables that determine whether a planet supports life, and had a large enough observation window (number of eons), we might be able to compare the actual number of life-evolving planets with the predicted number based on the variables.
The only problem is, as difficult as that experiment would be, even THAT doesn't count as a testable theory for ID, because if the prediction were different from the result, it doesn't automatically point to a creator. It might, for example, point to an incorrect assumption about one of the variables.
How do you test whether the game was rigged in the case of the card shark dealer? You try to observe him shuffling. Perhaps watch him with a high-speed camera. How do we apply that analogy to testing the ID hypothesis? How can we check, scientifically, whether God is keeping the Ace on the top?
Posted by: bbowman
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 16:29
Quote:
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life
I have issue with this idea being evidence for ID because we don't know any other places where the laws of physics are don't apply. If course the laws of physics are suited for life, we exist because of them. Since our type of life is a derivative of them, we cannot help but to express how they work for us.
It is almost akin to the chicken/egg dilemna. Do we say this just becasue we are its evidence? Could there be other environments that are even more suitable for life that for some reason didn't produce life?
Also, when we look at our existance, we see it as orderly and assume that it required a designer. But, of course it looks orderly - becasue it is from what we're derived. It is the only reality that we know so by nature we will see it as organized.
It seems that ID is just trying to place a personality on much of what we've found through science. Perhaps people feel more comfortable making animals and objects appear like people - like we do in cartoons - to make them easier to accept.
With science, we observe and make theories that are supported by the observations. Just because the observations look more intricate/organized than we could have thought them up or designed them to be, doesn't mean that someone else did.
Could god exist without a designer? The god concept sure seems pretty intricate to me. How about something with such power that it could create a god - that must have a designer as well. The pattern seems logical, but it becomes a big mess that has no evidence from it's very root - and therefore becomes a waste of time.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 17:10
It's like pushing against air. If you say one thing, there's always the God cop out: "well, God made it that way". The debate is pointless. There is no evidence that can be presented that can possibly convince an ID person because all evidence was conjured by God in the first place.
I keep trying to come up with something more to say, and there just isn't anything else. There is absolutely no way you can disprove that the universe was created by an extra-universal being because he could conceivably manipulate any possible thing in our reality.
And if that's true, why bother studying science at all? It's liable to change at any second.
I keep trying to come up with something more to say, and there just isn't anything else. There is absolutely no way you can disprove that the universe was created by an extra-universal being because he could conceivably manipulate any possible thing in our reality.
And if that's true, why bother studying science at all? It's liable to change at any second.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 17:43
Quote:But see, the moment ID proponents resort to that reasoning, they've lost the debate. The whole point is that they claim they can provide scientific support that God made it that way. It's one thing for "God made it that way" to be your hypothesis- it's another to use it as evidence.
If you say one thing, there's always the God cop out: "well, God made it that way".
Of course, losing the debate doesn't mean that God doesn't exist; only that they've been able to prove so scientifically.
I believe that God exists- but not on the basis of ID theory.
Quote:If said extra-universal being is not constantly manipulating our reality then science has a very real use. And since we've been able to study science and make sense of it over the years it appears to be a reliable discipline, etra-universal being or no.
There is absolutely no way you can disprove that the universe was created by an extra-universal being because he could conceivably manipulate any possible thing in our reality.
And if that's true, why bother studying science at all? It's liable to change at any second.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 18:14
Okay, if the point of ID is to embrace and extend science with the addition of God, let's see where that takes us. If that's the case, then they must have some respect for science in the first place. So let's say that there's a specific case of ID interference -- the bombardier beetle, to choose an example. The ID proponent would say that the BB can exist only because God manipulated it to exist. We would assume that since they're saying that God enhances science, that would lead us to more scientific revelation. But it does not. It completely short-circuits science. It does not provide any testable theory and exists only to compete with a more plausible approach that can be tested.
At its base, it still subverts science with magic.
On the other hand, if all it says is that God must have had a hand in science and that science it still completely valid, then that's religion. It has no bearing of any sort on the scientific process.
So it's either magic, and, as such, unassailable, or irrelevant to the scientific process, and, as such, philosophy or religion. And there's no inbetween; it either subverts science or it does not. It doesn't make any difference how little it happens or how long ago it happened. Any speck of magic throws off the whole shooting match.
It seems to me that it's the modern equivalent of "Here Be Monsters".
At its base, it still subverts science with magic.
