|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Welcome alschwin,
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure. As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior.Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Rule #4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions. Your last two posts were exactly the same but to different posters. Address the argument presented not the personal comments. Rule #10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics. Calling someone ignorant isn't addressing the argument or moving the discussion forward. Admin will take care of DB's behavior. Please do not emulate his style. Quote boxes make it easy to discern your comments from your opponents. Familiarize yourself with the functions of EvC by using the Practice Makes Perfect Forum.
Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Moderation Thread. You will find helpful links in the purple box below Again, welcome and fruitful debating. Important Links
Helpful links for New Members:
Forum Guidelines, Practice Makes Perfect, Style Guides for EvC, Posting Tips Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate Edited by AdminPD, : Practice Makes Perfect Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Hi Dawn,
Bluejay's request to provide examples of ID using various parts of the scientific method is identical to the requests I made in messages earlier in the thread. Illustrating how ID uses the scientific method is the very raison d'tre of this thread. I will not speculate as to why you have not been addressing the thread's topic, but I'm taking two actions:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread copied here from the Does ID follow the scientific method? thread in the Is It Science? forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Since I have not even brought the Bible up, it would follow that that does not apply to me, correct? No, because not bringing the bible up is a standard part of the ID modus operandi. They play hide the ball and pretend it has nothing to do with the bible because they want to smuggle it into science classes in schools and they are at least clever enough to understand that if the bible is made explicit that they won't be able to do that. I'll give you a chance to be honest. Do you believe that the bible is inerrant or not? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
More assertion with no answers to my simple questions. Are the basic tenets that we use the same as yours and are they science? If they are not scientific in approach all you need to do is explain why the are not a valid method of logical and science to begin with No, they are not, because they begin with the assumption that the bible is inerrant. You can keep asking me the question as long as you like and keep pretending I haven't answered it. I'll keep answering it unless and until you address my point. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Intelligent Design is such a theory. I dare you to dispute this. I never disagreed that it was not a theory or a conclusion Mod, yet it is seperate from the Method of ID itself, until it reaches an unobservable conclusion, at which point it becomes a theory
It doesn't matter how we arrive at design - the key point is getting from 'there is design' to 'it was implemented by an intelligent agent" which ID has yet to demonstrate using the rules of science. It matters greatly HOW we arrive at any conclusion, especially if we are going to call it science Any conclusion even those derived by the SM are unobservable when dealing with past events
I'm persuaded that you don't want to discuss the shortcomings of INTELLIGENT design as a scientific theory (ie., how intelligent design utilises scientific reasoning to support the theory) and just want to talk about how design is practically self-evident again. Your persuasion is misdireted and misguided. back there it was whether the IDM follows the SM in its approach. the reason no one will address the simple issue is that it casts a bad light on the SMs complicated approach
As I explained, this isn't sufficient to be science and either A inferences IDers make are not logically validB the physical evidence is different than claimed by IDers. Here is where you are missing the point. When I describe the basics of scientific investigation, ie, observation, evaluation, experimentation, construction, prediction, etc, you are not justified in assuming these are inferences. You need to demonstrate why they are only inferences Mod the physical evidence cannot be different inthis instance if we use the same rules and tools Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes they are but ID does not use them. Well thank you for admitting the very obvious. I believe you do this due to the fact that you are free from alot of the influence of most western scientists But by admitting this you have demonstrated that the IDM is actually science and that it follows the SM method. If not show what is different
Perhaps ypu could explain why that is so Yes please do it, please make an observation define what you see, why you think you see that, then desighn an experiment that would prove your claim, evaluate this experiment and then i will provide one that disproves your claim So by taking a simple microscope and observing the mircoganisms, operating in a harmonious, logical and orderly fashion, watching the organisms reproduce to form a designed and structured product that operates in a logical fashion in the natural world, that has both purpose and design, to function as it was designed, is not scientific methodology. An experiment that would demonstrate not PROVE the claim would be one that observes this very complex and involved detailed process, over and over and over again, to come to the very real conclusion, of the very real, probabilty of design No one has demonstrated as of yet why the SM is any better at its practice than the IDM, in formulating OBVIOUS conclusions that are a natural part of Evolution They simply keep saying that ID is not science, it does not follow the SM and it (SM) is better, but no one will demonstrate why perhaps you could demonstrate this point. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Observation: everything falls down when you drop it.
