Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The I in ID
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 146 (130986)
08-06-2004 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by chicowboy
07-10-2004 6:37 PM


welcome to the fray.
One could also argue that "The Old Man of the Mountain" in New Hampshire also showed evidence of design, but has been weathered more than Rushmore due to its greater age:
this leads to the question of whether the intelligence is just in the eye of the beholder?
good post.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by chicowboy, posted 07-10-2004 6:37 PM chicowboy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 08-06-2004 11:34 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 08-06-2004 1:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 146 (131076)
08-06-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Loudmouth
08-06-2004 1:38 PM


scales
loudmouth writes:
....most of us think that gorillas are more intelligent than termites
Most ID stuff does seem to be very ?egotist? ?sapientist? in that it assumes points of view that have no reason to be so.
There is also the question of scale: Rushmore looks carved and honed to portray familiar images because of the scale and distance at which we normally observe it. From outer space it would not have that aspect, nor would it at the scale of bugs (termites?) crawling on the surface and building nests in the many cracks and crevasses that cover the surface - in fact climbing on the face(s) it is hard to see the proper image and easy to see the small details inconsistent with the design.
Likewise there is the matter of observable light and how that affects our observations and the patterns we see: butterfly wings look different under ultraviolet light, which many butterfly predators can see, so which vision is the one the pattern is designed for?
So many questions created by the concept while (as yet) not one is answered....

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 08-06-2004 1:38 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 146 (131938)
08-09-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Loudmouth
08-09-2004 12:59 PM


Re: scales
the point your raise are further examples of the basic incompatibility between ID taken to it's logical conclusions and literalist christianity.
the other problem with ID is the premise that it could be aliens that are doing the design work, which then begs the question of who designed their worlds and life forms ... it's turtles all the way down!
the point about scales is that they are looking with human eyes filtered by human brains with human ideas.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 12:59 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 3:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 146 (132021)
08-09-2004 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Loudmouth
08-09-2004 3:40 PM


Re: scales
lets say it was interconfusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 3:40 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 146 (135925)
08-21-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ID man
08-21-2004 9:48 AM


Re: intelligence is defined as "I can't explain it, so he did it"
ID man writes:
All the I in ID means is that whatever the event/ object/ phenomenon under question is not the product of natural processes.
So there it is in a nutshell. The I just signifies that nature did not produce X (that is the inference anyway).
In other words, if you can't explain it then it must be due to something intelligent. Or it is due to a lack of imagination in being able to explain it? If we can't explain it with our intelligence then you need another intelligence to explain it gets kind of circular imho.
The problem is that X exists with or without the assumption of intelligence or even of our awareness of X. If you assume natural causes, then an inability to explain the natural derivation of X is not sufficient cause to look for other derivation methods, for nature has already solved the problem of making X. If you assume intelligent causes, then there is no need to look for any further natural derivations: that ultimately is a limited approach to science and the pursuit of new knowledge. Once you stop looking the ID explanation becomes self fulfilling assumptions. This attitude is very obvious in all the examples that have been proposed for ID.
Religious fanatics will harp on that to promote their brand of religion. ID says nothing about a designer. ID says nothing about how to worship or give service to that designer (or designers). Therefore ID is not religious.
Religious fanatics will gloss over the many basic and irreconcilable contradictions between ID and their particular faith (How many gods? Old earth? Etc.). Personally I think that ID will contribute to a greater awareness of real science (by encouraging it's use) in those of the more fanatic beliefs and thus accomplish a different end result than is anticipated.
ID very carefully says nothing about the designer, and yet the actions of that designer must be accomplished by supernatural means. These actions are no different in concept than that a pantheon of gods controlled the world (universe) and threw lightning bolts from the clouds. Replace ID with Deism in your statements and they are just as valid until you get to the last one: Deism is religious, and it makes fewer assumptions about "the designer(s)" and it(s) activities than ID does. Because Deism is on the other "side" of ID from the other established religions, that boxes ID in. Sorry, but saying it is not religious does not make it so. See Deism - Wikipedia for more information on Deism. See http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? for more on my critique of ID.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ID man, posted 08-21-2004 9:48 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ID man, posted 08-23-2004 7:19 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 146 (136134)
08-22-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ID man
08-22-2004 10:01 AM


