Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lack of Defining Features of Intelligent Design
Elhardt
Junior Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007


Message 31 of 41 (430914)
10-28-2007 9:06 AM


Anti-ID Hypocrites
There are two main problems with the anti-ID people.
One is the hypocrisy. Identifying intelligent design is part of many scientific fields. When a paleontologist digs through the dirt and finds a rock flake, he makes a determination as to whether it might have been shaped by man into a speer point or not. A zoologist makes a determination whether a group of twigs were put together by a bird as a nest or not. Archeology and forensics included. The SETI program is looking for extraterrestrial life based on identifying a signal that would require intelligence. I don't hear anybody complaining about those uses of ID despite the fact that it's far easier for nature to create something that looks like a mortar and pestle or a birds nest than create a human being from some interstellar star dust.
The other is I keep hearing people saying there is no way for the IDers to come up with a falsifiable test and therefore it's not scientific. The thing is it might be impossible to approach it that way. Sometimes it has to go the other way, and that is testing whether something can come about without intelligence. I can't prove that my car was designed, but I can probably prove that it couldn't have NOT been designed. If I can do that, then the only remaining conclusion is that it was designed. That's why ID people are looking for gaps or things that evolution can't explain. And that's every bit as scientific and testable as evolution and natural selection are.
So next time somebody bitches about ID, it might be a good idea to look for any hypocrisy in their posts where they might be relying on ID in another field, and when they do, it can be discounted.

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 10-28-2007 9:46 AM Elhardt has not replied
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2007 9:51 AM Elhardt has not replied
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 10-28-2007 11:37 AM Elhardt has not replied
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 10-28-2007 2:30 PM Elhardt has not replied
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2007 2:39 PM Elhardt has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 41 (430916)
10-28-2007 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 8:36 AM


Re: The Lessons of History
Irreducible Complexity has been refuted, falsified.
I sure gets annoying hearing people make such bold declarations that don't seem to be true.
See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
There appear to be many systems consisting of a number of interacting parts in living things that can't be reduced, or perhaps, can't be explained in a slow step by step evolutionary process,...
Yet demonstrating that ONE has in fact evolved falsifies the concept that NONE can evolve. Behe also acknowledges that every example provided to date can be explained by evolutionary steps.
... unless you believe that lifeforms actually had lots of partly formed useless systems for long periods of time.
Not necessary, and not what evolution says occurs. You need to stop reading YEC propoganda (particularly as you claim to not be a YEC) and start dealing with reality. A first stage would be learning what evolution is really about.
A couple of dumbasses on Youtube
Say a whole bunch of really stupid things regarding creation (the one on bananas is hilarious), but as you have read the guidelines you also know that insults are not tolerated. They are also ad hominem logical fallacies rather than real argument.
But something that isn't working serves no benefit nor would be expected to be passed on by natural selection.
What you expect and what evolution shows are two different things. There are many vestigial features that exist that have no benefit. Eyes buried under layers of skin on cave fish is one example.
However, as I've said to another person here, I'll keep track of your name, and when I post some problems that seem irreducibly complex, I'll have you to explain the problem away.
After you show that irreducible complexity has not been refuted.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 8:36 AM Elhardt has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 33 of 41 (430918)
10-28-2007 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 9:06 AM


Re: Anti-ID Hypocrites
Hi Elhardt,
About accusations of hypocrisy, you can cast ad hominem at people with different views from your own, but this tends to cause discussion to deteriorate into name calling, and so we discourage such practices here. You might want to give the Forum Guidelines a look, particularly the last one intended to promote civil exchanges.
Elhardt writes:
When a paleontologist digs through the dirt and finds a rock flake, he makes a determination as to whether it might have been shaped by man into a speer point or not. A zoologist makes a determination whether a group of twigs were put together by a bird as a nest or not. Archeology and forensics included. The SETI program is looking for extraterrestrial life based on identifying a signal that would require intelligence. I don't hear anybody complaining about those uses of ID despite the fact that it's far easier for nature to create something that looks like a mortar and pestle or a birds nest than create a human being from some interstellar star dust.
When a paleontologist digs through the dirt and finds a rock flake, he calls an anthropologist. Anthropologists do not seek signs of intelligent design but of human activity, because we know humans craft stones into tools. And zoologists know birds build nests. SETI is looking for narrow bandwidth radio signals, because our understanding of natural processes indicates that nature can only create wide bandwidth signals, and so a narrow bandwidth signal would be an indication of intelligent intervention.
The problem for ID, if we're talking about ID a la Behe, is that all his claimed intelligently designed microbiological structures, from the bacterial flagellum to blood coagulation, can be created through natural processes.
So even though your above analogies to anthropologists, zoologists and SETI were flawed, it is nonetheless instructive to note that the anthropologist knows of no natural processes that could create an arrow head, the zoologist knows of no natural processes that could create a bird's nest, and SETI knows of no natural processes that could create a narrow band radio signal, but we do know of natural processes that can create bacterial flagellums and blood coagulation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 9:06 AM Elhardt has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 41 (430920)
10-28-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 9:06 AM


