Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The I in ID
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 146 (137987)
08-29-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by MrHambre
08-27-2004 4:51 PM


Mr Hambre lost his mind
quote:
Mr. Hambre:
How very presumptuous of you to claim that any opposition to ID creationism is based on ignorance. I'm not alone here at EvC in having read works of various Discovery Institute fellows, especially Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe. I have a sincere interest in reading criticisms of Darwinism, and perhaps you would benefit from discovering first hand the scope and breadth of anti-ID sentiment among scientists.
No presumption necessary. The evidence made it obvious you know little about ID.
quote:
Mr. Hambre:
Look, Newton and Pasteur were believers, but so was a hardcore evolutionist like Dobzhanski, and so is Behe-basher Kenneth R. Miller. Newton's mechanics and Pasteur's germ theory did not postulate mystical entities to explain their conclusions, but were equally intelligible, verifiable and repeatable by believers and atheists alike. It seems you need a lesson in scientific methodology, and you won't get it at creationist websites.
I have my doubts about Miller. Newton and Pasteur postulated a Creator. That much is obvious. That was their conclusion- that what we observe is part and parcel of God's special creation. You need a lesson in honesty.
quote:
Mr. Hambre:
Intelligent design is mere creationism for the very reason you and Mike Gene say it's not: it concludes the reality of an intelligent designer without either producing independent evidence of such an entity, or defining what the capabilities or motives are that such a designer would have.
The evidence is there. Newton saw it. Pasteur saw it. Behe sees it. It has been presented by Behe, Gonzalez & Richards, Bradley, et al.
We don't know the motives or capabilities. However by studying the design we may be able to ascertain some aspects og the designer. But understanding the design is the amin priority.
quote:
Mr. Hambre:
In other words, you have no right to draw an inference from irreducible complexity to intelligent design without first telling us why this unverifiable intelligent designer is a more likely explanation than any verifiable materialistic mechanism for the biological structure in question.
That's the problem. You don't have any verifiable materialistic mechanism to offer. ID is a more likely explanation because of what we observe. IOW every time we observe an IC system an intelligent agency is ALWAYS the cause.
Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
Mike Behe
Peer-reviewed journals aren’t comparing what is observed inside the cell to machines, the articles make it clear it is molecular machines and motors we are observing under the magnifying glass. Howard Berg of Harvard has called the bac flag the most efficient machine in the universe. Living cells are factories in miniature. And you’re telling me that I can’t infer ID from the evidence?
quote:
Mr. Hambre:
The ID camp refuses to answer questions about the designer for the same reason garden-variety creationists do:
Leave it to you to not understand logic and reasoning. Why am I not surprised? I can't post what you look and smell like.
The facts show that ID and Creation are not the same. If you are going to continue to say they are the same it will only show you willfullness to remain agenda driven- the agenda of blatant misrepresentation.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by MrHambre, posted 08-27-2004 4:51 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2004 12:13 AM ID man has replied
 Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 08-30-2004 1:30 AM ID man has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 146 (137991)
08-30-2004 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ID man
08-29-2004 11:57 PM