On the other hand, if all it says is that God must have had a hand in science and that science it still completely valid, then that's religion. It has no bearing of any sort on the scientific process.
So it's either magic, and, as such, unassailable, or irrelevant to the scientific process, and, as such, philosophy or religion. And there's no inbetween; it either subverts science or it does not. It doesn't make any difference how little it happens or how long ago it happened. Any speck of magic throws off the whole shooting match.
It seems to me that it's the modern equivalent of "Here Be Monsters".
Posted by: JBjorgen
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 18:23
Quote:
the ID proponent would say that the BB can exist only because God manipulated it to exist. We would assume that since they're saying that God enhances science, that would lead us to more scientific revelation.
Just because He created the BB doesn't mean that he's actively manipulating it. He created the universe with order and laws. To understand more of my God, I seek to understand more and more science and the order and laws He created. I just do so without a bias toward evolution.
Quote:
Any speck of magic throws off the whole shooting match.
Not if the universe was spoken into existence with the laws of science in place. As long God is not actively manipulating and changing said laws, we can study and measure and quantify to our hearts content.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 18:29
Quote:
Not if the universe was spoken into existence with the laws of science in place.
True, but that's not magic as far as we know. That lies well in the realm of "things we have no knowledge of". And if it's the case, which I'm perfectly willing to admit it might be (I don't personally believe so, but it's as valid as any other explanation, of which there is not one) it's again irrelevant to science. Science studies our reality, not attempt to explain how that reality came to be.
In particular, if that's the case, then it's not at odds with the concept of evolution. Evolution seems to obey the laws of nature and explain our reality reasonably well. There are certainly gaps in it, but there are gaps in Newtonian physics, too. That doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it incomplete.
I suppose it's possible in the future that science might have the facility to enter that arena, but that just means, again, that "God" is the new "Here Be Monsters".
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 18:32
Quote:ID does not claim that God enhances science, but rather the other way around. The idea is that science can be used to provide evidence to the existence of God.
We would assume that since they're saying that God enhances science
And if they're right and there is reasonable scientific evidence that God exists, that doesn't necessarily subvert science. It is well within ID that God set things up in the beginning and the stepped away. Christiantiy might teach differently, but ID encompases both a view of God who intervenes and one who does not.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 18:34
Quote:
It is well within ID that God set things up in the beginning and the stepped away.
Not to rehash, but then how does that put it at odds with current scientific ideas, evolution in particular?
My point is that the people pushing it, and it's their notion that we're complaining about, obviously do not follow that particular train of thought. I have no problem with that viewpoint, but, again, it doesn't belong in the science classroom any more than Shakespeare does.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 18:39
Quote:Evolution is not at odds with ID, which is the point I think everyone keeps missing, on both sides. Individual proponents may not agree with evolution, but the belief that God set up evolution and created humans that way falls within ID.
In particular, if that's the case, then it's not at odds with the concept of evolution.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 18:51
Quote:I doesn't. Only the idea ID is at odds with is that we came to exist without God, which evolution itself does not claim.
Not to rehash, but then how does that put it at odds with current scientific ideas, evolution in particular?
Dembski's definition of ID is "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence." So it's not as much about proving evolution false as it is proving that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for our existence. And since it uses science, and science alone, to get there, that is why they argue it belongs in a science classroom.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 18:53
I don't miss that point, but the vocal proponents seem to not believe that. And those are the people we have a problem with.
I can abide by a scientific discussion of the failings of evolution, and they do exist, but the current vocal proponents seem to have no such interest. They specifically want to undermine evolution, or so it would seem.
I can abide by a scientific discussion of the failings of evolution, and they do exist, but the current vocal proponents seem to have no such interest. They specifically want to undermine evolution, or so it would seem.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 18:55
No, it uses science to show how amazing certain creatures are, then takes a leap of faith and says "since I don't understand it, it must be the work of God". It takes a lot of hubris to assume that since one cannot comprehend something that it must be the result of divine interference.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 19:06
Quote:Yes, and this is my frustration with the subject. If ID proponents say that evidence for God exists through science, then it'd be really cool to see this exhange of ideas delt with scientifically bewteen those on eithre side rather than trying to attack/defend evolution. If that were to take place and non-ID were able to say "we don't agree with the conclusions drawn, but the science used is solid", then it'd be worth talking about putting it into schools where students can learn what various scientists say about the subject and how science applies to it. It'd be no different than many of the other theories over which scientists disagree. Right now, though, we aren't seeing those discussions, mainly because everyone sees it as Creationists taking a new approach because they can't get pure Creationism taught in schools.
