Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 59 of 289 (592167)
11-19-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
11-19-2010 2:14 AM


Do not forget that ID started with a high school text - even though ID does not have a real theory even now.
I respectfully disagree. ID started much earlier, possibly with Phillip E. Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial (oh frak! amazon.com only has a newer edition, but I know that that book was out by 1981, because it was named in a Nova episode that included Johnson circa 1981/1982).
However, everything else in your post was spot-on-the-mark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2010 2:14 AM PaulK has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 60 of 289 (592171)
11-19-2010 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by bluescat48
11-18-2010 11:45 PM


Re: Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design
NO the hypothesis comes first. That is what one is trying to evaluate to find if the evidence supports it, that is a trial solution to the premise.
Actually that is not technically correct or logical. A hypothesis is a process by which you formulate an idea based on a mehtod of common sense, ie, simple observation initially
the methods are not actually something you set and ponder, you simply employ your God given gift of reason and one method flows into another
It would be silly to assume that IDers use some strange method different to the SM or any other thinking person
Ours is a scientific method, but most that are afraid of religious influence and references try and circumvent such an easily demonstratable fact.
It amazes me that some judge or judges actually bought that argument and aprroach. Wow.
The right gunslinger, clearly was not present
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by bluescat48, posted 11-18-2010 11:45 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 11-19-2010 9:50 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 11-19-2010 12:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 61 of 289 (592174)
11-19-2010 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tanypteryx
11-18-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design
As others have pointed out presuppositions and the Scientific Method are not synonyms.
Neither are the IDMs. Your free to demonstrate a difference in approaches if you wish
My simple contention for this thread is that there are no differences and both are science
people have been duped, especially and surprisingly law makers, that the ID methology is religion or supernatural
Now watch this. By the very nature of the case it is neither. It is me or a scientist evaluating physical properties. What or how could that approach have anything to do with religion
Its only secular fundamentalist evos that try and slip the conclusion of design in, in place of the approach the IDer uses, which serves as a smokescreen for a simple minded Judge to mistake one for the other
One is a conclusion and the other is a method and that distinction is never made in those instances
It would take me ten minutes to reverse his decision
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-18-2010 9:02 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2010 10:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 86 by Taq, posted 11-19-2010 12:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 62 of 289 (592179)
11-19-2010 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by dwise1
11-19-2010 2:05 AM


Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
Now after persistently avoiding the question of ID's methodology or even whether one even exists, Dawn claims that it does indeed exist. And that it is identical to the scientific method! Fine! Great! So then finally please tell us, Dawn, just how is the scientific method supposed to deal with supernaturalistic hypotheses? That is, after all, what ID wants to force science to do (not through scientific channels, but rather by appealing to the general public which is largely scientifically illiterate. So just how is that supposed to happen?
Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design?
Your failure here is one of a logical fallacy. You assume but have not demonstrated that IDMs are religious in nature, then you run with a false premise, believing you have started correctly
Please demonstrate HOW if I employ all the basics that that is supernatural, religious or different from your method
I have now set out several times what our method involves, yet had anyone to show why it is not science or how you employ something we dont
Dont confuse you conclusions with your methods
Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design
The methodology is the same one you use to come to conclusions, the likes of which, where the direct evidence is not now available
What is your methodology for determining that a thing is a result of design or simply a product of soley a natural process?
when the smoke clears and the dust settles, all that is is left is the SM of approach, the exact same one any thinking person uses on either side of the fence
If I am wrong here is your chance to demonstrate why I am wrong
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2010 2:05 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2010 3:34 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 67 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-19-2010 3:37 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 87 by Taq, posted 11-19-2010 12:14 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 91 by Blue Jay, posted 11-19-2010 12:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 4105 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 63 of 289 (592183)
11-19-2010 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 2:23 AM


Re: Question everything
Please demonstrate why my observations of nature, my experiments, my evaluations and my predictions of what nature will reveal, are not science
You ca measure, evaluate and predict all you want. But as Ken Ham states,
But notice something about the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism: they are anti-biblical assumptions. The bible indicated that the universe was created supernaturally by God (Genesis 1:1) and that present rates are not always indicitive of past rates.
So measure all you want, and evaluate all you want. I don't see how, by this very statement alone, can you use any of these measurements or evaluations to explain what happened in the past. As by assuming, just that present rates are not always indicitive of past rates, that any measurement, and any evaluation you make based of that measurement, will hold for anything in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 2:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 3:19 AM Zubbbra25 has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 64 of 289 (592187)
11-19-2010 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
11-19-2010 2:14 AM