Re: Mr Hambre lost his mind
Newton and Pasteur postulated a Creator.
In which part of their theories?
I'm not aware that Newton's Laws of Motion postulate a Creator; or that Pasteur was able to vaccinate against rabies by appeal to supernatural beings.
However by studying the design we may be able to ascertain some aspects og the designer.
In what way?
Maybe you need a simple example to start on. Why don't you look at a kidney dialysis machine and the Segway scooter and tell me what, as a result of their design, you can tell me about their creator, Dean Kamen? Then we can verify your conjectures via Kamen's biography.
IOW every time we observe an IC system an intelligent agency is ALWAYS the cause.
Except, obviously, for biological systems, for which the cause is not definatively known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 11:57 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 12:30 AM crashfrog has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 146 (137992)
08-30-2004 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Ooook!
08-28-2004 6:13 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is NOTCreationism
quote:
Ooook!:
1) If ID is not creationism, then why does it absolutely require a creator? If you are saying that a desiner exists/existed, then what did he do after he designed life? Would he not have created it? Although you (and other ID proponents) insist that it is based on scientific observation it is creation 'science' in all but name: Start with a conclusion, find evidence, restate conclusion, pretend this is scientific.
There are differences between the two (ID and Creation). Those differences were presented in the links given in my post on page 4 of this thread.
We don't start with a conclusion. The evidence points us to the design inference. Materialistic naturalism starts with the conclusion that nature is all there is (but where did nature come from?) and therefore any expalnation must be based on nature acting alone. So I guess science can't tell me about cars...
quote:
Ooook!:
2) Although I might not be so widely read in the ID literature as you are, I (and others) do have a pretty good idea what science smells like.
Let's stop right here. We observe life. We observe non-living matter. We observe there is a difference.
Science askes how did life get here/ where did life come from?
What are are options Ooook!? Either life got here by nature acting alone or nature didn't act alone. Was nature skirted altogether? How can it be scientific if only one option is pursued, IF science is about finding the truth to our existence? How objective is it to pre-emptively forbid one explanation because it doesn't fit your world-view? Why is it that Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pateur, Aristotle et al., saw the overwhelming evidence for design and inteligence in the universe?
Where's the dividing line? How can we answer that question if you won't let us? Give us the tools you have. Scientific research should yield the answers you seek. If we already knew than we would state is aas law. Just because we infer ID that doesn't mean all work and research has to stop. Quite the opposite. Now we have to understand the design. Decode genomes so we know them as computer programmers can decode C++.
And as for natural processes- does my computer run on natural processes? There isn't any real intelligence in the operating system or applications but it took intelligence to design and create them. If genomes are analogous to computer programs, as some IDists (& Bill Gates) say, we would have to figure out the language before speculating on your questions.
Del Ratzsch calls what you seek as a natrifact- "Phenomena that are in this sense intuitively part of nature, but that have a component of (supernatural) agent intervention within the existing flow of history and are not products of unaided nature, I will call "natural artifacts" or "natrifacts"."

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Ooook!, posted 08-28-2004 6:13 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 12:55 AM ID man has replied
 Message 66 by jar, posted 08-30-2004 1:03 AM ID man has not replied
 Message 70 by Ooook!, posted 08-30-2004 7:53 AM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 146 (137993)
08-30-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
08-30-2004 12:13 AM


Re: Mr Hambre lost his mind
Newton and Pasteur postulated a Creator.
quote:
crashfrog:
In which part of their theories?
As their conclusion to their observations.
However by studying the design we may be able to ascertain some aspects og the designer.
quote:
crashfrog:
In what way?
In a similar way archeologists ascertain aspects of the population that lived at the find they are studying. I never said we would be able to, I said we may. I know, and have posted, that it isn't necessary to know anything about the designer.
IOW every time we observe an IC system an intelligent agency is ALWAYS the cause.
quote:
crashfrog:
Except, obviously, for biological systems, for which the cause is not definatively known.
Then why are people so adamant that ID is out?