I don't miss that point, but the vocal proponents seem to not believe that. And those are the people we have a problem with.
I can abide by a scientific discussion of the failings of evolution, and they do exist, but the current vocal proponents seem to have no such interest. They specifically want to undermine evolution, or so it would seem.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 19:13
All right. Let's backtrack.
Is the currently proposed ID nothing but creationism in sheep's clothing?
Is the currently proposed ID nothing but creationism in sheep's clothing?
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 19:17
Quote:As stated, no. In practice, seems to be. Or at least everyone views it that way. I don't think Dembski and the other major proponents view it as creationism, but likely a lot of parents pushing for it in schools do.
Is the currently proposed ID nothing but creationism in sheep's clothing?
I actually don't hear much about ID at my church- only creationism. My understanding of ID was gained by listening to Dembski and others talk on the radio and reading articles.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 20:16
Quote:
I can abide by a scientific discussion of the failings of evolution, and they do exist,
Just want to take a moment to point out: our current theories of biological evolution could (hypothetically) be suddenly and disastrously proven false, and that would still not be a proof of ID. Knocking one theory down doesn't automatically prove a competing theory. Science isn't a boxing match.
We need some sort of evidence other than "it's too complex for us to understand". A statement like that just makes scientists want to do more work to learn the bits we don't understand yet. In order to actually do serious science with ID as a theory, we need something specific. Something we can test and try to falsify. How EXACTLY do we check to see if God's keeping the ace on top?
Surely, if the ID people are seriously doing SCIENCE, they've got something testable and falsifiable to offer up. In all the discussions of ID, I have yet to see an example of one simple testable hypothesis. Admittedly, I haven't read the "Pandas" book. Does it contain anything like that? I'd be interested in knowing.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 22:56
Quote:
It completely short-circuits science. It does not provide any testable theory and exists only to compete with a more plausible approach that can be tested.
At its base, it still subverts science with magic.
No, you can still study how a clock works, eventhough it was made by the almighty Clockmaker.
I think the Big Bang is the Big Cop-out. "There was a huge explosion a long time ago, and now we exist". That only explains an observation. It doesn't explain why. God explains why.
I know that I was born out of my mother, and I know that I'm a living human being, and I know how my body works, how my life is sustained by the air I breathe in. And I know that all because of science. But I still don't why I perceive, or understand, or love. I know why animals eat, sleep, and reproduce, and I know why men seek power and women. All these things are observable by me and I can explain them because I've seen it before; I've observed it before, and I can even graph trends on a chart and develop theories. But still, I don't why I'm here.
Have you heard of sensory deprivation? It's a brutal form of torture, especially if executed to the fullest extent. All fives senses are taken from a person; they cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or feel. They can only think, and they go insane when left alone with their own thoughts. They cannot observe anything, and thus science becomes non-existant, yet they still have their thoughts. They're left alone to question why, how, and what they are. Our observations of the outside world, and thus science, act as only a narcotic to keep this internal insanity from consuming us. But it's there. It's there because deep down in your soul you want to know why. And I don't think that question will be aswered by finding a fossilized imprint of a monkey or a tint of red light in a damned telescope. You won't see God with your eyes, or with a telescope. Only within your own soul.
Posted by: tman
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 23:18
Quote:
I think the Big Bang is the Big Cop-out. "There was a huge explosion a long time ago, and now we exist". That only explains an observation. It doesn't explain why. God explains why.
How does saying god explains why not a big cop out as well?
[edit]Terrible grammar[/edit]
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Slapp! - 22/12/2005 23:24
Quote:
How does saying god explains why isn't a big cop out as well?
Like I said, you can only find the answer to why within yourself, not because someone said God pointed his magic finger, or because a scientist said a giant explosion occured. And that's why people believe in God. Not because it makes logical scientific sense, but because it makes sense within their own soul.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Slapp! - 23/12/2005 00:06
Quote:
Not because it makes logical scientific sense, but because it makes sense within their own soul.
Yup. Exactly.
That is why it needs to be taught in a classroom other than a science classroom.
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Slapp! - 24/12/2005 01:48
Quote:
Your argument about the knowledge that man makes clocks is a good answer to this latter statement, though I don't really think definitive. I'd like to hear more disccusion.
Well, I suppose when you find a couple of human-designed clocks having sex, mingling their designs, and creating a baby clock that's similar, but not identical to the parent clocks, then I suppose you might actually have a reasonable parallel for the process of evolution.
