Intelligent Design is not creationism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Teleologist, Nov 4, 2006.

  1. We agree that hard science should stay within the realm and boundaries of science, but part of those rules includes the recognition that the conclusions are the consequence of ignorance beyond the boudaries of science.

    I have never opposed teaching facts, why would I? My opposition comes when theory with no way to falsify the theory is presented as fact....

    By the way, science has done nothing to improve the inner quality of life, as evidence America being the most scientific and materialistic country on earth, yet has the some of the greatest use of alcohol, drugs, failed marriages, etc. per capita...

    Science does not deal with contentment and/or purpose/meaning in life, as it does not produce contentment and/or purpose/meaning in life....

     
    #41     Nov 7, 2006
  2. drtomaso

    drtomaso

    The problem is the boundaries of what science is able to explain is where ID has been able to prey upon peoples belief in the validity of science. ID is not scientific. It claims to be, but the conclusion it reaches lies outside the view of the science. It uses the language of science to garner support from a populace that is mostly scientifcally illiterate.

    You're confusing 'theory' and 'fact'. Facts are observations about the natural world. Just as a simple lay example, the DNA similarities between chimps and humans is a fact. Evolution is a theory- theories tie together and attempt to explain facts. Its very easy to refute a theory- come up with a predition that the theory makes, and test it out. If the prediction doesnt hold- you have a bad theory.
    The fact that evolution has survived 150+ years of ardent criticism and has arisen as the dominant scientific theory on the development of life on Earth is because as a theory, it readily explains all of the facts and has great explanatory power. More over, its useful!

    It itself is not a fact however. To supplant the theory of evolution, one must develop a theory that better explains the facts. So far many have tried, and failed, but as a result, the theory of evolution has evolved (pun intended) way beyond Darwin's limited understanding.

    Similarly, the 'theory of gravity' is a theory that has arisen to the fore of scientific knowledge because it best describes observable facts about how masses interact. It itself is not a fact. No one talks about scientific 'laws' anymore- probably because too many turned out to need revision ;)

    Science is itself a process of creating new observations (or reproducing old ones), developing theories that explain the facts, and submitting those theories to tests that either confirm, deny or revise the theory.

    I really dont understand your logic. If you measure the 'religiousness' of a country as the percentage of the population that goes to organized worship, then the US is one of the most theistic nations on earth. Does that explain the alcoholism, infant mortality rate, failed marriages, etc? I dont think so either, but dont try to pin that on science either.

    We suck at somethings because our priorities are out of whack- not because science hasnt improved the standard of living enough. Infant mortality is my favorite pet peeve- theres no reason for the US to be down so far in the roster as it is- science has this one licked, we as a nation just choose not to utilize it because we prefer lower taxes to forking over the cost of healthcare.
     
    #42     Nov 7, 2006
  3. I addressed the ad infinitum argument back on page 4.


    Define creationism.


    The debate is over what causes evolution.


    I'm waiting for your definition of creationism. It will be interesting to see who you don't think is a creationist.
     
    #43     Nov 7, 2006
  4. stu

    stu

    It's not true to say most ID 'ers don't argue for a Designer (creator), especially in regards to planet earth. Most certainly do.
    More reasonable I would suggest might be to say teleologists do not necessarily argue that way. But then why would a teleologist argue for Intelligent Design rather than just Design??
    Design that does not necessitate intelligence would still be design. So at best your position appears to be based on a misdirection by use of the teleologist argument made from the standpoint of ID.
    Over the course of time NO empirical data to confirm ID has been produced. It's all guesswork. Conjecture only by using faulty principles:

    • a cat has fur
      (Mt Rushmore has intelligent design)

      a cat is an animal
      (Mt Rushmore is an entity)

      all animals have fur
      (all entities have intelligent design.)

    If you haven't yet seen a fish a bird or a reptile, 'all animals have fur' at first glance, may sound a reasonable probability based upon that common sense you mentioned in an earlier post.
    On closer examination it is found only certain parts of the animal kingdom have fur and all animals do not need fur to come into existence or to exist.

    On closer examination it is found certain parts of earth have been intelligently designed (eg:houses/birds nests/spider webs/ Mt Rushmore/ ET Forum (p b u Baron) etc).
    But like animals do not need fur to exist, the earth (or the universe) does not need intelligent design to either exist or come into existence.
    It won't work. ID IS creationism . It calls for -intelligence antecedent with design- in order for creation to take place.
    Design defined as the result of intelligent "creation" is altogether the creationists' ID argument .
    But design does not require intelligence. It can occur just from ordinary processes acting and reacting.

    Drop the I from ID and your point would appear valid in as far as the teleology argument for mechanical biological processes moving toward self-realization is concerned. Personally I quite like the sound of that.
    Whether such realization is an intention before the design comes about (designer) or occurs by ordinary evolution, well, the empirical data supports the latter and there is NO empirical data for the former.

    Design it seems can come about without intelligence. However, it is recognized to be design, when intelligence has evolved to consider it design.
     
    #44     Nov 8, 2006
  5. jem

    jem

    What do you mean no empirical data STU we just had a debate on this.

    The data according to major physicists - not just the one who founded string theory suggests that we are designed or we are part of multiverse that must have an almost infinite amount of parallel universes.

    I cite you to our recently completed thread.
     
    #45     Nov 8, 2006
  6. jem take the time to listen to this. it is by a catholic scientist. he very carefully goes over all of the design arguments behe makes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
     
    #46     Nov 8, 2006
  7. Now stu arguing for ignorant chance design.

    Cracks me up....

    Too funny...