Re: Anti-ID Hypocrites
One is the hypocrisy. Identifying intelligent design is part of many scientific fields. When a paleontologist digs through the dirt and finds a rock flake, he makes a determination as to whether it might have been shaped by man into a speer point or not.
AND they also have a suitable organism that could make such an object (has hands capable of holding objects) AND they have evidence of cores and rocks used as hammers mixed with evidence of fires. This is not hypocrisy, this is connecting one piece of evidence to another.
ID on the other hand has no evidence of design, nor any evidence of a designer. There is no comparison.
The other is I keep hearing people saying there is no way for the IDers to come up with a falsifiable test and therefore it's not scientific. The thing is it might be impossible to approach it that way.
Then it is not science and never will be.
Sometimes it has to go the other way, and that is testing whether something can come about without intelligence.
So you are asking people who have no reason to assume a design to prove a negative (that there cannot be a designer) to make you happy?
I can't prove that my car was designed, ...
But you can prove that it cannot reproduce and is not alive. You can also show that it has evidence of design that is not found in nature. In other words you can demonstrate that a car is not an analogy for evolution or the appearance of design found in natural organisms.
That's why ID people are looking for gaps or things that evolution can't explain.
Which don't prove a single thing.
So next time somebody bitches about ID, it might be a good idea to look for any hypocrisy in their posts where they might be relying on ID in another field, and when they do, it can be discounted.
And every time some IDologist whines like this it shows that they do not have a scrap of evidence for ID, or they would not need to make this argument -- all they need to do is show the evidence.
What offends me about ID is not the hypothesis of an intelligent designer, but the logical fallacies used to delude gullible people that there is something more than a philosophical concept, and the assumption by gullible people that it actually proves something.
What offends me about IDologists is that they generally refuse to take the concept to it's logical conclusion. There is a huge gap between the basic concept of ID and the way it is used.
Note before you reply that I am a Deist.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 9:06 AM Elhardt has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 35 of 41 (430929)
10-28-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 9:06 AM


Re: Anti-ID Hypocrites
That's why ID people are looking for gaps or things that evolution can't explain. And that's every bit as scientific and testable as evolution and natural selection are.
Scientists make their living by finding things for which they think there is no satisfying explanation, convincing people why we should find an explanation and getting those people to help fund them, and then using money those interested parties donate to fund a research program and conclude this with a paper of their findings.
IDists make their living by finding things for which they think there is no satisfying explanation, convincing people that this proves their own theory and that they should fund them to find more things which they think have no satisfying explanation.
The first position is one of proposing problems and trying to solve them using a disciplined methodology. The second is one of proposing problems and proposing the solution is 'an otherwise unevidenced entity'. The latter is fairly easy money, the former is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 9:06 AM Elhardt has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 36 of 41 (430935)
10-28-2007 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by bertvan
10-27-2007 11:22 AM


Re: all conclusions are subjective
My request was for an actual example. Do you have one or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bertvan, posted 10-27-2007 11:22 AM bertvan has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 37 of 41 (430939)
10-28-2007 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 8:36 AM


Contradictions in terms
Elhardt:
The term"irreducibly complex" is a contradiction in terms.
Irreducible means:
"r`re`du’ci`ble
a. 1. Incapable of being reduced, or brought into a different state; incapable of restoration to its proper or normal condition; as, an irreducible hernia.
2. (Math.) Incapable of being reduced to a simpler form of expression; as, an irreducible formula.
Irreducible case
(Alg.) a particular case in the solution of a cubic equation, in which the formula commonly employed contains an imaginary quantity, and therefore fails in its application."
While complex means:
"# (n.) Assemblage of related things; collection; complication.
# (n.) Composed of two or more parts; composite; not simple; as, a complex being; a complex idea.
# (n.) Involving many parts; complicated; intricate."
Quite simply a thing that is irreducible cannot be composed of more than one part while a thing that is complex has to be composed of two or more parts.
Given the normal usage of the English language a thing cannot be both irreducible and complex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 8:36 AM Elhardt has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 41 (430950)
10-28-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 9:06 AM


Re: Anti-ID Hypocrites
I can't prove that my car was designed, but I can probably prove that it couldn't have NOT been designed.
This makes no sense.
-
But I am interested in this part:
...I can probably prove that it couldn't have NOT been designed.
I've asked ID proponents to do things like this. How can you prove that your car was designed? Or, er, was not not designed? Or whatever the hell you're trying to say.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 9:06 AM Elhardt has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 41 (430953)
10-28-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 9:06 AM