Quote:
Have you looked at the scientific backing for ID? It's certainly there- the question is whether it means what ID proponents say it means.
All of the scientific backing I've seen for ID has been able to stand on its own about as well as a two-legged milking stool. Further, I read the entire ruling by the judge on this case. According to that ruling, the scientific backing for ID is, well, to but it bluntly, non-existant -- in fact, the judge ruled that ID is not science. Here's a great quote:
Professor Behe [the ID folk's expert witness] remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, [...] ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition. (page 28 of the pdf)
The 'reference' book at the center of this case, Of Pandas and People, is, I think, a fairly frequently cited book regarding the 'science' of ID. According to the evidence in the case, the earlier edits of the text used Creationism. In later edits, all instances of Creationism were replaced with ID (see page 32 of the above pdf).
If there is actually scientific evidence for ID, then where is it? Why have there been no peer reviewed papers? Not a single scientific organization willing to lend it any credence? (Also see the pdf, but I don't have a page number handy.)
Really, read the ruling -- the ID proponents and expert witnesses come out looking like absolute idiots.
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Slapp! - 24/12/2005 01:53
Quote:
Admittedly, I haven't read the "Pandas" book. Does it contain anything like that? I'd be interested in knowing.
According to the ruling (see my previous post), it doesn't. In fact, ID is basically a 'moving goalposts' problem. Science doesn't explain X, so therefore, X is proof of ID. Meanwhile, science explains X, but it still doesn't explain Y, so therefore, Y is proof of ID. Half of what's in Pandas is outdated -- science has already proven wrong the arguments contained in Pandas, so the ID folks are moving the goalposts.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Slapp! - 24/12/2005 02:33
Quote:
in fact, the judge ruled that ID is not science.
And the irony of all this is that science isn't something that can even be ruled upon by a judge or jury. Scientific theories stand on their own evidence and require no judgement, merely the results of reproducible observations and experiments.
Of course, a judge can rule whether a given textbook is taught in a state-run school, and that's what this was all about.
That's probably the biggest potential long-term damage that this case could have, making people think that science itself can be unilaterally judged or voted upon. That's a dangerous road.
Posted by: tanstaafl.
Re: Slapp! - 24/12/2005 04:25
Big Bang actually implies a specific point in time
Ummm.... no. Not really.
Because of limitations in the way we (human beings) perceive things, we have ingrained in us this concept of time as an immutable, linear process, a progression of "then to now to future".
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. Not energy, not matter, not space, not time.
So what started this whole clockwork universe we live in? We don't know. Perhaps we never will know. But that lack of knowledge does not prove that "God did it".
tanstaafl.
Ummm.... no. Not really.
Because of limitations in the way we (human beings) perceive things, we have ingrained in us this concept of time as an immutable, linear process, a progression of "then to now to future".
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. Not energy, not matter, not space, not time.
So what started this whole clockwork universe we live in? We don't know. Perhaps we never will know. But that lack of knowledge does not prove that "God did it".
tanstaafl.
Posted by: tanstaafl.
Re: Slapp! - 24/12/2005 04:50
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy
Science tells us no such thing.
You might be able to make a case for claiming that the process of evolution has tailored us to be ideal for the environment in which we live.
We are defined by our surroundings, not the other way around.
tanstaafl.
Science tells us no such thing.
You might be able to make a case for claiming that the process of evolution has tailored us to be ideal for the environment in which we live.
We are defined by our surroundings, not the other way around.
tanstaafl.
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Slapp! - 24/12/2005 19:06
Quote:
Not if the universe was spoken into existence with the laws of science in place. As long God is not actively manipulating and changing said laws, we can study and measure and quantify to our hearts content.
To expand on your point....
I am on the invitation-only BBB (Big Blue Bunny) mail list and I got an email about 15 minutes ago which I have to believe you will find illuminating.
The gist of it is this: The Universe as we know it came into existence yesterday (Friday December 23rd 2005 in our calendar) at around 14:00 hours Zulu time. I was just leaving Starbucks, IIRC. BBB explains in the email that "our" universe was -- how can I put this? -- untarred from an archive of one of his previous works, the Universe "Edslen". BBB apparently ran some sed/awk scripts on the archive to fix up "global worming". While the results of his earlier effort were amusing, BBB really hated what David Lynch did with it, thus the Universe as we know it today.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Slapp! - 24/12/2005 19:29
Quote:
to fix up "global worming".
