Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   intelligent design, right and wrong
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 106 of 126 (45307)
07-07-2003 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by MrHambre
07-07-2003 12:46 PM


Yes .. thankyou
Now ... why would an IDist hold such an opinion in the
first place?
My opinion is fear ... but then that's why I think
anyone would want to believe in a diety ... so that
dieing (sp??) is less scary.
[Or deity even ... I don't beleive in diety becuase I too
prefer to eat icecream
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by MrHambre, posted 07-07-2003 12:46 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 107 of 126 (45314)
07-07-2003 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Peter
07-07-2003 12:32 PM


peter writes:
The OP suggested that without 'Intelligent Design' there
could be no right and wrong and we may as well kill someone
as eat an icecream.
This is exactly where ID theory becomes IDC theory.
If ID was truly pure science, not only would they admit that there is no immediate replacement for evo (if evo has been refuted), they would not say that ID ends materialist philosophy and replaces it with a teleological philosophy that contains "moral answers to everyday problems".
It's as if they found some chinks in the armor of evo theory, raced to the conclusion that evo is no longer good, continued sprinting to their next conclusion that things must then be designed, then leaped (the same leap of faith Behe talks about) to an idea that it must be a deity type (extra-material)designer, then leaped again to what morality that deity had intended for us... conveniently that deity must be the Xtian god and had a son which died on a cross for all man's sins.
All that from some unanswered issues in evo theory?
Normally I'd prefer to eat ice cream, but with neoconservatives pushing IDC watered down definitions of science into government documents, and changing educational requirements to foist their "new think" on unsuspecting children, sometimes killing some people looks just as tasty.
(heheheh... just kidding)
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Peter, posted 07-07-2003 12:32 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by MrHambre, posted 07-07-2003 2:31 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 110 by MrHambre, posted 07-08-2003 12:02 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 108 of 126 (45317)
07-07-2003 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Silent H
07-07-2003 1:33 PM


The IDC forum site bears as its motto, "Retraining the Scientific Imagination to See Purpose in Nature." I suppose it's nice to know what you're looking for, and it's to be expected that IDC will be able to recognize it when it sees it.
However, I agree with holmes that the IDC strategy reveals motives not nearly so noble. If scientists perform experiments and publish papers that challenge the reigning orthodoxy, there should be Nobel prizes and massive grant money in their future. Then I would imagine that school curricula would change to reflect the shift in scientific perspective.
IDC's complete lack of success in building a realistic research program or constructing a scientific methodology to replace what they consider the inadequate naturalistic model has not prevented its proponents from claiming that IDC comprises a scientific alternative to Darwinism. Their attempts to force IDC into the schools despite its lack of impact in the lab seem premature at best, and irresponsible at worst.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Silent H, posted 07-07-2003 1:33 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Brad McFall, posted 07-07-2003 11:57 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 109 of 126 (45343)
07-07-2003 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by MrHambre
07-07-2003 2:31 PM


It may not be as easy to think that "grant" money translates so simply based on knowedlge transmission in the case of biology as it historically was different than physics SINCE biotech has not established it self (as in physics,comptuer science, or engineering or even chemistry for that matter) and for me it is far from clear that some change whether provoked by religious influence or actually discovered anew is not needed before such knowledge is not a guess on yours or my part but a consensus regardless of who pays for the tuition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by MrHambre, posted 07-07-2003 2:31 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Peter, posted 07-15-2003 7:21 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 110 of 126 (45397)
07-08-2003 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Silent H
07-07-2003 1:33 PM


I hope IDC will be as unsuccessful in its quest to renew culture as it has been in its efforts to revolutionize science. Let's not forget one thing that the Intelligent Design Creationists say that Design thinking will recognize: that societies and social behavior have also been designed for certain purposes. Am I wrong in wondering if anything at odds with this perceived social purpose will not be tolerated?
Daniel Dennett has argued that the Darwinian revolution frees us from the deterministic dead-end of mind-first philosophy. While we understand that most distinctions (life, species, language, consciousness, etc.) are more accurately seen as differences of degree than as differences in essence, we can make distinctions when they are useful to us.
For example, we understand that all languages are part of a continuum in which distinctions can't be made with complete certainty. However, a traveler to Paris can buy a French phrasebook based on the fact that certain oversimplifications are necessary in life.
In the same way, morality without mind-first philosophical baggage is not doomed to utter subjectivity. Just because we don't have the convenience of an essentialist doctrine that declares that 'right' and 'wrong' are mutually exclusive universals does not mean that anything goes. We can determine the fitness of certain behavior or moral choices in their context, and declare certain ethical distinctions that we feel are necessary.
Intelligent Design Creationism wants us to acknowledge purpose in Nature. If we fail to see it, that simply means our imaginations have to be 'retrained.' Imagine what's in store for us if we fail to acknowledge the grand purpose in human society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Silent H, posted 07-07-2003 1:33 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 111 of 126 (46060)
07-15-2003 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Brad McFall
07-07-2003 11:57 PM


