|
Author
|
Topic: A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
|
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4692 days) Posts: 85 Joined: 11-24-2008
|
|
Message 91 of 230 (654069)
02-26-2012 5:11 PM
|
|
|
PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
This appears to be a duplicate of Message 90 for which I just fixed the odd use of quoting. I've hidden content of this message. --Admin
quote:
ALL PARTICIPANTS: THIS EXCHANGE ENCAPSULATES THE REASON FOR MY IMPLEMENTING THIS THREAD IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE UNPRODUCTIVE NAME CALLING IS DAMAGING TO BOTH EVOLUTIONISTS AND CREATIONISTS AND MY PLEA IS THAT THERE BE A RECOGNITION THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN MUST BE SEPARATED FROM CREATIONISM AND IS NOT THE SAME THING, THOUGH BOTH BELIEVE IN A "CREATOR" OR "DESIGNER" -- COMPLETELY UNPROVABLE BY ANY STANDARDS, BUT EXISTING BECAUSE "FAITH" ITSELF IS IMMUTABLE. TOLERANCE AND MUTUAL RESPECT ARE THE KEY. NOT ACCEPTANCE OF ONE PHILOSOPHY OR THE OTHER, BUT SIMPLY TACIT RESPECT!
WHILE SOME MAY FIND THAT IMPOSSIBLE (OR EVEN DISQUIETING), IT WILL BENEFIT US ALL. I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT ALL THOSE WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS PROPONENTS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN RECOGNIZE THAT MANY OF US "IDers" BELIEVE IN THE USE OF SCIENCE TO GUIDE US, SINCE WE SCIENCE GUIDED TELEOLOGISTS BELIEVE SCIENCE IS EVIDENCE OF A CREATOR AS WELL. WE BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE IS THE RATIONAL TOOL PERMITTED BY OUR REMARKABLE BRAINS PRESENTED TO US BY A POSSIBLE DESIGNER TO DECIPHER THE INFORMATION PRESENTED US THROUGH SOLID ANALYSIS AND INCORPORATE THAT INFORMATION INTO OUR WONDER OF CREATION.
quote:
All: This exchange encapsultates the reason for my implementing this thread. So all might understand, PLEASE read it! It is the result of a communication From: Blue Jay in Message: 77 of this remarkably dynamic dialog. JCH
1) "I'm not a big of fan of this approach, to be honest.
2) People deserve respect, but opinions and information do not."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Of course, I believe ALL OPINIONS deserve respect; I believe INFORMATION based (when possible) on valid studies and review are the ONLY ones which deserve respect. This is a personal preference of course, but is also the one followed by most credible institutions.
3) If you ask me to not call IDists idiots, I will gladly comply. I will even compliment you on your communications skills and writing abilities, because you are a good writer.
4) (BUT), If you ask me to be nice to a certain idea, hypothesis or data set, however, I will not comply. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I would only ask that each of us entertain the other’s idea’s, hypotheses and data sets in a respectful light, at least in the beginning. Sort of like an attitude of assuming a person is perfect when you first meet them, and then --- as time and information is accumulated --- you reject their behavior (a sort of synonym for the sum of information and presentation) --- in such a way that they can actually hear what you’re saying, rather than closing their ears (minds) and learning nothing. So, the cornerstone of all information exchange is respect — at least in the beginning — and through the process of communication — doubt or conviction will set in; in one or the other of the two sides. Calling the proponents of one point of view or the other idiots at the outset accomplishes nothing. It placates the base of one’s belief system, but advances nothing ultimately except an exchange of vitriol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Science is not benefitted from an "innocent until proven guilty" approach when it comes to peer review:
a) it is better to set the standard too high and end up rejecting a few perfectly adequate papers than
b) it is to set the standard too low and end up accepting garbage.
