The gaps in neo-Darwinism are growing and one of the predictions of ID says those gaps will continue to grow.
Name a real scientific theory that is so hingent upon another theory failing in order to be correct.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
The gaps in neo-Darwinism are growing and one of the predictions of ID says those gaps will continue to grow.
traderdrew writes:
I don't think science works like that. I think science advances by explaining the evidence better than the other theory did.
Are you admitting that ID is not science?
A proper theory should not theorize a failure of another theory to prove itself.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
I have already stated in this very thread that it is not science.
Forgive me if I did not see where you said that, but rather, saw you sticking up for ID as a valid theory.
It belongs under philosophy or metaphysics or metascience.
No. It belongs in CHURCH. Mayb not even there...
Science cannot prove the existence of the God of the Bible anymore than it can prove the existence of Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster.
If that last statement proves there is no God then, science is the only begetter of truth and the truth can only be found through science.
Well then, I guess it's a good thing science could give two shits about god.
Do you see now why science has its limitations?
Science deals with what science applies to. Of course it's not an all encompassing subject. Science can't cover history, feelings, psychology. However, you can use the scientific method for numerous applications which don't ncessarily fall under the umbrella of being "science-y".
If you are saying science is limited in that it doesn't deal with things that cannot be tested, well then, you are partially correct. If science dealt with such things, it wouldn't be science.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
My 5 year old son acts in much the same way when I take a toy away from him.
FYI: The wedge document is a pretty big player in the ID movement.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
I think you miss the one of the premises of intelligent design. Remember, ID is emprically based. We have not found the designer directly. We search for the fingerprints or the evidence left behind and we believe intelligent causations can best explain certain things.
And this is why it is not science. You arrive at a conclusion (designerdidit), then look for "evidence" to fit your conclusion.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
I follows that, in general, to find out whether an object has CSI we must first know whether it was designed or produced by natural processes ...
But....how can we know it is designed without first knowing it has CSI? Isn't this CSI the key for it to being designed? Am I just too ignorant for thinking this is pretty circular?
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
If this was true that our ancestors would never have been able to track animals based on the information dstored in the ground in the form of tracks.
If this was true our ancestors would never have learnt not to build a habitat next to the shore line when the arrangement of sediment transmits the information that the tide will come in.
Damn good call, Larni. Just goes to show you that you can find information just about anywhere as long as you know how to interperet it.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
Here is something from the IDEA website, of which Casey Luskin is the founder. For those who don't know Casey, he is a prominent speaker on behalf of ID. He is also staff at Discovery Institute.
Is Intelligent Design Theory Science or Religion? Intelligent design is an answer to the question, "How did we get here?" If understanding in science is to "recogniz[e] the causes and effects of phenomena"1 and scientific progress "consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena"1 then if certain natural objects were caused by intelligent design, then it would increase scientific understanding would science would undergo progress to discover that fact. Yet, a common question about intelligent design is if it is a "religious" or "theological" concept or if it is a scientific theory. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that one can answer the question "How did we get here?" with "Life was intelligently designed" by using both scientific methods or the methods of religion:
Reading the above, it is air apparent that Luskin has a hard time diffentiatin religion from ID, almost to the point that he is conflating science with both requiring religion AND interfering with religion. This also is an insufficient answer to even the first question in the paragraph: Is Intelligent Design Theory Science or Religion? You can also see the entire page is rote with biblical passages. I thought ID was pourely science?
Do Science and Religion Overlap? When talking about the question, "How did we get here?" (i.e. origins) both science and religion speak. An accurate model of science and religion must recognize that fact:
Science and religion are both different "ways of knowing" can be different ways of knowing about the same thing: origins. Science knows things through the scientific method. Religion knows things through faith and divine revelation. Science approaches the subject of origins through the scientific method. Religion approaches the subject of origins from faith and divine revelation:
This, to me, is a gross misrepresentation of both what science is and what ID claims.
There is also a thunderf00t video on Youtube where Luskin admits that the designer IS god/YHWH. This is also discussed on Pharyngula (both sites are inaccessible to me atm becasue I am at work).
We may never get them to outright admit ID is creationism in disguise, that would destroy their plot. however, all it takes is minute amounts of piecing things together to understand that ID IS creationism (albeit in disguise, POOR disguise).