(...)
BBB really hated what David Lynch did with it...
OUCH.
Mommy, make the bad man stop.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Slapp! - 25/12/2005 00:16
Quote:
This is one of the foundations of the scientific method. A theory must (as I understand it):
- explain current observations
- be verifiable
- make a testable prediction of something that's not been observed yet (otherwise it could have been tailored to fit what we already know).
I have no patience to wait until I read the rest of the thread before I nitpickingly correct this:
not verifiable, but falsifiable: something that cannot be 'shot down' by a piece of observation is not a scientific theory.
When I am posting already, let me add: ID defitively fails this test. Whatever we observe, it can be attributed to Creator. If ID proponents specified exactly what their thinly disguised Christian God did, without changing it to fit advances in science, than perhaps we could talk.
Even Jeff's concept of ID (which, I think, reflects more his honesty, intelectual and otherwise, than the sad reality of actual ID agenda) is untestable, therefore unfalsifiable, therefore outside of realm of science. As I said a number of times, many scientists engage in entertaining speculation about possibility that our Universe (or even the infinite Multiverse (set of universes) postulated in many different hypoteses) was created, but that interesting pastime does not pretend to be science.
What is missing from both the classic 'watch argument' and Jeff's with game of cards is that neither man of watch materialized all of a sudden out of thin air; we know mechanisms both came to being.
And for the ideal planet: ask Inuit, Berbers of Katrina victims how ideal it is...
Edit: Heh, as I thought, everything I said was said by others....
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Slapp! - 25/12/2005 01:10
Quote:
If ID proponents say that evidence for God exists through science, then it'd be really cool to see this exhange of ideas delt with scientifically bewteen those on eithre side rather than trying to attack/defend evolution.
I very much doubt ID proponents share your enthusiasm for real scientific debate
You give them way too much credit.I strongly agree with Bitt's and others' observation that all ID is saying is "I don't understand it, therefore it is a result of intelligent design and/or intervention". How long will the lack of understanding of a particular phenomenon persist?
Consider astronomy: before 15th century planets moved in complicate, intricate system of epicycles, obviosly a work of God. Kopernik (Copernicus) untangled them into circles, and 15th century 'ID-ers' burned Giordano Bruno at stake for supporting that untangling, but soon accepted it in the form of 'celestial spheres', as more precisely described by Kepler (who offered accurate kinematics, but not dynamics of planets' motion); then Newton described their dynamics in a single equation barely ten characters long, introducing gravity; Einstein offered explanation of gravity, one we are still trying to reconcile with our knowledge of sub-atomic world; the jury is still out on that one.
For caveman with freshly acquired capacity for wondering everything was clearly a work of god(s)/spirit(s)/...
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Slapp! - 25/12/2005 01:19
Quote:
And that's why people believe in God. Not because it makes logical scientific sense, but because it makes sense within their own soul.
Exactly, Billy. I took a look into mine (mind, since I don't feel I have soul), and He is not there; but that is irrelevant for this thread. Nobody here is trying to disprove God; merely to get those forcing it upon the world off our backs. Actually, the very fact that non-existence of God is not provable makes the strongest (and fatal) argument against ID.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 27/12/2005 12:59
Quote:At least in some part I think it does. It is hard for me to imagine any life that can survive being on a planet that gets obliterated, which happens a lot more often in other areas on the galaxy. This, at least, is not being tailored to our environment but rather is either lucky or divinely purposed.
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy
Science tells us no such thing.
Quote:I don't think you can make this case over ID, and unless I see more evidence from ID people, I don't think they can make it over your perspective. This goes back to the puddle of water vs. microphone case analogy earlier. I just don't know how we can know whether we are sutied to our environment or vice versa.
You might be able to make a case for claiming that the process of evolution has tailored us to be ideal for the environment in which we live.
To the thread in general: I spent a little time googeling for answers to the "how do you test ID" and came up short. I also found that a lot more of the big ID thinkers seem to be targeting evolution directly than when I was origionally informed and educated about the claims of ID (by some of these same thinkers).
I have to agree (for the moment) with the assessment that most of the ID arguments come down to "we can't explain it so it implies a designer", which I also agree falls short of science and therefore does not meet the standard of being taught in a classroom.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Slapp! - 27/12/2005 16:19
Quote:
a planet that gets obliterated, which happens a lot more often in other areas on the galaxy
Maybe I missed something, but we've only just very recently, like within the last five years, started finding planets surrounding other stars, and even then, in most cases, it's just inference from stars wobbling, implying a planet circling them, or a momentary dimness of a star for which the existence of a planet seems an apt explanation. I'm not sure we've ever gotten a picture of another planet, but I want to say we have and it was little more than a dot.
