Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The I in ID
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 35 of 146 (136768)
08-25-2004 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by MrHambre
08-25-2004 11:29 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
quote:
When creationists say that God created matter or life, obviously that's a short-cut intended to stand in for a real explanation of origins. The origin of a fairy-tale God who has always existed doesn't require an explanation, according to creationists.
Great couple of sentences. It shows that it is not god of the gaps but rather god is a gap...any gap in scientific knowledge, creationists/IDists try to fill with god..if they cannot find a gap, they ignore evidence and claim a gap is there anyway...unfortunately, science has a nasty habit of filling in gaps and thus god is constantly shrinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by MrHambre, posted 08-25-2004 11:29 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by 1.61803, posted 08-26-2004 3:52 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 46 of 146 (137297)
08-27-2004 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by 1.61803
08-26-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
Except if I was imitating Neitzche, I would have have had to preceed the statement with a few lines about how great I am and that nobody recognizes it because they are dumb ...and write it in German.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by 1.61803, posted 08-26-2004 3:52 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 48 of 146 (137311)
08-27-2004 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by MrHambre
08-27-2004 7:08 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
I would agree but would add that the difference between the two is that creationists equate hypotheses based on personal experience or belief, without any evidence in nature nor any way to obtain evidence in the first place i.e. faith, with scientific evidence based on testable and falsifiable hypotheses constructed to describe natural phenomenon. ID (in all its forms) does exactly the same thing but claims, without ever supporting it, that it is applying methodological naturalism and not just that it is equating itself with science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by MrHambre, posted 08-27-2004 7:08 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by MrHambre, posted 08-27-2004 10:20 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2004 11:09 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 51 of 146 (137345)
08-27-2004 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
08-27-2004 11:09 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
quote:
Of course that "something" must have acted in a supernatural manner (or the whole process defaults to a natural process), and thus it is necessarily of a godly character by definition (and ID defaults to a religious argument of "he did it" when you talk about what the "something" did), but that does not mean that arguments for ID must necessarily be pseudoscientific, just that it hasn't been seen yet.
One possible legitimate pursuit of ID that I see would be to understand the workings enough to be able to eliminate supernatural action from the process under review, and once that is done move on to the next process. In this manner an honest proponent of ID would behave no different than a conventional scientist, because the working methodology is "let's find out how it really works" -- the only difference may be in which processes they are interested in, a divergence of study that could be of benefit?
That would be great except until ID can propose a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design it is by definition pseudoscience. You cannot even begin to conceive of experiements or gather evidence for a hypothesis that you cannot even falsify much less test. Anytime ID is confronted with a natural explanation for an IC system they claim that some other system must then be IC. They are in constant retreat or denial. Thus far I have actually yet to see any scientific hypothesis of ID. They claim that there is intelligence involved yet fail to show how one would detect it or rule it out. The most common explanation is that if it is complex it must be ID (or that it is self-evident). They spend virtually all their time critiquing natural explanations of observed phenomenon like creationists as it is easier to critique than it is to actually engage in scientific investigation. However, to date, biological sciences have successfully produced everything from medicine to explanations of how heredity works whereas ID has made absolutely no advancement and remains a loose affiliation of anti-science protesters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2004 11:09 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 2:45 PM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2004 3:06 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 69 of 146 (138029)
08-30-2004 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
08-27-2004 3:06 PM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
quote:
That is why I said the one possible legitimate pursuit is to attempt to falsify ID process by process, eliminating them as you go. Think what a tool ID can be with a little assistance to lead people into science, scientific methods and practices, and the rigors of rational and logical thought. You can't lead someone out of the swamp by transporting them to the edge, you have to provide a path. Exposing charletans and showing the difference between their side-shows and real science is one thing, getting involved in the side-show and subverting it to educate people is another.
I still don't buy that. You are either taught methodological naturalism properly and both understand it and practice it or you do not. The process of elimination will not achieve much. It already happens. IDists say something is IC or involves intelligence, science provides a natural explanation without invoking supernatural entities and IDist counter by saying..ok, then it was this system we meant. They will just move their targets around as their "designer/creator" continues to shrink. It is hardly an educational tool. A better educational tool would be to spend a year of science class actually learning what science is and how it works before rote learning the Krebs cycle or equations. One could then use ID as an example of pseudoscience by challenging students to come up with a testable and falsifiable hypothesis for ID and to do the same for an actual scientific hypothesis. When they fail to do so for ID, they would have a better understanding of what the differences are between science and quackery. However, modern education is unfortunately not up to such a task and the religious right wingers have a political interest in keeping people ignorant and willing to believe in fairy tales over science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2004 3:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 8:59 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 73 of 146 (138053)
08-30-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
08-30-2004 8:59 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
I won't claim to have a solution, but I don't think that the hook should be to give credibility to a completely anti-scientific supernatural explanation for biodiversity. Only perhaps in the context of demonstrating the he ToE (or any scientific theory) is testable and falsifiable whereas ID is neither to give people an understanding of what science is or is not. I don't think science would gain by pandering to the lowest common denominator of education and saying ok, here is how we prove each and every thing you say is wrong.
Unfortunately, science education is not a high priority in the US with the end effect that it is becoming both ever more structured as a discipline for the elite and less understandable for the general public. Another consequence is that the US is highly dependent on foreign trained scientists. There is very little bridging between science and the public. For any dent to be made, people have to be interested and more products have to be available to both feed and increase the interest. Here in Germany, there is an enormous amount of tv time and museums devoted to science and particularly to natural history. Most 5 year olds get more of a science education watching tv than most of the creationists/IDist posters at this site exhibit. If I compare it to US tv programming or other popular entertainment, one can almost see why people grow up with little or no exposure to what science has and can acheive. They are then easily manipulated by zealots who play off that ignorance.
I guess the only hook is exposure...science is interesting enough and has achieved enough to fascinate on its own...the creation/ID camp wishes that it could be kept a secret.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 8:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:05 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 76 of 146 (138356)
08-31-2004 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
08-30-2004 2:05 PM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
quote:
Or is it because schools are afraid to flunk kids now?
Guaranteeing that education is available for all is not a guarantee that the information is learned by each. The number of bumper stickers I see that say "My Child is on the Honor Roll" is way more than the number of schools available - can half the kids be on the honor roll?
The "leave no child behind" is another way of saying "let no child get ahead"
I would be fully open to a section in science on the problems with pseudo-science and the untestable nature of any 'explanation' that says "he did it" (which ID does do).
I also think that lessons on logic would be valid in public school too.
I totally agree. I think the problem is that pure memorization of facts, like memorizing the periodic table or the Krebs cycle, occurs prior to learning the fundamentals of methodological naturalism. If the principles of science and logic were taught before the rote learning begins, there would be more students with a better grasp of the subsequent material. Even if they did not continue in the sciences. Coupled with comparisons with pseudoscience (I had some teachers myself who did this effectively) one would be pretty well prepared to evaluate what the media spews out. But you are right, there is no way to make every student a capable scientist and there is no reason to hinder those who are gifted from moving ahead of the curve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:05 PM RAZD 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