Evaluation: some one must push those things down Experimentation: lets make a airoplane smooth and aerodinamic so nothing can grab it and make it go realy fast so they cannot catch it if the plane does not fall we prove that someone is willfuly pushing it down. Conclusion our experiment worked and it proves that someone is wilfully holding the plane down when it goes fast it cannot hold it anymore do to its shape and it flies. Prediction: all such shapes fly if they move fast enough. ID is about the same BS as what i have written above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Hi, Dawn.
I would like to do one thing. I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines:
*acknowledges Bluejay*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
No, because not bringing the bible up is a standard part of the ID modus operandi. They play hide the ball and pretend it has nothing to do with the bible because they want to smuggle it into science classes in schools and they are at least clever enough to understand that if the bible is made explicit that they won't be able to do that. I'll give you a chance to be honest. Do you believe that the bible is inerrant or not? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. Ill give you a chance to be honest as well. Please demonstrate why any of the initial or complex examinations of the IDM, are not a scientific investigation method As of yet, except for Frako, no one has even attempted even a hint at that question. The reason they wont just say yes or No is because they know those things and the manner in which I investigate things has nothing to do with religion or God Is it possible that all of this could be a designed product in the same way the Genesis planet was on Star Trek? Did any of that involve God or Gods Im happy to answer your question Yes, to the fact that I believe the Bible is the word of God. Now will you be honest in answering the question with a Yes or a NO, as to whether the IDM is and involves scientific principles If your answer is no then demonstrate why that is the case. Again my belief in God or gods has nothing to do with that point and you know it Now lets see if you will be honest for whatever audience may be watching Also explain why a belief in a deity requires me to conclude design, when all I need is complicated order and Harmony This should be interesting Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Ill give you a chance to be honest as well. Please demonstrate why any of the initial or complex examinations of the IDM, are not a scientific investigation method You have not yet addressed the issue of how IDM uses any processes or procedures so it is impossible for use to address IDM at all. As I pointed out back in Message 77 "You have consistently failed to tell us what method you use to tell designed objects from non-designed objects." And as I pointed out in Message 94 :
quote: Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Observation: everything falls down when you drop it. Evaluation: some one must push those things down Experimentation: lets make a airoplane smooth and aerodinamic so nothing can grab it and make it go realy fast so they cannot catch it if the plane does not fall we prove that someone is willfuly pushing it down. Conclusion our experiment worked and it proves that someone is wilfully holding the plane down when it goes fast it cannot hold it anymore do to its shape and it flies. Prediction: all such shapes fly if they move fast enough. ID is about the same BS as what i have written above. Whoops you forgot to explain first why those descriptions you suggested are not scientific approaches in the first place, are they? So the IDM, passes the first hurdle of your presumption of a methodology correct
ID is about the same BS as what i have written above. Wrong what you have described above is simply a conclusion, the same as Macro-evolution and any of the other unseen and unwitnessed conclsusion derived by the SM Would it be unreasonable to assume or conclude that aliens planted a seed in the oceans here to form the life the way it is Would that conclusion be unreasonable? You have to do better than that above to demostrate that ID is BS You havent even got started Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Yes, it is possible. Is it possible that all of this could be a designed product in the same way the Genesis planet was on Star Trek? Now show us how you use the ID method to design an experiment to test that hypothesis. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You have not yet addressed the issue of how IDM uses any processes or procedures so it is impossible for use to address IDM at all. As I pointed out back in Message 77 "You have consistently failed to tell us what method you use to tell designed objects from non-designed objects." Wrong I have done this many times now, both here and in other threads. It uses a simple process to observe, test, measure evaluate and study detailed organisms both great and small. It tests and evaluates thier structures, such as DNA, to study its organization to produce a living thing that operates in a logical and harmonious fashion, based on the previously observed order in its substructure This is a scientific observation and investigation of the natural world to come to the conclusion of obvious or even appearent design, now watch, not a bit different than any principle applied in the so-called SM How is this not scientific and how is the conclusion unjustified logically My guess is that all you can do is disagree and that is all you can do Please explain how you would prove any conclusions concerning evolution, where the evidence is not now available Please expalain why any priciples of science we employ are any less or better to come to the conclusions you have arrived at Be back in a few hours, I especially want to respond to Ringo StoneDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Dawn writes: Please demonstrate why any of the initial or complex examinations of the IDM, are not a scientific investigation method From Wiki: John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing: I think this answers the question, "Does ID follow the scientific method?" The answer is clearly, "No!" Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024