     
    #47     Nov 8, 2006
  8. stu

    stu

    Hi JEM :D
    thanks for the citation :p

    Now then. Why did you ask me this question and not Teleologist , who first mentioned empirical data to which I only then referred to.?

    Nevertheless, what I mean and what I suggest most people would generally mean by empirical, would be the overwhelming support for a proposition or hypothesis by means of verifiable and provable repeated experimentation using the scientific method to be substantiated in practical experience.

    There is no empirical data anywhere from major physicists or anyone else which supports "we are designed".

    Unless you mean design in the way which ordinary processes appear when observed to an evolved intelligence (ie: us humans .. (excludes Trolls thereforeZZzz by definition )), by the process of evolution (It's called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"), then otherwise there is no such empirical data.

    Teleologist has stated she/he wants to focus on ID earth not ID universe. So concentrate will you!! :)
     
    #48     Nov 8, 2006
  9. The problem is the boundaries of what science is able to explain is where ID has been able to prey upon peoples belief in the validity of science. ID is not scientific.

    Real ID is scientific, which is why there are some scientists who embrace it as a theory worthy of investigation.

    It claims to be, but the conclusion it reaches lies outside the view of the science.

    No, the theory doesn't claim to be scientific, no theory does.

    Scientists claim a theory is scientific or not.

    It uses the language of science to garner support from a populace that is mostly scientifcally illiterate.

    If it was illiterate, scientists could not understand it sufficiently to take issue with it.

    You're confusing 'theory' and 'fact'. Facts are observations about the natural world. Just as a simple lay example, the DNA similarities between chimps and humans is a fact. Evolution is a theory- theories tie together and attempt to explain facts. Its very easy to refute a theory- come up with a predition that the theory makes, and test it out. If the prediction doesnt hold- you have a bad theory.

    Predict exactly when and where we will see a mutation.

    As long as we are at it, give the formula for what exactly a mutation is, why it happens, and what causes it.


    The fact that evolution has survived 150+ years of ardent criticism and has arisen as the dominant scientific theory on the development of life on Earth is because as a theory, it readily explains all of the facts and has great explanatory power.

    History shows other dominant theories that have since been discarded...


    It itself is not a fact however.

    Indeed...it is a product of the mind of man, not a fact independent of the mind of man...

    To supplant the theory of evolution, one must develop a theory that better explains the facts.

    No need to supplant the theory of evolution to show the weakness of it.

    See, unlike real science, hard science like physics, evolution hinges on this "thingy" called random mutation.

    Yet there is no formula for this random mutation, no direct known cause, no way to measure or quantify it, just some mysterious "force" or process of mutation.

    Could be God causing the "mutations" for all we know, which would blow the theory of random selection right out of the water.

    Basing an entire philosophy on such an unprovable theory such as "random mutation" from an unknown and unknowable process is just plain faith, and becomes a dogma when it is preached by the Darwinists and neo-Darwinists.

    Building a foundation of science on the basis of ignorance, ignorance of what the so called "random mutations" is hardly scientific.

    So far many have tried, and failed, but as a result, the theory of evolution has evolved (pun intended) way beyond Darwin's limited understanding.

    The perception of Darwin's theory has changed, but has it evolved?

    I would say not at all...

    Similarly, the 'theory of gravity' is a theory that has arisen to the fore of scientific knowledge because it best describes observable facts about how masses interact. It itself is not a fact. No one talks about scientific 'laws' anymore- probably because too many turned out to need revision ;)

    Just show me how to predict evolution to the same precision as we can predict gravity, and I will listen...

    Science is itself a process of creating new observations (or reproducing old ones), developing theories that explain the facts, and submitting those theories to tests that either confirm, deny or revise the theory.

    Theories that explain things are as old as man, but just because a theory appeals to the mind of man doesn't make it a correct theory...

    I really dont understand your logic. If you measure the 'religiousness' of a country as the percentage of the population that goes to organized worship, then the US is one of the most theistic nations on earth.

    You and I measure religiousness differently. The US gives lip service to religion, but the US is the most materialistic country on earth. Not spiritualistic, but materialistic.

    Does that explain the alcoholism, infant mortality rate, failed marriages, etc? I dont think so either, but dont try to pin that on science either.

    I talked about contentment, and how science does not produce contentment, nor inner happiness, nor peace of mind. Clearly on the whole Americans have more material luxury than anyone else, but that is not bringing peace of mind, nor contentment...

    We suck at somethings because our priorities are out of whack- not because science hasnt improved the standard of living enough. Infant mortality is my favorite pet peeve- theres no reason for the US to be down so far in the roster as it is- science has this one licked, we as a nation just choose not to utilize it because we prefer lower taxes to forking over the cost of healthcare.

    You prove my point. Science does not improve the quality of the inner life, because the realm of science is the outer physical existence, not the inner nature of man.

    Go back thousands of years ago, and you still see human being struggle with the same 7 deadly sins, nothing that science has done about this at all...
     
    #49     Nov 8, 2006


  10. This is all covered in the video i posted. genetics researchers have pinpointed the mutation that relates to our ancestory with chimps.

    http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html

    Evidence that human chromosome #2 resulted from the fusion of two formerly distinct chromosomes has been found. See "Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry".

    "The first prediction (evidence of a telomere at the fusion point) is shown to be true in reference 3 ... The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented in reference 4." [Teleomeres are the end regions of chromosomes and what is an end region doing in the middle of human chromosome #2? Moreover, what is it doing there in reverse order? (See the article.) Centromeres are the tight knots in the middle regions of chromosomes. If two distinct chromosomes each with their own centromere were fused together, you would find remnants of those centromeres in the fused result, both above and below the new centromere, as you do in the case of chromosome #2 in human beings.
     
    #50     Nov 8, 2006