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2004 12:13 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2004 2:16 AM ID man has replied
 Message 75 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 4:57 PM ID man has replied
 Message 78 by Peter, posted 08-31-2004 8:45 AM ID man has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 146 (137996)
08-30-2004 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by ID man
08-30-2004 12:24 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is NOTCreationism
Let's stop right here. We observe life. We observe non-living matter. We observe there is a difference.
We do? Funny, I am sure that all matter is made from the same type of atoms, following the same physical rules. The only difference is in their arrangement. Just because we deem life to be an important result (and branch) of chemistry (ie biochemistry), it still is just chemistry. There is no supernatural force that makes living creatures move, live, breath and reproduce. Major advancements have been made in biology and medicine for the very reason that life is just a form of chemistry and thus can be understood.
IF science is about finding the truth to our existence?
Science is about finding supported and logical explanations for observable phenomena. It has nothing to do with "truth", as that implies we have discovered incontravertible rules by which nature operates. However, the progress of science comes from out simple admittance that we can only explain phenomena with less than 100 percent certaintiy, and that modification may be neccesary. This is a direct result that reality is never wrong, just our understanding of it.
And as for natural processes- does my computer run on natural processes? There isn't any real intelligence in the operating system or applications but it took intelligence to design and create them. If genomes are analogous to computer programs, as some IDists (& Bill Gates) say, we would have to figure out the language before speculating on your questions.
Of course your computer runs on "natural" processes. It hardly violates any physics. In fact, the computer is only possible due to our understanding of physics. However, the rules that make computers function operate wether or not there are computers. As for your computer to life analogy, it is poor at best. First, computers are not able to reproduce, change, etc as biological systems are. Additionally, the structure of computers systems have to be seperated by proccesses that don't occur in nature. However, anyone taking o-chem will tell you that given a proper mix of chemical and a catalyst, organic reactions do occur. The defining distinction between the two is easily seen. Also, computer languages may be analgous to DNA, but they aren't the same. The analogy is that both carry forms of information, but that information, how it is proccessed and expreesed are radically different. Computer codes are inherantly aribrary, which various schemes of operations being defined and standardized. However, there is no "naturalistic" expression of the code, only human designed function and interpretation. On the other hand, DNA codes specific sequances of chemicals, which have definite representation in reality, that based on shape and compisition, have a fixed and idependant reality and and properties. They require no intelligent operation or understanding.
Oh, yea and in regards to :
Why is it that Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pateur, Aristotle et al., saw the overwhelming evidence for design and inteligence in the universe?
Well, my guess its because of their various religious persuasions, which had nothing to do with their scientific endevours. Of course, all but Louis Pastuer were dead before TOE was oringally fomulated by Charles Darwin. Be akin to saying none of them saw evidence for/ or didn't agree with Special or General realitivity. Or QM for that matter. A completley non-sensical statment. As for Louis Pastuer,I am not sure what his personal opinion in regards to TOE, but it is possible that he didn't oringally agree with it ( it did come out during his lifetime.) Of course, supporting quotes of his material or journals would be neccasry to support that he didn't accept the theory either.
Remember, personal belief in a diety doesn't automatically equate to overwhelming belief in a personal god that tampers directly with reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 12:24 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 11:33 AM Darwin Storm has not replied
 Message 109 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 1:04 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 146 (138001)
08-30-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by ID man
08-30-2004 12:24 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is NOTCreationism
Why is it that Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pateur{sic}, Aristotle et al., saw the overwhelming evidence for design and inteligence in the universe?
Possibly because they did not have the benefit of what we have learned over the last century or more. You have to admit they were dealing with a very limited data set. In fact, we have learned more in the last 70 years than in the preceeding 4-5 Billion years when it comes to understanding the world around us.
Is there any doubt that if Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pasteur, Aristotle et al. were alive today that they would embrace the scientific explanations as available today?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 12:24 AM ID man has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 67 of 146 (138007)
08-30-2004 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ID man
08-29-2004 11:57 PM