I think the problem is that ID provokes very little
thought, because it is not formalised in a testable
manner.
What claims does ID theory actually make?
What evidence supports such claims?
How could such claims be refuted?
Perhaps laying these out in concise points may help
to clarify the IDist position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Brad McFall, posted 07-07-2003 11:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Parasomnium, posted 07-16-2003 7:21 PM Peter has replied
 Message 115 by Brad McFall, posted 08-26-2003 5:59 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 112 of 126 (46275)
07-16-2003 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Peter
07-15-2003 7:21 AM


Peter,
You say
"[I think] the problem is that ID provokes very little
thought [...]"
I would rephrase that thusly:
"The problem is that ID is the result of very little thought."
"What claims does ID theory actually make?"
That the complexity of life can only be explained by assuming an intelligent designer. (And that some geezer called Paley found a watch somewhere.)
"What evidence supports such claims?"
None whatsoever.
"How could such claims be refuted?"
They cannot.
Cheers.
P.S. Peter, have you read Daniel Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"? In it, he eloquently argues that there's design in living nature, but that this doesn't necessarily imply an intelligent agent. So we can meet the ID-ers halfway: there's design, yes. But intelligence? Nope, there's no need for it. (Now lash out with Occam's Razor...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Peter, posted 07-15-2003 7:21 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Peter, posted 07-17-2003 4:07 AM Parasomnium has not replied
 Message 114 by MrHambre, posted 07-17-2003 10:09 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 113 of 126 (46311)
07-17-2003 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Parasomnium
07-16-2003 7:21 PM


quote:
P.S. Peter, have you read Daniel Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"? In it, he eloquently argues that there's design in living nature, but that this doesn't necessarily imply an intelligent agent. So we can meet the ID-ers halfway: there's design, yes. But intelligence? Nope, there's no need for it. (Now lash out with Occam's Razor...)
I'll have to dig that out ... thanks.
The separation of 'intelligence' from 'design' has been pointed
out in threads here .... with very few takers from the ID
supporters ... they seem to get stuck on 'design' and drop the
'intelligence'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Parasomnium, posted 07-16-2003 7:21 PM Parasomnium has not replied

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


Message 114 of 126 (46340)
07-17-2003 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Parasomnium
07-16-2003 7:21 PM


Dennett's Diabolical Idea
Daniel Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' is probably my all-time favorite book. I'm a voracious reader and I've read some amazing books, but that one is truly staggering.
Intelligent design creationism asserts that where there's design, there must be a designer, even when we're looking at living things. What they forget is that in our experience, intelligence has never been responsible for the design of living things. Dennett says the cranes of natural selection have done the design work, and the ingenuity of these purposeless processes is a wonder to behold. Whether the raw material for the Darwinian algorithm is genetic, statistical, or philosophical, the output is always determined by fitness functions alone, and never any moral or teleological absolutes.
In that case, is right or wrong merely an illusion, like the intelligence people try to see in undirected natural processes? Not necessarily. The Darwinian framework frees us from the obligations to discern divine purpose and enforce God-mandated absolutes. We're free to set our own standards (to determine the fitness functions ourselves, as it were) and allow the program to shape society in a way we consider rational and just.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Parasomnium, posted 07-16-2003 7:21 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 115 of 126 (52389)
08-26-2003 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Peter
07-15-2003 7:21 AM


I actually support in this regard the more conservative ICR position than ID's GOD. I was not able to gain any more BIBICAL CREATIONIST motivation from trying to read what I did of ID technically than I could with dealing with say AD WHITE on Miracles and Morris' approach. I do not think Kantianism need be excluded at all. On NAIG some one recently suggested the correct approach to ID aka information gain or loss vs chance but there is no scientific creationist CHANGE of Biblical Creationist INFORMATION on any ID in my pinned tag of the thought and as I personally could no gain by using ID literature I for myself short of disscuing to this much with others have dropped this creation science for the science of conflicts with atomic mentality that seems to inhibit theory in evolution elite itself!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Peter, posted 07-15-2003 7:21 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Parasomnium, posted 08-26-2003 7:10 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 116 of 126 (52391)
08-26-2003 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Brad McFall
08-26-2003 5:59 PM