no answer to #16
Note that I usually assume that no answer to a post, especially when another is answered by the relevant person, that the person either doesn't understand or is not able to provide a response.
To be clear the post in question is
EvC Forum: The I in ID
This post shows logical failure of your position, invalidating it until this is rebutted.
And it shows that ID is a religion because it relies on supernatural action more than Deism.
Continued no response = no disagreement with the above.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ID man, posted 08-22-2004 10:01 AM ID man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 146 (136315)
08-23-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ID man
08-23-2004 7:19 AM


Thanks for the demonstration
ID man writes:
No, we can explain it and that explanation is a designer was involved. How do you explain nature alone producing life from inert matter and what is the evidence to support such an explanation? What options do you think we have when we ask the question (as scientists tend to do) how did it (life) get here?
As I said, "In other words, if you can't explain it then it must be due to something intelligent" -- thanks for the demonstration. I explain it by saying that we don't know the answer, so we need to keep looking. The options are open, but the gaps in our knowledge of the ability of life to begin are closing.
Your "explanation" is just an assumption -- for it to be valid in science it must result in testable predictions that differentiate design from non-design: as far as I know that has not happened yet.
Then don't start with an assumption and allow the evidence to lead you to a logical conclusion. Also your assumptions are unfounded. No IDist says any research has to stop. True we do feel as though looking for a natural origin to life is as fruitful as looking for a natural origin to styrofoam, but if someone wants to keep looking we won't stop them. We feel that there is enough to do
I don't start with an assumption, you do. Funny that once again you demonstrate my point -- your attitude in this and the first paragraph is that you no longer need to look because you have the answer. This amply demonstrates the intellectually stultifying effect of making an a priori assumption of an explanation. Thanks again.
If that is where the evidence leads and becomes the logical and reasonable conclusion, I am OK with that.
Just because you can post those words means what, exactly?
That the actions of the {designer within the concept of ID} are no different than the attributed supernatural actions of the {gods of various pantheons within the concept of many early religions}. I would think it's easy enough to understand, but sorry if it is over your head.
The fact remains that ID doesn't say anything about worship, who or what to worship or how to worship. ID doesn't say anything about giving service to, who to give service to or how to give that service. Now if you want to redifine relion to suit your needs, that is OK. I am having none of it.
Obviously you did not do the word replacement requested, so I will have to do it for you:
The fact remains that Deism doesn't say anything about worship, who or what to worship or how to worship. Deism doesn't say anything about giving service to, who to give service to or how to give that service.
Deism is a religion, therefore your conditions given do not preclude ID from being a religion; Deism can involve fewer assumptions about the level of supernatural activity of the "Causal Agent" than ID does, therefore ID is a weaked form of Deism (it relies more on "he did it" to explain things). It is very simple logic:
A (Deism) = Religion
B (ID) is a weak subset of A
Therefore B = Religion
(Q.E.D.)
This is not a matter of redefining religion but of recognizing it. If you don't want any of it I can understand that ... after all it invalidates your real interest in ID, eh?
It also doesn't look like you read the articles mentioned. That's poor form. You really should read my topic on {is ID properly pursued?} http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? before you go much further on this, not to be arrogant about it, but so that you can better understand my argument without my needing to repeat the whole thing here. I respectfully suggest you either concede here that ID is a religion or take the matter up on that thread to leave this one on topic.
If you want to stifle ID you should concentrate on supporting materialistic naturalism. IOW display for us how life come to be by nature alone- then tell us how nature came to be and where the matter and energy came from.
My, aren't we getting dictatorial with the strawman argument. Why don't you display for us how life came to be by intelligence alone - then tell us how intelligence came to be and where matter and energy came from. Ball in your court -- you are the one making the positive assertion that it is due to intelligence, while my position is that we don't know (yet, but we'll keep looking while you sit down and rest).
To clarify- ID is falsifiable. Philosophical rantings ...
Oops, you missed giving the example of a falsifiable test that would validate this statement of opinion. And pointing out the logical shortcomings of your position is not "Philosophical rantings" -- ID just keeps coming up short.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ID man, posted 08-23-2004 7:19 AM ID man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 146 (136753)
08-25-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ID man
08-25-2004 6:34 AM


