Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 208 of 304 (348108)
09-11-2006 12:13 PM


To the topics question. Can inteligent design be tested?
Only by our understanding of what inteligence and design is. Never in a theological Godlike sense.

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 4:46 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 210 by nwr, posted 09-11-2006 5:40 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 211 of 304 (348192)
09-11-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by ReverendDG
09-11-2006 4:46 PM


so how do we go aobut testing intelligence and design, so far anyone has yet to answer this
Our definitions will change as our prejudice and understanding changes.
We are limited by our level of understanding.
funny,everyone who is asked who the designer is says god
Everyone?
so it is theological and only pretending to be science
Yes, from one point of view. Let us consider the scenario that we find
something in the future off world that suggests that it was designed by inteligence. Should it happen there will be long debate over many years. Will this debate be theological by default? If we arrive at the conclusion in the future that there is sufficient evidence to support intelligence being involved in the process of evolution it does not automatically imply God. That is a matter of faith.
by denial of not defining the core of ID, the designer
Defining God and the intentions of God are a whole other forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 4:46 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 7:42 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 212 of 304 (348196)
09-11-2006 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by nwr
09-11-2006 5:40 PM


Based on my understanding of intelligence and design, evolution itself is an intelligent designer.
Yes, I believe it can be viewed that way. Is intention necessary to your view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by nwr, posted 09-11-2006 5:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by nwr, posted 09-11-2006 7:26 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 215 of 304 (348250)
09-11-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by nwr
09-11-2006 7:26 PM


In the case of "intelligence", there have at least been attempts to separate the concept from our use of it with humans. Psychology has attempted to find objective ways of measuring it, and AI has attempted to emulate it on a machine. If we can have a weak sense of "intention" that is not restricted to humans or animals, and could in principle be applied to other kinds of systems, then it might be appropriate to tie it to notions of "intelligence" and "design".
I have often wondered these same things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by nwr, posted 09-11-2006 7:26 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 216 of 304 (348257)
09-11-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by ReverendDG
09-11-2006 7:42 PM


wow nice dodge, so.. you have nothing, why should we accept this as science again? oh i know! because you say so, riiiggght
Not a dodge at all. Simply a statement that a test for intelligence today will come from a different understanding as time goes by.
everyone who posts here does, if you say aliens did it you have to ask who designed them then? more aliens? this is science?!?
Why does one have to ask if the designer was designed to determine if there was evidence of design?
can you tell me how you would answer if i asked you if the designer is not a god what would it be, if complexity is how you show stuff is designed?
I wouldn't have a clue. What makes you assume it is God? You seem to have a God issue. Remove this and look at the simple concept of intelligence at work. Are you ignoring the concept on the grounds that God might be implied? God is a belief. You either believe or you don't. The question of wether or not intelligence may have set evolution in motion has nothing to do with it.
Can you tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that evolution excludes or nullifies the concept of intelligent design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 7:42 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by obvious Child, posted 09-13-2006 10:55 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 218 by ReverendDG, posted 09-14-2006 3:07 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 220 by dogrelata, posted 01-01-2007 9:47 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 219 of 304 (349780)
09-17-2006 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by ReverendDG
09-14-2006 3:07 AM


the only tests we can make involve humans, we have no other source of intelligence and as i said half a dozen times now, in the context we do have, which is us nothing other than what we make shows design, unless you can point some out?
Ah, my friend, Then science is doomed from the start. One must condiser several things:
Intelligence is a product of evo.
We are but one step in millions.
We cannot scientifically say at what point intelligence arose in evolution, if it was there in some form from the beginning or, if intelligence is even dependant upon biology.
What intelligece even is, scientifically, we cannot definitively say.
because it makes or breaks whether or not it is science, if ID isn't required to answer "who designed the designer?" we might as well accept esp exists or ufos. because if ID isn't accountable for answering ALL the questions it supposably claims to answer, why should we accept it?
Right. So because we cannot answer what the fundamental cause is for the "forces" in physics or even what they are, we might as well accept esp exists or ufo's. Because science isn't accountable for answering ALL the questions is supposably claims to answer, why should we accept it? Physics is not even clear on what is physical.
my real argument is that the identity of the designer as god is led by the reasoning that if the context of knowing if something is designed
is considering something complex as implying intelligent design then by logic the designer is designed as well.
It appears to me, real issue is not with the scientific concept of ID. Your issue is with some devisive people who want to use the science to claim God did it. This is very unscienctific of them. As unscienctific as the many on this sight I have seen use science to argue there is no higher Godlike power. Take great issue with them as well. There is nothing unscientific about the pursuit of ID theory. It is a valid question worthy of scientific inquiry and many are pursuing it.
if the designer of the designer is designed, then it is meaningless and an infinit loop unless you invoke something eternal like god, this happens due to lack of evidence to measure ID or test it or do any science with it
Did you say If? Thats a big if and it's yours.
Where did you come up with the conclusion that a designer if there is one has to have a designer? Even if that were the case how did you arive at the conclusion that an infinite concept of that nature is meaningless? Where is the science? Since when does science determine meaning?
do you even bother to read my answers? you keep saying this but my answers never get through, ID claims the universe is designed, do you know of anything other than a god that can do this?
I cannot say anything scientifically definitive about a God.
do you even know anything about ID? it says evolution can't explain complexity it has nothing to do with evolution other than to say evolution is impossible , so it must have been designed.
I know you take great issue with a certain group of devisive people.
There are many that do not fall into this catagory. There are many who
take ID theory seriously and do not see it necessarily conflicting with the general theory of evo, as it does not.
i said unlike what you claim i did.
that evolution answers the questions that ID claims it does and answers the why for we have a baddly setup spine and legs and heart and breath passage and backwards eyes
You are not thinking scientifically. Science answers HOW. Science cannot answer WHY. Huge difference. Wether you do this intentionally or by habbit, either way it is incorrect. You need to pull your head out of the machine shop and start taking a more honest scientific view. Consider that evolution includes all individual specie behavior and all interaction between species. Not just the physical mechanics.
What effect one "defect" will have you can not definitively say with respect to science. There has been no research done into what effect a phisical aspect of a specie would have on the entire process. However, we are acutely aware of how interconnected living systems are. One would be a fool not to take this into account.
another question, why bother defending something you don't really agree with?
I never said I did not agree with the scientific concept if ID theory.
It would not be good science to not pursue all the questions involved.
You are attempting to use science to argue against an idea before even investigating it.
or defending something you really don't understand?
I'll give you a litte time to reconsider this statement.
just to add one last thing:
The authoritative description of intelligent design[36] explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[37] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[18]
As I said, your issues appears to be not with ID as a concept but with those that wish to use it too push their philosophical view that God did it.
Now, back to the subject. ID theory is a scientific endeavor. To not pursue it would be unscientific. The science of evolution does not contradict it.
If people following either endeavor conclude a philosophical answer the result ceases to be science.
ID can be tested from a human understanding of intelligence. How successful we are at the endeavor is still in the happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by ReverendDG, posted 09-14-2006 3:07 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024