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
Now, within Christian theology there is one and only one way to make sense of transcendent design, and that is as a divine act of creation. I want therefore next to focus on divine creation, and specifically on the creation of the world. My aim is to use divine creation as a lens for understanding intelligent agency generally. God's act of creating the world is the prototype for all intelligent agency (creative or not). Indeed, all intelligent agency takes its cue from the creation of the world. How so? God's act of creating the world makes possible all of God's subsequent interactions with the world, as well as all subsequent actions by creatures within the world. God's act of creating the world is thus the prime instance of intelligent agency.
Before examining this criterion, I want to offer a brief clarification about the word "design." I'm using "design" in three distinct senses. First, I use it to denote the scientific theory that distinguishes intelligent agency from natural causes, a theory that increasingly is being referred to as "design theory" or "intelligent design theory" (IDT). Second, I use "design" to denote what it is about intelligently produced objects that enables us to tell that they are intelligently produced and not simply the result of natural causes. When intelligent agents act, they leave behind a characteristic trademark or signature. The scholastics used to refer to the "vestiges of creation." The Latin vestigium means footprint. It was thought that God, though not physically present, left his footprints throughout creation. Hugh Ross has referred to the "fingerprint of God." It is "design" in this sense-as a trademark, signature, vestige, or fingerprint-that our criterion for discriminating intelligently from unintelligently caused objects is meant to identify. Lastly, I use "design" to denote intelligent agency itself. Thus, to say that something is designed is to say that an intelligent agent caused it.
I guess saying that the christian god is the creat..er I mean *designer, and not saying "I AM A CREATIONIST" constitutes him as.....not being a creationist?
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, qwacks like a duck AND farts like a duck, does that make him a rhino because he says hes a rhino?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
You make some good points Straggler, most of which I would have to agree.
However, I must point out the *origin of ID. Can one truly believe that the ID movement was brought about simply on the belief in..ID? Is it not obliteratingly obvious that it was *created to mask creationism? Why is "Of Pandas and People", as pointed out in Dover, not sufficient evidence of this point?
It may very well end up being wholly seperate from creationism, even to the point where there is a hard line between the two. I really don't think we are there yet, though.
*pun intended
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
Now, within Christian theology there is one and only one way to make sense of transcendent design, and that is as a divine act of creation. I want therefore next to focus on divine creation, and specifically on the creation of the world. My aim is to use divine creation as a lens for understanding intelligent agency generally. God's act of creating the world is the prototype for all intelligent agency (creative or not). Indeed, all intelligent agency takes its cue from the creation of the world. How so? God's act of creating the world makes possible all of God's subsequent interactions with the world, as well as all subsequent actions by creatures within the world. God's act of creating the world is thus the prime instance of intelligent agency.
It's the god of the bible he is referring to as his designer.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
I never thought I would ever be defending ID in any way shape or form............
Me either. I'm not exactly sure I understand what your perspective is.
Is not "the ID movement" and "Intelligent Design" the exact same thing? When I say "the ID movement" I only mean to reference the group that is pushing intelligent design, which includes the wedge document. I do not see a disconnect.
Intelligent design in any other context, likely any other non-English country, IS creationism (that is, if you are referring to the "act" of intelligent design). We, I think, only see a difference because there are proponents of both in our respective countries (U.S. and England).
The line has been muddied by the ID proponents themselves, just by spouting off christian values almost in the same sentence as there ID shit.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
There are numerous theistic evolutionsits who might describe God as "the prime instance of intelligent agency" but who are not creationists. No?
I've yet to see any IDist that is STRICTLY scientific. It is bloody well obvious that behind ID is christianity. There are no 2 ways about it. Every ID website I have tortured myself into researching is draped in biblical quotes.
{ABE} i did mention "oxymoron", only because I was typing out loud, so to speak. I only meant it to mean that what I took you to imply was that in some way, a theistic evolutionist could also be an ID proponent. That's the oxymoron.....sorta.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : typing too fast, I have work to do and I don't want to do it.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
As I stated in my Message 728, here is the thunderf00t video on Pharyngula (I didn't know the same video was also on P.Z.'s blog)
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
™ Version 4.2
