|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 1331 days) Posts: 18 From: Pittsburgh Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biased accounts of intelligent design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
JonF, your trust in the scientific community is touching; but it might prod your intellectual growth more if you were to examine the arguments for yourself. And in reply one could say your trust in the ID is touching; but it might prod your intellectual growth more if you were to examine the arguments for yourself. However many people have a hard time examining their own arguments, because they are partial to them. The open-minded skeptic will consider any argument as potentially possible, but also be skeptical that it is potentially wrong. In your first post you said (Message 1):
... An encyclopedia that cannot distinguish design from creation (who designed the Saturn V rocket? Was it the same set of persons who built it?) has no business offering any remarks concerning these subtle questions. So do you have any information on how Intelligent design is actually accomplished/activated? By what process is it implemented? How do you define "information" and how do you measure "complexity" ... for discussing quantities without a measuring system is simply just expressing an opinion, and not science. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I believe in non compassionate intelligent design. ... This seems logical to me -- at least non compassionate in terms of what was created by the design. My personal taste is god/s as artists rather than engineers (a common take, especially among engineer IDologists).
... The proof of intelligent design is the creation of the strings in String Theory and their quantity. The creation of 200 sextillion stars would give the probability that one planet of these stars would create life. ... Now I wouldn't say "proof" as seems to be an incomplete logic construction. Again my take is that the universe was created by god/s primed for the development of life -- hence all the precursors to organic chemicals throughout space/time. See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I), an old (2004) thread of mine. More pre-biotic chemicals have been found in space since then.
... The question is why? A philosopher today would ... Glad to see you say philosopher, as I think of ID/Deism as more of a philosophical pursuit than scientific, Just as I consider religion more of a philosophical pursuit than scientific (and one that confines itself to certain precepts regardless of their relationship to reality).
... need a background in Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. As I say in Is ID properly pursued? (another old thread of mine):
quote: An open-minded skeptic, if you will, willing to consider concepts but reserving skepticism while there is no supporting evidence and no contrary evidence: such concepts are possibilities, but more evidence is needed before forming an opinion. So tell me, what about string theory in particular that impresses you?
... The creation of 200 sextillion stars would give the probability that one planet of these stars would create life. ... The Drake equation ... But string theory isn't necessary for this aspect, is it? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
RAZD refers to my trust in the ID; but I have not exhibited such. I have pointed out the biased and illogical character of some opposition to ID. Curiously, I was pointing out how your post to JonF also applied to you.
I cannot give an account of how, e.g., the genetic code is implemented once it has been intelligently designed. ... So at this point it is hypothetical, design on paper maybe. As a designer myself I have several of these types of design in various stages of completion. As a professional designer, I also included how the design was to be implemented, what tools and materials were needed, what different work stations would accomplish.
Such lack of knowledge would appear to an open-minded investigator not as disproof of the hypothesis, however, but as an opportunity for further research. Indeed, but to the open-minded skeptic it would also not be sufficient to entice one to engage in further research that could be a wild goose chase. They would leave it to those proposing this concept to pursue. Now one could envisage mosquitoes as vectors carrying viral agents that insert DNA segments into targets, but the problem here is that, while this is a readily available delivery system, it doesn't appear to be used for this purpose: the viral inserts are random -- essentially environment induced mutations -- and don't lead to speciation or any visible change in survival or reproduction of target species other than death and reduced health/ability. That's a negative result. Are there other delivery systems possible?
