Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID a right wing conspiracy?
brainpan
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 76 (229231)
08-03-2005 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by DominionSeraph
08-03-2005 4:17 AM


What was your point again?
DominionSeraph wrote:
ID isn't capable of performing the verb, "to conspire." Last time I checked, it's a concept -- not a person.
Two points:
1. It is reasonable to assume the author of this thread's title intended to ask a logical question. His intent seemed patently obvious to me, and apparently to every other poster besides yourself.
2. conspiracy-n 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act.
What was your point again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-03-2005 4:17 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
brainpan
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 76 (229241)
08-03-2005 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Modulous
08-03-2005 6:22 AM


Youre right
Modulous wrote:
However, one can say "Intelligent Design represents the coming together of factions within the right wing to engage in a subversive act"
I agree, and this pretty well sums it up:
conspiracy-n 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act
This message has been edited by brainpan, 08-03-2005 12:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2005 6:22 AM Modulous has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 33 of 76 (229520)
08-03-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
08-03-2005 12:50 PM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
Not really. They [Behe/Dembski] don't get into theories on how ID might work, and instead just state the evidence is best explained by some sort of design mechanism.
But scientifically, this begs the question. Science is all about trying to elucidate physical mechanisms for physical phenomena. So this form of ID may be of philosophical interest, but it isn't science.
Nor, as I've discussed, can the notion of a designer imply the kind of conservative theology the Discovery Institute has in mind. Even if one could scientifically infer design ( a tall order at present, to say the least), the design could easily be the product of some sort of emergent universal consciousness nothing like the Abrahamic God concept, and the arguments to resolve that issue would be purely philosophic and theological.
That's [design] an observed fact, and unlike you, I think it has great relevance.
Although I am not a metaphysical materialist, I recognize that whatver arguments of a metaphysical or theistic nature I might make are not scientific arguments, as they do not deal with observable, repeatable physical phenomena.
Again, this really begs the question of where one detects design. I agree that I find certain arguments in favor of reality showing evidence of design or higher consciousness compelliing (although of a quite different nature than the Discovery Institute ID arguments).
I do not regard these arguments as scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 12:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 12:21 AM paisano has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 76 (229528)
08-04-2005 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by paisano
08-03-2005 11:31 PM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
the design could easily be the product of some sort of emergent universal consciousness nothing like the Abrahamic God concept,
So? I think you are confused about ID. ID does not speculate about the theological aspects of the Designer. Heck, ID could well back the idea of aliens assisting the development of life on earth.
It is not a theological concept.
In terms of science, forensics is science not philosophy and so is ID. Both seek to assess whether Intelligent Design is at work in some fashion.
Again, this really begs the question of where one detects design.
We can get into more details, but design is apparent. The fact that all humans, for example, have some common traits is proof of design. The issue is how the design came to be, not whether design exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by paisano, posted 08-03-2005 11:31 PM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by brainpan, posted 08-04-2005 2:28 AM randman has replied

  
brainpan
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 76 (229547)
08-04-2005 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
08-04-2005 12:21 AM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
Randman wrote:
The issue is how the design came to be, not whether design exists.
It is obvious, in the context of this discussion, the issue is intelligent design.
...so is ID(science)
Explain.
It is not a theological concept.
Well, the Wedge/ID conspiracy would fail if it was presented as a theological concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 12:21 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 3:04 AM brainpan has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 36 of 76 (229550)
08-04-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by brainpan
08-04-2005 2:28 AM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
Forensics studies whether something contains design or an intelligent causal agent. So it's not the study of design is unscientific.
IDers state they believe aspects of what we in creation can be best understood as indicative of design, of being designed by an Intelligence.
I believe they are clearly correct on that point.
They also maintain that mechanisms in materialist evolution are insufficient to explain all the data we see that is called life, and I agree there. I find the arguments on irreducible complexity compelling, in fact.
In terms of mechanisms, many IDers don't seem to delve into how a Designer would design. Personally, I take a different approach and believe we are discovering mechanisms for direct engineering (design implementation) within QM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by brainpan, posted 08-04-2005 2:28 AM brainpan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 9:41 AM randman has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 37 of 76 (229633)
08-04-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
08-04-2005 3:04 AM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
YOu might say you have a different approach.. but making a claim is different that coming up with a way to test that claim.
So far, one thing all 'ID' propoents have in common is they can not test their claims. Most ID's aren't even trying to, but rather are concentrating on the political aspects of trying to get ID taught. It isn't ready to be in schools.. even such propoents as dembski will admit that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 3:04 AM randman has not replied

  
sleikind
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 76 (229765)
08-04-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


I don't think that ID is a right wing conspiracy. I have also never understood why there is a debate between ID and evolution or ID and the Big Bang. It seems to me that ID is 100% compatible with either of these two theories. You could debate whether the Big Bang or Evolution best describe how the universe and life as we know it have come to be. However, the outcome of this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there is an Intelligent Designer behind it all.
It is entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer set the whole process of evolution in motion. It is also entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer started the Big Bang and the universe has evolved and changed "by design". It does not seem to me that Science addresses this question at all. There is absolutely nothing in Science that is incompatible with the notion of Intelligent Design. I do not understand what the "debate" is all about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2005 2:03 PM sleikind has replied
 Message 40 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2005 2:04 PM sleikind has replied
 Message 41 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 2:29 PM sleikind has not replied
 Message 54 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 9:26 PM sleikind has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 76 (229771)
08-04-2005 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by sleikind
08-04-2005 12:43 PM