both ways?
ID man writes:
to Crashfrog: "Maybe you just don’t understand your parents role in designing you. After all you wouldn’t be here without them."
to MrHambre: "ID doesn’t say that a designer had to be involved with every instance of life."
"Also without life there wouldn’t be any sperm or egg to discuss. And sex cells are alive."
"... in both of your examples that it takes life to make life. Sperm, eggs and acorns didn’t arise by nature acting alone."
Seems to me you don't know which side of the question you are on here. Life making life sounds pretty "natural" to me, so I don't see your problem. Sexual reproduction is design? The intelligence of the parents is involved? Then the world is full of designers, some with very little intelligence if all sexually reproducing species are included -- do plants have intelligence? Perhaps you talk to them. Or is intelligence only involved when it is convenient for you? Another self-fulfilling presupposition? Perhaps you can show me where the difference is in reproduction that does and does not include intelligence -- at the genetic level?
to Crashfrog: "If you don’t know how life came to be than how can you be against ID? Why limit yourself to materialistic naturalism? What is your justification for dismissing design?"
You are the one making the self limiting assumption, as was already pointed out and confirmed by your own response as detailed on my (unanswered?) post?
See http://EvC Forum: The I in ID
Now we have "materialistic naturalism"?? What is different about that from just naturalism? Or is there a spiritualistic naturalism?
to NosyNed: "I have plenty of reason for thinking nature didn’t act alone. If I didn’t I would be a material and philosophical naturalist or even worse, a Bright."
Seems to me you don't distinguish "naturalism" from "materialistic naturalism" here yourself. Care to elaborate?
Again it looks like you invoke intelligence at your convenience. That doesn't seem too "bright"now does it?
to Crashfrog: "However ID is based on observation."
And yet again we have no examples of that assertion. Or is the 'observation' that "yep, beats me how it could have happened, so intelligence must have done it" the level of evidence you use? That's all I've seen so far.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ID man, posted 08-25-2004 6:34 AM ID man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 08-25-2004 11:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 146 (136854)
08-25-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by MrHambre
08-25-2004 11:29 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
When I first came to this forum, you and I had a discussion about what "creationism" included. As I recall you said that even beliefs like Deism were a form of creationism to you (thus you would include an "ID creationism" as well), and my comment was that this can confuse the issue. Lets be specific and say "biblical creationism" (which also differentiates it from muslim, jewish hindu and other fundamental type versions) for the fundamental literal christian creationism, and modify other references of creation like ID ("Designer Creationism" "Deist Creationism" ?) in order to clarify.
Yes say "life X was created by agent Y" is a statement of creationism at a basic generic level, certainly it is a statement of faith. But I also allow that it is possible to believe in ID and not have to believe in any part of the christian or other mainstream faiths. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see this be more attractive to those with college level educations who are having some problems with the faiths of their youth. Making that kind of move would also leave on inclined to keep old arguments such as many of the more common "biblical creationist" kind. Of course this very behavior by major ID proponents muddies the waters as well, but I expect ID to grow beyond such early beginnings.
MrHambre writes:
"The reason methodological naturalism is universally accepted as the basis of empirical evidential inquiry is not because of a materialist prejudice, but because there's no way to do science unless we limit our presuppositions to what can be empirically verified in some way."
This also applies to the "secular science" that I saw recently: science is necessarily secular or it is not science. This is also a false distinction.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by MrHambre, posted 08-25-2004 11:29 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by MrHambre, posted 08-27-2004 7:08 AM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 146 (136855)
08-25-2004 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by NosyNed
08-25-2004 11:35 AM