Brad McFall writes:
On NAIG some one recently suggested the correct approach to ID aka information gain or loss vs chance but there is no scientific creationist CHANGE of Biblical Creationist INFORMATION on any ID in my pinned tag of the thought and as I personally could no gain by using ID literature I for myself short of disscuing to this much with others have dropped this creation science for the science of conflicts with atomic mentality that seems to inhibit theory in evolution elite itself!
OK, the way I see it, there are several possibilities here:
  • This is some hitherto unknown language that just happens to look like English;
  • Brad McFall is actually Alan Sokal in hoax mode again;
  • My computer has contracted a virus;
  • Brad McFall has been eating funny mushrooms;
  • I've been eating funny mushrooms;
  • I'm a brain in a vat and someone is messing with the wires.
More alternatives, anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Brad McFall, posted 08-26-2003 5:59 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Brad McFall, posted 08-26-2003 8:43 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 117 of 126 (52399)
08-26-2003 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Parasomnium
08-26-2003 7:10 PM


get real
Stop beating around the terebith book and accept me for who I really am. I am not GOD. your ears are closed to the truth and that is just what I said so you have no excuse. Perhaps your lens are too heavy.
I know how to use the following:
Biblical Creationism
Scientific Creationsim
Creation Science
and I did ON AIR, Live with CAll ins. Try being a fair producer no matter which camera the director TAKES and you will soon realize that this is language that will remain the the public square no matter that marxist ethics is MORE controversial and a worse offendor of lingo extrodinar. I HAD a Chrisitan upbringing thta allowed me a larger veiw of biology than was ALLLOWED at cornell. It had nothing to do with religon it had to do with Marxist PERCEPTION. Perception as your post noted is ONLY 1/2 of the reality. If you learn to READ creation literature as I was helped out by the book beyond the Day (see BookNook) you will find that such is not offensive to seculars only they have not actually been taught to READ it. One letter at atime my friend. Intelligent Design refers to GOD like it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Parasomnium, posted 08-26-2003 7:10 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Parasomnium, posted 08-27-2003 9:35 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 118 of 126 (52475)
08-27-2003 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Brad McFall
08-26-2003 8:43 PM


Re: get real
Brad McFall writes:
Stop beating around the terebith book and accept me for who I really am.
I would if I understood what you're on about.
Brad McFall writes:
I am not GOD.
Of course not. You exist.
Brad McFall writes:
your ears are closed to the truth and that is just what I said so you have no excuse. Perhaps your lens are too heavy.
I'm sorry, I don't hear too well through my lenses.
Brad McFall writes:
I know how to use the following:
Biblical Creationism
Scientific Creationsim
Creation Science
and I did ON AIR, Live with CAll ins. Try being a fair producer no matter which camera the director TAKES and you will soon realize that this is language that will remain the the public square no matter that marxist ethics is MORE controversial and a worse offendor of lingo extrodinar.
Well, if it's a matter of who talks funniest, then I guess you might be right.
Brad McFall writes:
I HAD a Chrisitan upbringing thta allowed me a larger veiw of biology than was ALLLOWED at cornell.
Didn't do your spelling much good, though.
Brad McFall writes:
It had nothing to do with religon it had to do with Marxist PERCEPTION. Perception as your post noted is ONLY 1/2 of the reality.
Sometimes, as in your case, perception has no relation with reality whatsoever.
Brad McFall writes:
If you learn to READ creation literature as I was helped out by the book beyond the Day (see BookNook) you will find that such is not offensive to seculars only they have not actually been taught to READ it.
Am I to understand that 'READING' is something else then 'reading'? It sounds very profound and all, but I suspect it just comes down to interpreting creation literature. I've seen it before and it doesn't impress me in the least.
Brad McFall writes:
One letter at atime my friend.
Takes too long, 'my friend'.
Brad McFall writes:
Intelligent Design refers to GOD like it or not.
Of course it does, we all know that. It's just that there is no Intelligent Design.
Brad,
I just came up with another possibility:
  • Brad McFall is rambling incoherently

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Brad McFall, posted 08-26-2003 8:43 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2003 9:39 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 121 by MrHambre, posted 08-27-2003 9:57 AM Parasomnium has replied

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


Message 119 of 126 (52476)
08-27-2003 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Parasomnium
08-27-2003 9:35 AM


Do you suppose you might, at least for a minute, entertain the possibility that you're picking on someone with a very real cognitive disorder? Isn't that "dirty cricket", as they say across the Pond?
Maybe a little (or a lot) less Brad-baiting would be in order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Parasomnium, posted 08-27-2003 9:35 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Parasomnium, posted 08-27-2003 9:54 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 120 of 126 (52478)
08-27-2003 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by crashfrog
08-27-2003 9:39 AM


Crashfrog writes:
Do you suppose you might, at least for a minute, entertain the possibility that you're picking on someone with a very real cognitive disorder?
I'm sorry, but how am I to know? Anyway, I'm entertaining that possibility all the time. He's not the only candidate, you know.
Crashfrog writes:
Isn't that "dirty cricket", as they say across the Pond?
I wouldn't know, I live beyond the next pond.
Crashfrog writes:
Maybe a little (or a lot) less Brad-baiting would be in order.
I may have overstepped a line, I believe. If so, I'm sorry. Would you care to fill me in on Brad?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2003 9:39 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Quetzal, posted 08-27-2003 10:09 AM Parasomnium 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