|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4872 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the problem with teaching ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6055 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
What do you think about his comment about ID being proven false? Has it really? Where is the proof?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
DivineBeginning writes: What do you think about his comment about ID being proven false? Has it really? Where is the proof? Just for reference, here's what Pwnagenpanda said:
pwnagenpanda writes: The best reason that Intelligent design should not be taught is that A. it has been proven false and B. it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science. What the other replies were noting was the inherent contradiction in his claim. He claims both that ID is unfalsifiable, and that it has been falsified. These two claims cannot both be true. The accurate claim is that ID is unfalsifiable. No matter what one might learn about the real world, it will always be consistent with ID. Since there is no possible evidence one might imagine that could contradict ID, ID is therefore unfalsifiable. Some examples make this clear. Let's say we found human fossils back in the pre-Cambrian (before 540 million years ago). Evolutionary theory denies this possibility, therefore evolution would be falsified. ID theory would simply say that the designer designed humans a bit earlier than we originally thought. Or what if we found fossils of griffins and minotaurs. Evolutionary theory would have an extremely difficult time explaining such fossils, and at a minimum their existence would have to be considered a severe and high priority problem for evolution. ID theory would simply say that the designer designed griffins and minotaurs. Or say that genetic analysis discovered that humans are most closely genetically related to bananas than to any other life form. This would possibly completely falsify evolution, or at least the modern synthesis portion that unites Darwinian evolution with the science of genetics, while ID theory would say that the designer simply chose to use very similar genes when designing the banana and the human. Because ID cannot be falsified, it cannot be considered science. One of the other problems for ID when attempting to qualify as science is that it doesn't make any verifiable predictions. You can find proponents of ID who claim successful predictions for it, but these are predictions of things already known. For example, it is often claimed that ID predicts what we find in the fossil record. But the qualities of the fossil record they're claiming ID predicted were known before the theory was proposed, and so they're not predictions. ID theory would have to make a prediction about the some quality of the fossil record that was not already known, and then if and when that quality was actually identified in the fossil record, it would have to be considered pretty strong evidence for ID. --Percy Edited by Percy, : falsifiable => unfalsifiable in what should have said, "Id is therefore unfalsifiable."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6055 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I appreciate your examples. I happen to have faith in the divine creation of the world we live in. For me, it's easier that way. I can understand why some people don't believe the way I do. Outside of the realm of pure faith, it does seem implausible. But I happen to believe, that's just the kind of person I am.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ID is also a dead end.
ID is terrible theology and it would also mean that science is useless and worthless. If there is some cosmic tinkerer who steps in a creates on whim, we can never know is any science is valid or repeatable. The ID folk point to a very few examples and declare they are designed. When others point to examples of really piss poor design found, and to the generally mediocre at best design that is the norm, the response is "We cannot tell the intent of the Designer." Well, regardless of the intent of the Designer, we can judge the products based our own understanding. Just as when we buy a washer or dryer, we can examine the products and decide which is well designed, which was designed to achieve a price point and which is just junk. A second issue is if we cannot know the intent of the designer, we cannot make predictions on the basis of past history. We have no assurance that the Designer will not step in and decide that plane number two will not fly. I think ID should be taught, taught as an example of silliness. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Percy writes: The accurate claim is that ID is unfalsifiable......Since there is no possible evidence one might imagine that could contradict ID, ID is therefore falsifiable. Either you've fallen under pwnagenpanda's influence, Percy, or that was a rather misleading typo. (If you edit it, do wipe this post).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DivineBeginning writes: I happen to have faith in the divine creation of the world we live in. For me, it's easier that way. Isn't it better to teach what's right instead of what's easy?
quote: “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Oops - thanks!
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Only three words, typo, believe it or not!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6056 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
quote:Wrong, teaching that life originated as the result of a higher power has nothing to do with religion. quote:circular argument. God/Creation has no bearing on natural /unnatural laws. Such arguments are nothing more than literary implications people employ to satisfy beliefs. quote:Again, more word play. Supernatural ranks up with magic and hocus-pocus. Such classifications are purely human and has no reflection on an entities ability to manipulate matter etc. a few years back it would have been supernatural to promote the carrying of several tons of material in the air. Today, it is commonplace. Perhaps it's time to come out of the closet and start evaluating evidence matters with an open mind instead of adding breath to the indoctrinations of our ancestors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
pbee writes: Wrong, teaching that life originated as the result of a higher power has nothing to do with religion. It certainly does. Science requires evidence. Faith isn't good enough, but teaching things based on blind faith can be and is done in Sunday schools, Koran schools, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6056 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
Lets drop the religious labels and stick to basics. The creation account was not written in the name religion. It was adopted as such and has been misused ever since. Nonetheless, this implication alone has no consequence on the heart of the matter. That a Creator/Creation is unscientific. Such reasoning resides purely on our own limitations and understanding of matters.
Evidence? It was written that God created the heavens and the earth, and here we are...Let's save ourselves a large portion of time, and throw out the concept of matter originated from nothing as science(talk about supernatural). Edited by pbee, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6056 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
quote:No one has any given advantage here. Likewise, no one holds any authority over the other either. quote:Depends on the quality of ones research. I happen to think that the concept of life and it's origins as a result from a common point of energy precedes any theory that life just fell into place as a result of nothing and somehow produced results which end in total defiance of the natural laws which bind us(but that's just me). quote:Such as... quote:Yes, and if there is one thing we have proven as a race, it is that we are very qualified in our capacity to identify good from bad. I mean, just look around you, the world is destined to a path of prosperity and longevity! quote:In the face of the competition, ID trounces the alternates. Science has nothing but convoluted theories and dead ends. The only thing that drives people away from ID is fear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Getting ready for work this morning I caught the tail end of "Flock of Dodos," which is a critique of Intelligent Design. I'd like to see the rest of it. Anyone know where about I might be able to find the full series on the web?
I found this rebuttal. Hoax of Dodos | Discovery Institute Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
pbee writes: The creation account was not written in the name religion. Which creation account? There are many creation mythologies.
Evidence? It was written that God created the heavens and the earth, and here we are... bluegenes, ye olde wise seer writes:
quote: I just wrote that, so because it's written down, it must be up to date evidence, mustn't it?
Let's save each other large potions of time and throw out the concept of matter originated from nothing as science(talk about supernatural). Are you implying that something cannot come from nothing? Then all Gods must themselves require creators. Edited by bluegenes, : punctuation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
pbee writes: Science has nothing but convoluted theories and dead ends. That says it all right there, doesn't it? Let's throw science out with the bath water. The topic is about teaching ID in science class. If you're going to dismiss science as "convoluted theories and dead ends", what's the point of teaching science at all? “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
pbee, message #38 writes: Wrong, teaching that life originated as the result of a higher power has nothing to do with religion. pbee, message #40 writes:
Evidence? It was written that God created the heavens and the earth, and here we are...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024