Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,251 Year: 5,508/9,624 Month: 533/323 Week: 30/143 Day: 3/17 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 68 of 304 (280961)
01-23-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mkolpin
01-23-2006 1:44 PM


So what you are saying is that ID's arguments for design can be scientifically tested, but ID itself cannot. Is that it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mkolpin, posted 01-23-2006 1:44 PM mkolpin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mkolpin, posted 01-24-2006 2:49 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 70 of 304 (281285)
01-24-2006 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by mkolpin
01-24-2006 2:49 PM


I am not sure that any ID arguments have of a scientific basis. The argument based on irreducible complexity was incomplete when it was first published and since then both Behe and Dembski have tried offering different definitions of "irreducible complexity", neither of which seemed to be very helpful.
SO really I would say that some ID arguments might be science-based, if they did the science and the results supported them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mkolpin, posted 01-24-2006 2:49 PM mkolpin has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 74 of 304 (281502)
01-25-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by kavli
01-25-2006 12:05 PM


I don't see how you can say that. Irreducible complexity was explicitly presented as an attempt to falsify evolution - a causal reader of Darwin's Black Box might even believe that it was a successful attempt.
However it was not successful. It has still to be shown that we can reasonably conclude that an irreducibly complex system could not evolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by kavli, posted 01-25-2006 12:05 PM kavli has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 255 of 304 (374023)
01-03-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by aiguy
01-03-2007 1:09 PM


I'd say that there was pretty strong evidence that any simple dualism which allows that an ordinary human mind can exist apart from a brain is probably false. The so-called "split-brain" operation, by severing most of the connections between the two hemispheres produces a split in consciousness. The human mind is apparently dependant on physcial connections in the brain to keep itself integrated. Obviously a disembodied human mind would lack those connections and so would presumably have the same problems - at least. And that's before we consider issues like memory or the fact that physical damage to the brain can apparently produce personality changes.
Presumably a dismebodied mind would split into two, have no memory and likely a completely different personality than if it were embodied. Dualism (or more properly substance dualism) is not exactly looking healthy from where I'm sitting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 1:09 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 2:20 PM PaulK 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