So no, ID does not really use the scientific method. The conclusion of design is - for virtually all ID supporters - a religious conclusion with no real scientific basis. What matters to ID is the promotion of this conclusion - above and beyond such small considerations as truth and morality.
This comment and your entire post indicates that you have no answer to my queries
It is not FOR ME a question of religious preference or social nonsense, but one of pure logic
Please demonstrate why my conclusions of IDs methods do not have real scientific basis
I would have to accept your above comment and the entire post as a baseless assertion, until you can demonstrate otherwise
Your statements are nothing short of comical, but they do not approach the commedy of Homer attempting to imitate 'Dial Up', with his voice and gestures. Now that was some funny stuff
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2010 2:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2010 1:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 65 of 289 (592190)
11-19-2010 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Zubbbra25
11-19-2010 3:11 AM


Re: Question everything
"But notice something about the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism: they are anti-biblical assumptions. The bible indicated that the universe was created supernaturally by God (Genesis 1:1) and that present rates are not always indicitive of past rates."
So measure all you want, and evaluate all you want. I don't see how, by this very statement alone, can you use any of these measurements or evaluations to explain what happened in the past. As by assuming, just that present rates are not always indicitive of past rates, that any measurement, and any evaluation you make based of that measurement, will hold for anything in the past.
Could you simplify this Im not sure of what you are getting at
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-19-2010 3:11 AM Zubbbra25 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 66 of 289 (592195)
11-19-2010 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 3:03 AM


Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
Uh, excuse me, but your incoherent blatherings notwithstanding (considering even that much of what you posted are not even sentences).
EG:
Please demonstrate HOW if I employ all the basics that that is supernatural, religious or different from your method
Now just what the frak is that supposed to mean? It's not even a sentence! Others have asked you what your native language is. You have claimed to have had extensive US military experience, such that you are a retir(e). With all due respect, as a thirty-frakin'-three-year veteran facing forced retirement in one more year, how could anybody have survived in the US military with such abysmal communication skills that you exhibit? Unless one were Army -- inter-service rivalry etc fully intended.
Dawn, think about this now. You have apparently engaged in purely verbal encounters before. The problem with purely verbal exchanges is that the ability of the listeners to properly process everything that they hear is severely limited. In purely verbal encounters, you can very easily overload them with your bullshit that they cannot cope with it.
However, in a written format, you can formulate your position in a logical manner. You can show everybody the inexorible chain of logic that leads inexoribly to your conclusion. Assuming, of course, that you are able to exhibit that chain of logic ... .
Please take the opportunity to express, in a logical manner, the inexorible chain of logic that leads to your conclusion.
This is nothing new. It has existed from the very beginning. All you ever had to do was to exhibit it.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 3:03 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 11-19-2010 8:02 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 100 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 1:45 AM dwise1 has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 67 of 289 (592198)
11-19-2010 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 3:03 AM


Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
Your failure here is one of a logical fallacy. You assume but have not demonstrated that IDMs are religious in nature, then you run with a false premise, believing you have started correctly
Dwise1 cited the the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document:
quote:
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".
There is also the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, where it was clearly documented that the intelligent design book Of Pandas and People was a thinly disguised rewrite of a creationism book.
The religious roots and nature of ID are well established.
Yes, there may well be Idist hypotheses that are independent of Biblical creationism. I cite Michael Behe's efforts in my message 49. Behe is the rare example of an IDist who will clearly go against young Earth creationism. But in general, the Discovery Institute is doing a piss poor job of separating their IDism from Biblical creationism. Also see that message 49.
So Dawn, how does your version of ID fit into the big picture of science? Do you accept what I cited that Behe accepts? Behe considers his IDism to be part of the larger biological theory of evolution. Behe (a real biological PhD) does the best job of making ID part of science, and that's not that good of a job.
If ID "theory" is to be considered science, then it must fit into the big picture of what is considered science.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 3:03 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 68 of 289 (592206)
11-19-2010 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dawn Bertot
11-18-2010 2:03 AM