Re: Anti-ID Hypocrites
I think you're directing that accusation at the wrong side. It is the ID movement that is inconsistent on the matter. They use the examples you give while also asserting that naturalism rules out design as a possibility (and therefore denying that any of them exist).
The opponents of ID do not do this.
What you need to recognise is that ID is not science, nor is it trying to be science. ID is a political/religious movement, attempting to change science curricula to be more in tune with their religious beliefs. And it's a very nasty and unpleasant movement, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 9:06 AM Elhardt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 41 (431030)
10-28-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 8:21 AM


Re: ID is consistent with, but does not require theism
Start out with a preconceived belief system, declare it to be fact, and therefore evolution has to be true.
I guess I don't know what you're talking about. Creationism was the preconceived belief system, historically; but people more interested in evidence than in preconceptions found evidence that contradicted special creation and made a case for evolution.
Thus, evolution developed into the scientific consensus view, and creationism was relegated to surviving on dirty tricks and the gullibility of laypeople like yourself.
I'd dump a bunch of proof onto you, but I know the admins like things to stay on topic. I'll start a topic about that later on.
I look forward to it. Of course, it's a lot better to present the evidence than to simply assert that you have the ability do so but can't be bothered.
And there are many things that can't be explained by evolution, that's why there's still so much controversy.
There's actually no controversy. Just an extensive scientific consensus for evolution and laypeople with a limited grasp of the evidence and religious preconceptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 8:21 AM Elhardt has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 41 (435985)
11-24-2007 12:58 AM


For Dawn Bertot
Message 51
We were in a discussion of ID as Science and what it involves.
Testable theories based on evidence that make predictions and that can be falsified.
The scientific process.
Actually Proof, fact and evidence, is exacly what I am looking for here.
Then you are on the wrong foot: no scientific theory can be proven, only logic and math can be proven, with conclusion following from precepts if the construction is valid, and the result being true if the precepts are true.
Scientific theory can be invalidated, and another mark of science is re-evaluating, reforming or replacing theories that have been invalidated.
Ibid Message 55
Im curious about your request that I not mention the word EVOLUTION at times in the discussion, ...
It's simple: if ID is true it can stand on it's own. If you know logic then you know that disproving {A} does not of itself prove {B} in any way. All you have is not{A}.
Creationists and IDers often mention "alternative explanations" and "different interpretations" of evidence as examples of scientific principles, yet they NEVER seem to present what those explanations are, ...
... nor do they consider that the logical conclusion of having two "interpretations" of the evidence of {what is reality} is that there must be two realities, ...
... or that one or more "interpretation" is false, and you are back at one "interpretation" that is valid.
you fellas certainly have no problem mentioning Creationiost and ID in every other sentence.
That is because ID -- as practiced -- is the same as creationism, is formulated by creationists, and is used by creationists. You classify yourself as a "creationist/IDer" (Message 51).
... my establisment of ID will be stricly on the basis of Science and those definitions.
Yet the impression of your proposed new topic does not give me confidence that you truly mean this.
Message 1
Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?
The inclusion of Logic as a science, would greatly enhance the understanding of ID as a science, if it is understood in its prpoer context and usage. In my discusions with those on the PBS discussion, it was never offered with a simple yes or no, as to wheather Logic constituted a Scientific Method. I heard much about how useful logic was in the formation of arguments and how it was not stricly a science, but was never offered any valid reasons as to why it was not.
Not on it's own. Logic is used in science, as is math, but to be science you need testable theories based on evidence that make predictions and that can be falsified. The scientific process is more than just logic.
If all you want to discuss is logic, that is philosophy, not science.
In my view it is not only the starting point of any science but the ending and refining of it as well.
No, it is the testing of concepts against the reality of evidence, predicting things that should occur if your conclusions (theories) are correct, and passing falsification tests.
It in and of iteself can establish the validity of a designer or the possibility of a designer.
But with only logic all you have is a philosophical conclusion. If that conclusion cannot be tested then it is not science. If that conclusion is not based on evidence you do not have science.
... wheather a mechanism can be established through a method of scientific endeavours to establish ID.
It's called doing science.
Message 56
I clasify myself as a Creationist/IDer because the age of the earth is of little or no intrest to me in the dicussion of Cr/ID as science.
I of course believe in God and the Bible as his Word, but in my mind it has no bearing on the issue.
Do you realize that the logical conclusion of ID is that not one thing in the bible need be true?
Ibid Message 58
Further, it always helps in these discussion, if you identify yourself, as Atheist, Agnostic, Non-theist or evoulutionist, etc. So I will know how to formulate my arguments and responses.
But the logic of the argument does not depend on the belief of people: it is either good logic or it isn't, it is either based on fact or it isn't. What this amounts to is judging the argument by the person and not the content - an ad hominum fallacy.
Ibid Message 60 & Message 62
Also, how do I insert one of you quotes?
Type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
Welcome to the fray, Dawn.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024