quote:
I absolutely agree! But the presentation of those boundaries (those standards) of acceptance or rejection is pivotal. If the standards are presented as dogma (i.e., something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet ) without flexibility at all, the standards had better be so well established that the deviant opinion, theory, hypothesis etc. is incontrovertible by everyone’s experience and observation. The seasons’ changes, for example, are set and everyone agrees how, why and when they occur. That (to me) is valid dogma. What we are discussing requires either proof or acceptance of certain levels of probability and the bar for dogma should be established at a very high level. The value in this discussion is the discussion itself. It is the respectful consideration of ideas we might impulsively (knee jerk) otherwise reject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) In the history of science, millions of papers (even papers that support the Theory of Evolution) have been rejected for falling short of the standards, and many hypotheses have been abandoned when superior hypotheses rendered them obsolete. Yet,
7) of all these failed hypotheses, only those that can be construed as supporting the existence of God seem to retain a stubborn following.
quote:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So---it’s worthwhile asking why that is so? What is it about the concept of faith that is so absolutely unshakable. So immutable in the minds of those that cling to it? What is the value, if it’s all just bunk. And if there is NO value to faith, (and certainly no validity to it --- according to many) — why does it then endure?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8) This is a rather suspicious pattern that creates a wholly justified---though admittedly crude---prejudice against such ideas.
9) If you wish to have Intelligent Design considered seriously in scientific circles again, you have a steep hill to climb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I would submit the hill — so far as some of us are concerned — is at least bimodal. If IDists (particularly the teleologists) have a hill to climb --- (when they already KNOW they cannot really reach the top or ultimately convince anyone with solid scientific proof); then so do Darwinists and many Cosmologists; biologists; geologists etc.etc. -- if they want to convince us that all we see evolved sequentially and logically out of initial conditions, without perturbation from an outside influence, via chaos and fractals; strange attractors; following laws of universe which we really barely understand in detail — then I think we are both on even ground.
Therefore, if we are to advance at all, we must get our boots off each other’s throats and allow the free transfer of information --- no matter how dumb or blasphemous the other thinks that information might be.
JCH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Admin, : Hide content.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by jar, posted 02-26-2012 5:20 PM | | jchardy has not replied | | | Message 93 by Panda, posted 02-26-2012 5:29 PM | | jchardy has not replied | | | Message 94 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2012 5:31 PM | | jchardy has not replied | | | Message 111 by jchardy, posted 03-01-2012 12:13 AM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 131 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 92 of 230 (654070)
02-26-2012 5:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by jchardy
02-26-2012 5:11 PM
|
|
Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
No, Intelligent Design should not be separated from Creationism since it is absolutely nothing but another attempt to insert a picayune christian goddlet into science. Intelligent Design is a creation of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and absolutely nothing more. Until Intelligent Design presents the Designer and the method/model used by that Designer to influence evolution it should only be mocked, condemned, disparaged, challenged, questioned and illuminated as the con job it really is.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 5:11 PM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 4005 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 93 of 230 (654071)
02-26-2012 5:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by jchardy
02-26-2012 5:11 PM
|
|
Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
Please don't enclose your own text in [qs][/qs]. In fact, I would request that you edit your previous posts and remove them. If you are quoting someone's post then use [qs=Someone]Someone's post[/qs]. If you are quoting a phrase from a website or other document then use [quote]Website text[/quote]. If you are not quoting anyone than please don't use quoting BBCode. Thank you.
If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 5:11 PM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9601 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 5.8
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 94 of 230 (654072)
02-26-2012 5:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by jchardy
02-26-2012 5:11 PM
|
|
Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL
Second time of asking
Are we actually going to be presented with anything new and/or interesting here or is the request to be taken seriously and not ridiculed the only point to be made?