Re: Let's get clear what ID Man is saying
I'd be happy to let him define exactly where he thinks intelligence in involved and where it is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 08-25-2004 11:35 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 146 (136860)
08-25-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by MrHambre
08-25-2004 6:11 PM


evidence for religious faith
MrHambre writes:
Since my kids and I saw a guy at Boston's Museum of Science create lightning with a Van der Graaf generator, and no one has ever witnessed it being 'created' naturally, lightning must require an intelligent agent.
This is similar to my point that ID requires supernatural action no different in concept to the actions of many early pantheistic gods causing natural events ... in this case Thor and similar gods, and that this makes it a religious faith.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by MrHambre, posted 08-25-2004 6:11 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 146 (137152)
08-26-2004 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by 1.61803
08-26-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
new movie title?
ID and the Shrinking God ...
(or should that be shirking?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by 1.61803, posted 08-26-2004 3:52 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 146 (137344)
08-27-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Mammuthus
08-27-2004 8:02 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
Ah but is this faulting the base concept of ID or the common practice of it?
At the base concept it says {something} was involved, and technically it doesn't say when that was in the course of the universe or even if it is currently occurring.
A lot of people that come to ID come from the creationist side, and thus are predisposed to creationist type arguments (not knowing any better?). Especially when it comes to evolution, but it gets cloudy when you start talking about the age of the earth and geology and astronomy. I think YEC's have to give up the young earth concept in order to fully entertain ID before moving away from strict literalism altogether if they are not going to delude themselves about it: it could easily become a transition, evolution of faith process that we may want to encourage in america .... perhaps dissillusionment with YEC compared to ID is the first step?
Of course that "something" must have acted in a supernatural manner (or the whole process defaults to a natural process), and thus it is necessarily of a godly character by definition (and ID defaults to a religious argument of "he did it" when you talk about what the "something" did), but that does not mean that arguments for ID must necessarily be pseudoscientific, just that it hasn't been seen yet.
One possible legitimate pursuit of ID that I see would be to understand the workings enough to be able to eliminate supernatural action from the process under review, and once that is done move on to the next process. In this manner an honest proponent of ID would behave no different than a conventional scientist, because the working methodology is "let's find out how it really works" -- the only difference may be in which processes they are interested in, a divergence of study that could be of benefit?
This type of study would not add anything to the way science is conducted, and hence would not need to impact school other than what is said in the previous paragraph. But, of course, ID being a faith based on supernatural action, it doesn't pass the {separation test} anyway.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Mammuthus, posted 08-27-2004 8:02 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Mammuthus, posted 08-27-2004 11:20 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 146 (137413)
08-27-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Mammuthus
08-27-2004 11:20 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
That is why I said the one possible legitimate pursuit is to attempt to falsify ID process by process, eliminating them as you go. Think what a tool ID can be with a little assistance to lead people into science, scientific methods and practices, and the rigors of rational and logical thought. You can't lead someone out of the swamp by transporting them to the edge, you have to provide a path. Exposing charletans and showing the difference between their side-shows and real science is one thing, getting involved in the side-show and subverting it to educate people is another.
heh.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Mammuthus, posted 08-27-2004 11:20 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Mammuthus, posted 08-30-2004 4:41 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 146 (137414)
08-27-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Loudmouth
08-27-2004 2:45 PM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
and ID being true does not make evolution false either: the popular misuse of the basic concept against evolution is not based on any legitimate conclusion from the basic precepts. consider the statement:
Evolution is 100% true because it was designed that way.
If the process is designed rather than the output then there is no contradiction.
this of course is god-of-the-gaps ID style, but it demonstrates that attacking any one part of valid science instead of using it in pursuit of your concept is necessarily narrow minded and self defeating - facts cannot be negated.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 2:45 PM Loudmouth 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