ID Man Lost His Debate
ID man,
It's desperate of you to accuse me of knowing little about a subject that I've studied at length. Obviously the notion of scientific methodology seems boring or irrelevant to someone under the influence of intelligent-design creationism, but that doesn't mean that the subject has no bearing on the issue at hand. IDC advocates have no trouble talking about "evidence," but they seem to have trouble telling us exactly what this evidence is or why we should accept it according to the logic of empirical evidential inquiry.
Quite simply, if you don't know anything about the designer, you can't conceivably ascertain exactly how he would design the artifacts you claim are his handiwork. Your archaeologists don't work backward like IDC theorists: they know they're searching for human artifacts, and so already understand the motives and capabilities of their proposed designers. That creationists have convinced you otherwise is a testament to your susceptibility to their powers of persuasion, but it doesn't say a thing about actual scientific inquiry.
The only thing we know about irreducibly complex systems is that they need all their components to perform their current function.
The assertion that they cannot be the product of step-by-step Darwinian evolution is a ridiculous canard, and the notion that they are "evidence" of intelligent design is mere wishful thinking on the part of creationists.
Please do us the favor of answering our questions concerning the real "evidence" supporting ID creationism, and don't waste so much time telling me I'd understand it perfectly if I weren't so crazy and ignorant.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 11:57 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 1:00 PM MrHambre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 146 (138017)
08-30-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ID man
08-30-2004 12:30 AM


As their conclusion to their observations.
In which theories, specifically? Again, Newton's laws of motion make no mention of a creator, nor did Pasteur's rabies vaccine appeal to supernatural entities.
In which scientific theories did Newton and Pasteur include the supernatural, specifically?
In a similar way archeologists ascertain aspects of the population that lived at the find they are studying.
But archeologists don't acertain aspects of the populations that lived in the areas they study; what they do is acertain what aspects of human populations that have already been observed can be reasonably applied to the population that lived where they're studying.
In other words, archeologists can only find out those things about past humans that we can observe in present ones. What present intelligence are you observing that can tell you about whatever intelligence created living systems? The only known intelligence is human, and human intelligence can't be responsible for life, because how could we be there before we were created?
There's no other known intelligence, so there's no intelligence you can scientifically postulate is responsible for life. ID fails simply because there's no avaliable known intelligence to do the deed.
Then why are people so adamant that ID is out?
Because you've based it on circular reasoning: "We know that every IC system is caused by intelligence, therefore biological systems are caused by intelligence; we know that biological systems are caused by intelligence therefore all IC systems are caused by intelligence."
The only way you can assert that "all IC systems are caused by intelligence" is if you assume what you're trying to prove; that is, biological IC systems are caused by intelligence.
Well, there's no reason to believe that they are. Simply because intelligence can cause IC systems doesn't mean that intelligence is always the cause of IC systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 12:30 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 11:46 AM crashfrog 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

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 70 of 146 (138039)
08-30-2004 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by ID man
08-30-2004 12:24 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is NOTCreationism
OK, if you insist that ID is a science and totally unrelated to creationism; let me describe what I see in ID arguments and what I would expect to see from a properly constructed scientific theory
This is what I see every time ID get's explained to me:
  • Hypothesis: I believe a creator existed so I will look for evidence (says this bit very quietly because he wants ID to be taught as science)
  • Evidence: Aha! IC complex systems look to me like they were designed!
  • Conclusion: Life was designed, IOW created
  • What more do you want?
Now, you could argue quite convincingly that the first point is one mother of an assumption, but I've based it on what I would expect to see if it was a proper scientific theory unbiased by a belief in God:
  • Hypothesis based on observation: Some biochemical systems (and maybe some gross anatomical ones too - depending on which IDer you ask), are quite complex, they appear to be designed
  • Testing the theory with evidence: How can we properly define this theory? What is the nature and mechanism of this design? Can IC systems really not come about by any other way? As there are aspects of life that could have arisen by natural selection, where did a designer get involved?
ID creationists never get to the last part, they sidestep all these uncomfortable questions and are happy to rest on their laurels having 'successfully proved' that life was created. Arguments tend to run in circles because of this:
-"Life was Designed!"
-"Why?"
-"Cos it just looks designed?"
-"Why?"
-"Because it's like [insert manmade object]"
-"Eh? But [manmade object] is nothing like what I'm on about...Oh never mind! How can you be sure that these IC systems couldn't have come about by natural selection, there's a lot of gaps in our knowledge?"
-"Well, until those gaps are filled we must assume it was designed!"
-"But wh...Oh forget it"
You can prove me wrong by showing me a piece of evidence that is not based on analogy or a lack of knowledge. I've never seen this before, so I'll be very surprised if you can. You'll probably keep on avoiding those awkward questions.
Which brings me to this wonderful piece of avoidance:
Where's the dividing line? How can we answer that question if you won't let us? Give us the tools you have. Scientific research should yield the answers you seek.
Wow! Beautiful dummy followed by a deft sidestep. Unfortunately you then get steam-rollered by the prop forward of reality. Exactly what tools have you been denied? What kind of experiment would you do to test ID 'theory' if the evil forces of science allowed you to? Many genomes have been sequenced and freely published, so what is stopping you showing us the design within them?
Let me put the question another way:
Which aspects of the 'tree' of evolution do you think can be explained by mutation and natural selection? Start at humans and trace it back. At what point is the magic finger of a creat...sorry designer absolutely required?
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-30-2004 06:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 12:24 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by MrHambre, posted 08-30-2004 9:42 AM Ooook! has not replied
 Message 102 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 11:59 AM Ooook! has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 146 (138043)
08-30-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Mammuthus
08-30-2004 4:41 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
ID in public schools will not last past the first court challenge because it is necessarily a form of faith.
That said, what hook would you use to interest people in science that have been told that it is wrong? Would you make the classes mandatory? What happens when someone fails?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Mammuthus, posted 08-30-2004 4:41 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Mammuthus, posted 08-30-2004 10:25 AM RAZD has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 72 of 146 (138044)
08-30-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Ooook!
08-30-2004 7:53 AM