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 5:11 PM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2990 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 95 of 230 (654095)
02-26-2012 8:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by jchardy
02-26-2012 4:44 PM
|
|
Re: PIVOTAL QUESTIONS
Hi, John.
jchardy writes: I would only ask that each of us entertain the other’s ideas, hypotheses and data sets in a respectful light, at least in the beginning. Okay, we can agree here. I wasn't quite sure what your meaning was before, but this makes perfect sense. I certainly agree that people's ideas shouldn't be dismissed offhandedly: the accumulation of new hypotheses --- however bizarre they may be --- is an important part of the scientific process, and dreaming up new answers to old questions is the way to maintain the vibrancy of a field of science. In the specific example of Intelligent Design, however, I think "the beginning" is long past, isn't it? It has been over 200 years since the debate over evolution began. The premise of teleology, on which both creation and Intelligent Design are based, has been rejected as an explanation for the origins and history of life. You are proposing what you call a new hypothesis. However, this hypothesis is still based on the rejected notion of teleology. So, really, all we see is that you are proposing teleology again. By parallel, the gun replaced the bow a long time ago because of its superior performance. The "bow" concept has been essentially rejected. You may have a new kind of bow that works better than any previous bow, but the army still isn't going to trade in its machine guns to buy it. Or, most countries now have democratic governments. The "absolute monarchy" concept has been rejected. You may have a candidate who would make a wonderful absolute monarch, but the country still isn't going to give up its democracy in favor of a king.
jchardy writes: What is it about the concept of faith that is so absolutely unshakable. So immutable in the minds of those that cling to it? What is the value, if it’s all just bunk. And if there is NO value to faith, (and certainly no validity to it --- according to many) — why does it then endure. I hesitate to go too far into this, because it will drag us off-topic. However, I should like to point out that the mere fact that faith endures doesn't mean that it does what people think it does. My faith in God (such as it is) has never demonstrated any particular utility in leading me to the truth, as it is widely acclaimed to do; but, it has helped maintain the unity and sociability within my family and helped me bond with Mormon communities everywhere I go.
jchardy writes: I would submit the hill — so far as some of us are concerned — is at least bimodal. If IDists (particularly the teleologists) have a hill to climb --- (when they already KNOW they cannot really reach the top or ultimately convince anyone with solid scientific proof); then so do Darwinists and many Cosmologists; biologists; geologists etc.etc. -- if they want to convince us that all we see evolved sequentially and logically out of initial conditions, without perturbation from an outside influence, via chaos and fractals; strange attractors; following laws of universe which we really barely understand in detail — then I think we are both on even ground. Therefore, if we are to advance at all, we must get our boots off each other’s throats and allow the free transfer of information --- no matter how dumb or blasphemous the other thinks that information might be. I hope I don't sound arrogant at this point, we are not being so smothered by the boot at our throat as you are by the boot at your throat. Evolutionary biology, cosmology and geology all appear to be advancing very well without being open-minded toward Intelligent Design. And, I have to be honest and say that I do not feel that ID would offer much of value if such a free transfer of information were to be pursued.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 4:44 PM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 96 of 230 (654118)
02-26-2012 11:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by jchardy
02-26-2012 4:44 PM
|
|
Not a respecter of opinions...and you should not be one either
Of course, I believe ALL OPINIONS deserve respect; I believe INFORMATION based (when possible) on valid studies and review are the ONLY ones which deserve respect. This is a personal preference of course, but is also the one followed by most credible institutions. This above is a prime example of an opinion which deserves absolutely no respect, primarily because it is wrong. In fact, opinions in general are not deserving of respect in situations where the opinion involves the exact subject matter under investigation. In such situations, your opinion is due only the respect which your defense earns for it. And of course some opinions are simply wrong. If you hold a wrong opinion, people might ignore your error out of politeness unless it turns out that your opinion really does affect them. In that case, the only respect your opinion is due is a "respectful" deconstruction and demolition. Let's not forget, after all, that EvC is a debate site on which the merits of ID, Creationism, and the Theory of Evolution are all topics for analysis and discussion. The rules of engagement here are also pretty clear; bring your logical arguments based on evidence, or stay home.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 4:44 PM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
lbm111
Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 32 Joined: 02-24-2012
|
|
|
Message 97 of 230 (654141)
02-27-2012 6:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by Modulous
02-26-2012 4:07 PM
|
|
Re: purpose in science
yes i started that thread to discuss exactly this topic.