... Some who read Newton’s Principia correctly inquired how gravity worked; but the scientific community would have been wrong if it had said, we don’t know how this works, so we’re going to ignore it ( or even assume it’s false). But the question was not how ID "works" but how it was implemented. Newton's gravity was implemented by the mass of the objects having attraction to other masses proportional to their size and the inverse square of their separation distance. So far you have proposed that
Message 13 ... the world (e.g., the genetic code or the values of physical constants) exhibits signs of having been designed ... Now, as a Deist, my belief is that the universe was created by god/s (or their equivalent) and then had no further interaction with it, maybe parting with the comment "now surprise us" ... and in this creation they would of course have set the values of all the physical constants. That would be evidence for how they designed the universe, but how would you test that, how could you tell that this was done in this particular case -- there are no other universes we are capable of comparing to this one. That leaves it a matter of faith/belief, not science. The genetic code example seems to be an argument from incredulity more than anything else at this point (you have certainly not developed it beyond a cursory example at this point). Got anything else? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Strings are not theorized to be the basic components of atoms. They are theorized to be the basic components of quarks and other fundamental particles. Nobody has established that they exist, and nobody knows how to establish whether or not they exist with current technology or reasonably expected extensions of current technology So the open-minded skeptic would say they are possible, but also the information available is not necessarily sufficient to entice one to engage in further research that could be a wild goose chase (sorry Sheldon). They would leave it to those proposing this concept to pursue. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We know already that aspartate, glutamate, glycine, alanine, serine, leucine, and valine - the most common amino acids - can be found in volcanic lava and other abiotic substrates. Amino acids are what RNAs interact with, so their natural presence hints that they could have acted as an "enabler" for the evolution of the very first genes, which would have been molecules that reacted with them for some benefit. Fast forward a bit and these gene-molecules combined together into a chain, RNA, which uses the amino acids for energy, using that energy to trigger catalysising their own reproduction. Put these wayward RNAs into a self-built bilipid membrane (lipids join together naturally) where amino acids can be concentrated, and you have yourself the very first protocell/"true organism". Indeed. Again I have an old thread on this: Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) quote: Sounds like we are on the same page. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm glad you used the word 'belief' there. I find deists really weird, they go rational, rational, rational, rational, whoops irrational. Thanks. I like to think that Deism is the only rational belief when all is said and done. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: Curiously, I was pointing out how your post to JonF also applied to you. My point was that my post to JonF does not apply to me , since he has expressed trust in the scientific community ( see e.g., his post of 8-18-2019, 1:05 PM) whereas I have expressed no trust in the ID people, merely disdain for bad characterizations and evaluations of ID. Fine, so you are either ambivalent or don't trust ID ... so why the outrage at the Wiki coverage? Meanwhile you have yet to answer questions:
Message 36: So do you have any information on how Intelligent design is accomplished? By what process is it implemented? How do you define "information" and how do you measure "complexity" ... for discussing quantities without a measuring system is simply just expressing an opinion, and not science. Message 87: So do you have any information on how Intelligent design is actually accomplished/activated? By what process is it implemented? How do you define "information" and how do you measure "complexity" ... for discussing quantities without a measuring system is simply just expressing an opinion, and not science. Message 91: Now one could envisage mosquitoes as vectors carrying viral agents that insert DNA segments into targets, but the problem here is that, while this is a readily available delivery system, it doesn't appear to be used for this purpose: the viral inserts are random -- essentially environment induced mutations -- and don't lead to speciation or any visible change in survival or reproduction of target species other than death and reduced health/ability. That's a negative result. Are there other delivery systems possible? The genetic code example seems to be an argument from incredulity more than anything else at this point (you have certainly not developed it beyond a cursory example at this point). Got anything else? Curiously, I am more interested in answers to these questions (this is a debate thread), than I am about your level of trust in ID. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
ID is the poster child for pseudoscience. And all your religious butt hurt cannot change that. You think it is worse than astrology? by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That's what I began by doing. See the post that started the thread. My point was not that the evidence for ID was overwhelming but that Wikipedia's beginning its article on ID with the term "pseudoscientific' was biased and juvenile. The discussion of whether ID is science should have appeared ( as it did , in addition , to an inadequate degree ) in a separate section such as "Reaction form the scientific community." Here's the first paragraph:
quote: Note that evolution is not just natural selection, but it involves mutations as well. It is typical of anti-evolutionists to neglect to mention one or the other of this two-part system. Here is how I might edit this paragraph:
Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID was developed from creationism and to date it lacks empirical support and has offered no testable or tenable hypotheses. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] How would you edit the first paragraph to remove your objection? Note that further down the article it says:
quote: For another take on the presumed bias against ID see Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ..., ... along with a couple of examples of what they have so badly gone wrong while pretending to be "experts" and knowledgeable science type peoples. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... The possibility of an Inept Designer or Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inelegant Designer is certainly supported by all the evidence Or a Silly Designer ... ... certainly not an engineer/architect designing with empathy for people. Perhaps an artist who sometimes likes to shock? If we work backwards from purported design to what the designer is like ... Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
quote: Hmm ... can't leave you in the lurch, I do have the social commitment to answer, yeah this is good. I can answer today. Yikes, how do they know? ... Works for me (fellow Piscian traveler). Been hard a work on new back porch, and we have guests for dinner tonight ... by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024