Hello, sleikind, and welcome to EvC.
The problem with ID is that it is not science. It basically comes down to: I cannot imagine how this particular structure/biochemical system may have evolved through gradual steps, so I conclude that an Intelligent Designer must have fashioned it. It is basically the argument from personal incredulity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 12:43 PM sleikind has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 3:05 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 40 of 76 (229772)
08-04-2005 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by sleikind
08-04-2005 12:43 PM


It is entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer set the whole process of evolution in motion. It is also entirely possible that an Intelligent Designer started the Big Bang and the universe has evolved and changed "by design". It does not seem to me that Science addresses this question at all. There is absolutely nothing in Science that is incompatible with the notion of Intelligent Design. I do not understand what the "debate" is all about.
The "debate" is about the fact that ID is NOT science. It's theology.
There is no evidence to suggest that anything was ever "designed," or guided by an intelligence. ID proponents simply point to "complexity" and say that this is evidence of design.
ID describes no mechanism - it just says "Goddidit," or at least "somebodydidit."
ID makes no falsifiable claims. All scientific hypothesis MUST by definition be falsifiable.
Occam's Razor tells us specifically NOT to add extraneous entities to a theory. Since the universe is fully explainable without a grand designer, there is no reason to add one.
If ID is NOT science, it has no place in a science classroom. A philosophy or theology class would be fine, but it has zero basis in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 12:43 PM sleikind has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 2:44 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 46 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 4:39 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 41 of 76 (229780)
08-04-2005 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by sleikind
08-04-2005 12:43 PM


I have also never understood why there is a debate between ID and evolution or ID and the Big Bang. It seems to me that ID is 100% compatible with either of these two theories.
Welcome sleikind,
I couldn't agree more, and I never really understood the debate either. I believe an intelligent designer did indeed set the whole process of evolution in motion.
But God is spiritual and we are also spirits having been created in His image. Our spirits are contained in this shell of a physical body that developed in gradual steps according to evolutionary principles.
The problem is when ID proponents want to extend the concept into the realm of science by positioning ID as science, which it is not. Or when creationists place too much emphasis on the value of our organic "shells" instead of our spiritual nature. Their mistake is arguing against the evolution of our physical bodies, when the focus should be on the soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 12:43 PM sleikind has not replied

  
sleikind
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 76 (229783)
08-04-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rahvin
08-04-2005 2:04 PM


I still don't think that the real debate is about ID vs. Evolution. Instead, many of those opposed to teaching evolution in schools try to frame it that way. Doing so gives them an entree for implementing their real agenda which is to teach versions of "how things came to be" that correspond with their reading of text from Genesis. The truth is that Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are not at all incompatible with the notion of an intelligent designer.
I personally wouldn't have a problem if someone teaching a course on Evolution made opening remarks that some people believe that Evolution came about through intelligent design while others do not. However, that is not what this debate is all about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2005 2:04 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2005 2:57 PM sleikind has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 43 of 76 (229784)
08-04-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by sleikind
08-04-2005 2:44 PM


I still don't think that the real debate is about ID vs. Evolution. Instead, many of those opposed to teaching evolution in schools try to frame it that way. Doing so gives them an entree for implementing their real agenda which is to teach versions of "how things came to be" that correspond with their reading of text from Genesis.
I'm not sure I follow. There IS a real debate between those who support ID and scientists. ID is NOT science, as I have shown. You're right that those opposed to evolution do so to further their own agenda, but this doesn't mean that the debate doesn't exist.
The truth is that Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are not at all incompatible with the notion of an intelligent designer.
But an intelligent designer, with no evidence to suggest one, is not science. Philisophically and theologically, you can mesh them into a single worldview. Many people here who believe in God AND evolution do exactly that. But ID is not science, despite its proponent's claims to the contrary.
I personally wouldn't have a problem if someone teaching a course on Evolution made opening remarks that some people believe that Evolution came about through intelligent design while others do not.
I would.
In a science class, "belief" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Operating from belief with no evidence is contrary to the scientific method itself. Science classes should deal in observable facts and the theories that spring from them, not philosophy or theology. Those classes are down the hall, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 2:44 PM sleikind has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 5:31 PM Rahvin has replied

  
sleikind
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 76 (229789)
08-04-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Chiroptera
08-04-2005 2:03 PM


Hi Chiroptera,
Perhaps, but looking at this from the standpoint of "pure reason", the notion that human beings were created in one day vs. the notion that they were created through evolution over two billion years both seem equally improbable to me. However, scientific evidence clearly favors the latter until new evidence surfaces to the contrary. Either "theory" is equally compatible with the belief that there is an intelligent designer or that there is no intelligent designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2005 2:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2005 3:09 PM sleikind has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 45 of 76 (229791)
08-04-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by sleikind
08-04-2005 3:05 PM


Either "theory" is equally compatible with the belief that there is an intelligent designer or that there is no intelligent designer.
The fact that ID fits both is part of the very reason it isn't science:
It's not falsifiable. There is no evidence one can put forth to disprove the idea that a grand designer caused everything. All scientific theories must be falsifiable - otherwise it's just idle speculation.
And please don't refer to Creationism as a "theory." A "theory" carries the weight of evidence and repeated attempts at falsification. Creationism is a religious belief, nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 3:05 PM sleikind 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