"modulous" writes: Just because problem solving is mechanistic, it does not mean it doesn't exist if something is mechanistic what reason is there to say that it is intelligent? it happens because it has to happen.The problem solving process does exist but it must be viewed objectively in the same way as any mechanistic process. you could say an electron is "intelligent" to jump to a lower energy level when the wave function predicts it should but it would be highly misleading to suggest that electrons have intelligence
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2012 4:07 PM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 98 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2012 12:10 PM | | lbm111 has replied |
|
Modulous
Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 98 of 230 (654166)
02-27-2012 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by lbm111
02-27-2012 6:40 AM
|
|
Re: purpose in science
yes i started that thread to discuss exactly this topic. Then perhaps you should focus there.
if something is mechanistic what reason is there to say that it is intelligent? Because intelligent broadly means 'capable of solving problems'. The more complex the problem, the greater the intelligence. It's a word that has meaning. Walking is mechanistic, why call it walking?
you could say an electron is "intelligent" to jump to a lower energy level when the wave function predicts it should but it would be highly misleading to suggest that electrons have intelligence And it is precisely because it would be highly misleading to suggest that electrons have intelligence that I would advise against it. On the other hand it would not be misleading to suggest that humans have intelligence, since they do. To keep this vaguely on topic - intelligence can detected and even measured to some extent. So far, we've detected no intelligence behind life, the universe and everything.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by lbm111, posted 02-27-2012 6:40 AM | | lbm111 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 110 by lbm111, posted 02-29-2012 7:08 AM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10344 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 6.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 99 of 230 (654170)
02-27-2012 12:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by jchardy
02-25-2012 12:07 AM
|
|
So, we can change the word "followers" to "adherents". Why not just "scientists". That is what we call people who do science. "Adherents" is just as loaded as "Followers". Your usage of terms reveals your true intent, to turn this into an argument about religion by trying to make science look like a religion.
As I have already said, there is no place in our society to anyone who attempts to coerce involving legal entities in promoting their particular point of view, be it secular or religious -- to the exclusion of others. JCH The law requires that legistlation have a secular purpose. This was decided in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). So you are out and out wrong on this matter. The Constitution requires that: 1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. The purpose of teaching ID is clearly religious, not secular. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to force ID/creationism into public school science classes. Churches are free to teach ID/creationism all they like, but teachers at public schools are not allowed to teach it as part of science class.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:07 AM | | jchardy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM | | Taq has replied |
|
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4692 days) Posts: 85 Joined: 11-24-2008
|
|
|
Message 100 of 230 (654214)
02-28-2012 2:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by Warthog
02-26-2012 6:09 AM
|
|
Re: Purpose or Function?
You realize we are having a semantic (meanings) discussion here. I'm perfectly happy to accept the definitions you present.
JCH .
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Warthog, posted 02-26-2012 6:09 AM | | Warthog has not replied |
|
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4692 days) Posts: 85 Joined: 11-24-2008
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 101 of 230 (654216)
02-28-2012 3:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by Taq
02-27-2012 12:45 PM
|
|
I'M NOT SO SURE!
JCH here: Now, this gets complicated, but bear with me: While I agree the government must stay out of religious argument brought into the schools, and that religion should never be part of a school curiculum, analysis and critical thinking should lead to a discussion of facts that are known and those that are unknown, which always risks broaching questions of "why are they not known?".
The obvious answer --- for one example, in the case of an inability to see beyond the horizon of the Microwave backgroud to the actual beginning of the universe might be met with the question: Why?
Since there is no answer (other than the technical reasons that --- at that time in the early universe all of the photons were tied up with electrons and therefore could not freely pass through space making them available now until the universe cooled enough to allow the electrons fix to the available now more stable protons to form hydrogen, allowing the photons to then be on their way to our instruments and eyes some 14 Billion years later --- other than this factual reasoning, we have no explanation except that, for that reason we are blind to the initiation of the early universe.