What evidence is there of other planets being "obliterated".
Even if you look at other planets not being able to support humans, there are a number of different species on this planet that cannot survive in the same environments, from needing an oxygen-rich atmosphere (mammals, birds, reptiles, etc.), to needing an oxygen-rich body of water (fish, molluscs), to needing a carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere or body of water (plants, algaes), to needing hydrogen-sulfide-rich bodies of water (green sulfur bacteria, alvinellids). Other "extremophiles" exist as well.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Slapp! - 27/12/2005 16:40
Sorry, I didn't mean to say planets ARE getting obliterated- rather that there denser areas where any planets that exist would be in great peril. Ours is in a much less volatile portion of the galaxy. I do have the book I read this one in, so I can look up the references when I get home (if I can find the book).
My point is that not all things claimed about our unique situation can be ascribed to adaptating to the environment.
My point is that not all things claimed about our unique situation can be ascribed to adaptating to the environment.
Posted by: frog51
Re: Slapp! - 28/12/2005 16:09
But there are also areas which are even more stable. If you look at the odd areas life is found in on the Earth, it is clear that something will fit any niche. Our niche is almost ideal from our point of view because we have evolved to fit it. This indicates nothing special...in my atheist opinion - we have seen the smallest fraction of our galaxy, let alone the universe, so what can we say about life elsewhere, other than the likelihood of some type of life filling a niche is high because we are here and space is big...very very big.
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Slapp! - 06/01/2006 02:06
Sorry to take so long with a reply... vacation.
Did you read the ruling? This is why the judge ruled ID to be 'not science'. He didn't rule it 'not science' based on the validity of the theory itself -- he ruled it 'not science' because there was absolutely no evidence shown during the trial that it met the standard definition of science (let alone the one you propose above). In fact, it was said that the definition of science itself would have to be changed before ID could be considered science.
Yes, but to do that, the judge has to apply several tests as set out by legal precedent, one of which is to determine the secular value of what's being argued about. Read the judgement -- it's very, very thorough it its reasoning. Calling ID 'not science' is only a part of the basis for the ruling.
It's a dangerous road, but it's not a road that can be started upon based on this ruling -- in fact, that road is the one that the ID proponents took in the first place, which the judge admonished them for.
Quote:Quote:
in fact, the judge ruled that ID is not science.
And the irony of all this is that science isn't something that can even be ruled upon by a judge or jury. Scientific theories stand on their own evidence and require no judgement, merely the results of reproducible observations and experiments.
Did you read the ruling? This is why the judge ruled ID to be 'not science'. He didn't rule it 'not science' based on the validity of the theory itself -- he ruled it 'not science' because there was absolutely no evidence shown during the trial that it met the standard definition of science (let alone the one you propose above). In fact, it was said that the definition of science itself would have to be changed before ID could be considered science.
Quote:
Of course, a judge can rule whether a given textbook is taught in a state-run school, and that's what this was all about.
Yes, but to do that, the judge has to apply several tests as set out by legal precedent, one of which is to determine the secular value of what's being argued about. Read the judgement -- it's very, very thorough it its reasoning. Calling ID 'not science' is only a part of the basis for the ruling.
Quote:
That's probably the biggest potential long-term damage that this case could have, making people think that science itself can be unilaterally judged or voted upon. That's a dangerous road.
It's a dangerous road, but it's not a road that can be started upon based on this ruling -- in fact, that road is the one that the ID proponents took in the first place, which the judge admonished them for.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver
Re: Slapp! - 06/01/2006 10:42
I appolgize for not reading through all of the posts. I've come to this thread late intentionally for various reasons. But I did want to say that what really saddens me about this whole mess is that I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I believe in God and I believe in evolution. The two can even support one another.
Posted by: mlord
Re: Slapp! - 06/01/2006 20:21
Quote:
I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I believe in God and I believe in evolution.
Me too (on the latter point). Nothing mutual exclusive about them.
Except that Evolution should not be taught in a class about Religious Studies, and nor should Religion be taught in a class about Science. That's all this mess is about.
Both can be taught.
Cheers
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Slapp! - 07/01/2006 01:12
The pope (well... the previous pope, anyway) and I both agree.