Re: Hypotheses
DB writes:
I am claiming that the IDM is the same as used by the SM. It follows the same logical steps to derive its tenets or conclusions.
OK. The scientific method requires you to construct a hypothesis that can be tested.
DB writes:
This is not about hypothesis, but mechanichs and application of methods
But the hypothesis is part of the scientific method. How can you be following the scientific method if your methods are hypothesis-free?
DB writes:
Theories about what?
Nature. And how nature behaves.
DB writes:
The methods you use to form your hypothesis, how things work presently and hypothesis about what might have have happened, as you call them theories
I think I see where your confusion lies. You are conflating theories and hypotheses.
If you want to present intelligent design as a hypothesis based on the observation that nature appears to be designed then fair enough. But the next step would be to construct this hypothesis in such a way that it can be tested and falsified. This is done by making falsifiable predictions which are the necessary logical consequences of your hypothesis being correct. Predictions which genuinely test your hypothesis (as opposed to generic or trivial conclusions that don't tell you anything not already known). This is the tricky part and the part you are missing.
But until you are able to construct and test ID in this manner it will never get off the ground as a theory by any scientific standard. The best you can say is that it is a rather speculative possibility (i.e. a hypothesis).
And given that the alternative explanation (i.e. evolution) has passed numerous such tests - ID is a hypothesis that nobody actually interested in finding the most evidentially supported theory is likely to pay much attention to.
But if IDists starts predicting and discovering new evidence as a direct consequence their hypothesis all that would have to change.
So my advice is to construct your ID hypothesis and start the process of discovery.........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-18-2010 2:03 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 2:23 AM Straggler has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 69 of 289 (592209)
11-19-2010 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 1:57 AM


Re: Design vs. non-design
Dawn Bertot writes:
It has been alleged in the following posts that I have no stated my position, this is wrong.
You are prescient?
Well, maybe you meant to say 'previous posts'.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I will state it again and see if perhaps you will attempt to answer it
How are we meant to answer a statement?
Well, maybe you meant to say 'address it'.
Ok - let's see you state your position.
Dawn Bertot writes:
What besides the categories of Observation, experimentation, evaluation, and prediction does the SM use that we do not?
Secondly if we use the same methods why is ours considered NOT science
Hmmm...2 questions.
Well, maybe you meant to say...nope, I can't guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 1:57 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 289 (592212)
11-19-2010 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 2:16 AM


Re: Hypotheses
Ill ignore this comment ...
You have a funny way of doing so.
All you did here is restate the basics of the SM and the IDM, without demonstrating exacally why and how we dont follow the same rules of science in the beginning process ...
Why? Because scientists are iterested in the truth, and creationists in defending a dogma.
Secondly once into the process, how do we lie about there being order and law, which is a process of scientific evalustion and atleast a clear indication of design, like anyother Conclusion drawn form the SM
You lie about it being a "clear indication of design". Obviously it is not "clear". This is why the people who study the order in nature overwhelmingly think that creationism is trash, and attribute it to the non-magical processes that actually produce said order.
Your goal is to simply demonstrate what you use that we do not and then show why ours is not science, or a scientific approach
And I have provided you with an explanation: I cannot also provide you with an understanding.
If you cannot see the difference between testing a testable theory and failing to test a vacuous and ill-defined proposition then I cannot explain this to you. You are good enough to call me an intellectual; but I am not a miracle-worker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 2:16 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 71 of 289 (592215)
11-19-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 2:16 AM


Re: Hypotheses
Dawn Bertot writes:
Your goal is to simply demonstrate what you use that we do not and then show why ours is not science, or a scientific approach
Again, you start a thread and then expect everyone to run around doing your homework for you.
YOU made the first post.
YOU claim that IDM is as valid as SM.
It is YOU that must provide evidence for your assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 2:16 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 72 of 289 (592219)
11-19-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 1:57 AM


Re: Design vs. non-design
Hi Dawn,
I'm still catching up in this thread, but let me respond to this now before reading the rest of the thread:
Dawn Bertot writes:
We are dealing with methods and whether they are scientific in approach, not conclusions
design is the conclusion of a scientific approach, not provable in the same way a view that only natural causes are the cause
this is why I said earlier science minds make bad philosophers, logicians and debaters. Im sorry but that is true because you cannot distinguish between these two simple items
In order to demonstrate that ID does actually follow the scientific method you will have to provide examples of ID actually following the scientific method. Coyote is requesting that you show how ID followed the scientific method to reach the conclusion of design, and addressing this issue is precisely what this thread is about.
You don't have to use the example of concluding design if you don't want to, but you are going to have to find at least one example of ID actually following the scientific method.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 1:57 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 73 of 289 (592223)
11-19-2010 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 2:16 AM


Re: Hypotheses
Hi Dawn,
Phrases that you've never been able to define are starting to creep into your messages. Until you successfully define terms like "rules of evidence" and "order and law" you cannot use them in this thread or any other thread, except threads for the express purpose of you defining those terms. Do not attempt to define what you mean by these terms in this thread. This thread already has a topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 2:16 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024