There then follows another "why?" Well, we just can't see beyond that point because there was no light!
Then --- another "Why not." At which point the instructor simply ignores the question, moving on and puts the curious kid on his "list" of the troublesome.
No discussion is allowed, because things then can get "too creepy" in a class room.
But what if he persists? What do we do then? Not allow discussion of what might have been? Or why? Or, why not? Or was their purpose to this?
In not allowing a free range of discussion and analysis, who are we protecting? Why --- ourselves, of course! And the system, above all.
And who gets short changed? Why our students, of course.
So we just tell them to "ask your parents what they think.", and leave it at that. It didn't used to be that way. Teachers were not impeded by "political correctness" (a major mainstay of Secularism). They discussed everything and anything the kids wanted to bring up who were bright enough to bring them up.
But not any longer. Too dangerous. Too uncomfortable. Too unsettling.
JCH
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by Taq, posted 02-27-2012 12:45 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Pressie
Member (Idle past 267 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 102 of 230 (654218)
02-28-2012 4:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM
|
|
Re: I'M NOT SO SURE!
quote:
They discussed everything and anything the kids wanted to bring up who were bright enough to bring them up.
—jchardy
When I was at school, in physics classes only physics was discussed. In chemistry classes, only chemistry was discussed. In biology classes, only biology was discussed. My teachers were bright enough to know that even the brightest kids didn't know much about these subjects. Those kids were there to get an education. These teachers were also bright enough to know that they, themselves, didn't know enough to tell all those professional physisists, chemists and biologists that they all are wrong about everything.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 103 of 230 (654219)
02-28-2012 6:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM
|
|
Re: I'M NOT SO SURE!
Why are you enclosing your own, first-time-posted comments in quote boxes? Do you just like having boxes around what you write?
Since there is no answer (other than the technical reasons that --- at that time in the early universe all of the photons were tied up with electrons For the purposes of discussion, let's ignore the fact that there is very good physical reason why the electrons were not bound up into atoms back when all protons, photons and electrons were in a high energy state, and accordingly that the big expansion of the universe completely explains and is consistent with an initially opaque universe. It is only your assumption that there must be some ultimate higher purpose to every detail that causes you to question the sufficiency of said answer. In short, you are suggesting that your personal incredulity is something that is of importance. There is simply no reason to believe that line of thought is reasonable. Just because three-year-old children insist on saying "why" to every response, right or wrong that their parents give, does not mean that emulating a three year old is a reasonable course of action. Do you really think that three year old asking why the sky is blue even understands his dad's discussion of scattering before asking the next "why"?
other than this factual reasoning, we have no explanation except that, for that reason we are blind to the initiation of the early universe. The technical explanations are completely sufficient. We cannot see light through an opacity, and we understand why the opacity existed. You aren't three years old anymore.
But not any longer. Too dangerous. Too uncomfortable. Too unsettling. It appears that not having an ultimate purpose for every detail of the universe is uncomfortable and unsettling for you. Your mistake is projecting that nonsense onto everyone else. I'll have to admit to finding your attitude puzzling if not inane. Even if you accept, as I do, that God is the author of the universe, it still does not follow that any IDer had any reason or intent regarding the properties of the universe during those early few hundred thousand years when the universe was utterly inhospitable to life.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 23055 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 6.6
|
|
|
Message 104 of 230 (654223)
02-28-2012 8:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM
|
|
Re: I'M NOT SO SURE!
Hey JCHardy, guess what the "qs" in [qs] means: "quote shaded". You're quoting your own words. It's just another form of [quote]. Also, since there's usually no indentation in the online world, it is standard practice to separate paragraphs with a blank line. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 4005 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 105 of 230 (654237)
02-28-2012 10:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM
|
|
Re: I'M NOT SO SURE!
I was going to reply in detail, but I realised that there is not a single correct statement in your post. Clearly, you are too far away from reality to be reached by an internet forum. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2