The Blind Watchmaker
Ooook! asks,
quote:
Which aspects of the 'tree' of evolution do you think can be explained by mutation and natural selection? Start at humans and trace it back. At what point is the magic finger of a creat...sorry designer absolutely required?
Good questions. In post #47, I brought up the exact same thing. How much design can we ascribe to a blind, purposeless process?
As always with the shell game known as intelligent-design creationism, it's unclear whether the mutation-selection machine has any design capability whatsoever. IDC'ers claim that only irreducibly complex systems are evidence for intelligent design. I'm not sure that means that non-IC systems are the product of material processes or just that they're not as persuasive evidence for intelligent design.
Either way there seems to be problems for IDC. If non-IC biological systems (like arms and legs, I suppose, or antennae, or intricate molecular machines like hemoglobin) are the work of material mechanisms, that's impressive design power. What is essentially different about IC systems that this design power couldn't produce?
On the other hand, if even non-IC systems can't be attributed to material mechanisms, then ID creationism is basically saying that everything is the product of intelligence. This makes intelligent agency an 'explanation' for absolutely any phenomenon, removes what little empirical significance IC ever had in the first place, and renders it utterly unfalsifiable.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Ooook!, posted 08-30-2004 7:53 AM Ooook! has not 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 74 of 146 (138134)
08-30-2004 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Mammuthus
08-30-2004 10:25 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Mammuthus, posted 08-30-2004 10:25 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2004 4:57 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 146 (138194)
08-30-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ID man
08-30-2004 12:30 AM


Misuse of archaeology
quote:
In a similar way archeologists ascertain aspects of the population that lived at the find they are studying. I never said we would be able to, I said we may. I know, and have posted, that it isn't necessary to know anything about the designer.
When an archaeologist finds a pottery fragment, does he posit that it is left over from a martian colony? Of course not. Is it because the design inference requires that the designer be known separately from the design? Or is it because the archaeology departments world wide are trying to cover up the large mounds of evidence pointing to extraterrestrial life?
ID theory takes it a step further. Not only do we have a sufficient natural mechanism for creating design in reproducing organisms, which would negate the potter analogy, but the supposed designer is not evident outside of the design process. Therefore, ID strikes out at every step of the design inference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 12:30 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 11:51 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024