Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 91 of 168 (306894)
04-26-2006 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by iano
04-26-2006 8:21 PM


Re: Exit stage left?
quote:
Not even if that which inspired it in the first place finds a way of meeting the criteria for protoscience?
Your post implied that there is some kind of progression from psuedoscience to protoscience to real science.
That is not the case.
Yes, of course a concept or idea formerly promoted in this way, if examined properly and found to have real scientific merit will find a home within legitimate science.
Pseudoscience is something that is not science in any respect that it's promoters dress up in a lab coat and have it hold a beaker.
They seek to gain the respectability and prestige and legitimacy of the appearance (terminology, writing structure, etc) of science when the idea is not scientifically valid.
In a word; illegitimate, false, snake-oil hucksterism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 8:21 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 9:42 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 168 (306899)
04-26-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by iano
04-26-2006 8:23 PM


Re: Intelligable Design
quote:
Do you even know what the discussion here is Schraf? Cut n pastes indicate not.
My point is that current IDists like to portray the latest version of ID to be something new and fresh and visionary when it is not.
Intelligent Design has been around for a very, very long time in various forms, even hundreds of years before Christianity was a twinkle in the Virgin Mary's eye.
As real science has continued to learn more and more about the natural world and universe, creationism's old, tired ideas continue to be recycled over and over again using different examples contemorary to the age in which the movement rises up.
So, these days it's bacterial flagella and blood clotting mechanisms instead of the eye instead of the sun's transit accross the sky.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-26-2006 08:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 8:23 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 8:59 AM nator has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 93 of 168 (306913)
04-26-2006 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by nator
04-26-2006 8:33 PM


Re: Exit stage left?
Your post implied that there is some kind of progression from psuedoscience to protoscience to real science.
And yours implied it would always be so. That pseudoscience could never...er...evolve

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by nator, posted 04-26-2006 8:33 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 04-27-2006 4:31 PM iano has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 94 of 168 (306932)
04-27-2006 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by iano
04-26-2006 6:17 PM


Re: Belligerent designs II
quote:
You seem to me to be asking that potential entrance points into science for ID take account of ToE
I can't see where you would get that impression. What I did say is that any attempt to distinguish design from non-design had to take into account the capabilities of evolution. For the simple reason that evolution is a distinct form of non-design with results markedly different from most non-design processes.
I've explained it several times notably when I asked you for evidence that SETI was making a similar arbitrary exclusion of some source of naturally occurring radio waves - since you claimed that SETI was doing the same thing as you were.
And I bet that you can't find anythign in any of muy posts that - read properly - implies anything like your "court of ToE".d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 6:17 PM iano has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 95 of 168 (306942)
04-27-2006 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by iano
04-26-2006 6:39 PM


Re: Return of the SETI
iano writes:
I didn't start this one and if a person can't even get that simple fact straight then they are unlikely to be able to engage on the rather more subtle aspects of evidential ID
This time you've dodged the question by using an Ad Hominem attack. It's a common tactic. Also, you've still yet to explain where we can find your "markers" of creation, or what they represent.
iano writes:
And if using human intelligence as a benchmark for comparision a la SETI then I fail to see why ID can't employ similar methods
SETI uses the fact of our existence as a starting point! Life HAS arisen in the universe at least once and we are the result. We then look into the stars for radio signals on the slight possibility that others have used the same technological techniques.
ID, however, has not established that Gods existence is a fact. Therefore we have no way to determine what constitutes his/her/its designs. Before you can show that God designed us you must show that God can EXIST.
--------
Now when it comes to looking for comparative intelligence with regard to SETI, we can at least assume that any creatures out there will be bound by the same type of physical laws and limitations that we are (gravity, electromagnetism etc) therefore we can make a working assumption as to the technological methods they may use based on our own experience. However, when it comes to using human intelligence as a guide to identifying God's design the problems are as follows:-
1. We have no physical evidence that any God has EVER existed.
2. As no God has ever been observed there is no basis to assume that God's actions are subject to the physical laws of nature in the same manner that we are, therefore we cannot make any meaningful speculation about his/her/its design methods.
--------
So to sum up:
*****************************
SETI:
Observed instances of life/civilisation: 1
Observed instances of intelligence/design by life/civilisation: 1
ID:
Observed instances of creator: 0
Observed instances of intelligence/design by creator: 0
*****************************
Before you can do anything with ID you must show a designer. Until ID does it can amount to nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 04:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 6:39 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 6:21 AM RickJB has replied
 Message 99 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 7:56 AM RickJB has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 96 of 168 (306952)
04-27-2006 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by RickJB
04-27-2006 4:04 AM


Re: Return of the SETI
iano to crevo earlier writes:
I didn't start this one and if a person can't even get that simple fact straight then they are unlikely to be able to engage on the rather more subtle aspects of evidential ID
(shit! only post 75 ...don't think that will hold 'em for long)
More seriously...
rjb in fighting Crevos battles for him and pasting only the first para above writes:
This time you've dodged the question by using an Ad Hominem attack. It's a common tactic. Also, you've still yet to explain where we can find your "markers" of creation, or what they represent.
Its only an ad hom when you chop my response to crevo so as to remove the line which demonstrates that it is not an ad hom. I has pointed out a mild error tongue-in-cheek and went straight away in the next paragraph to explain more reasonably why I saw there being no need to start a thread as he requested.
I suppose accusing folk of ad hom when they haven't ad hom-ed is an ad-hom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RickJB, posted 04-27-2006 4:04 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RickJB, posted 04-27-2006 6:46 AM iano has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 97 of 168 (306953)
04-27-2006 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by iano
04-27-2006 6:21 AM


Re: Return of the SETI
iano writes:
....explain more reasonably why I saw there being no need to start a thread as he requested
As I said before a link will do nicely.
And again, you've still yet to explain where we can find your "creation markers", or what they represent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 6:21 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 8:18 AM RickJB has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 98 of 168 (306964)
04-27-2006 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by iano
04-26-2006 6:06 PM


Re: atelligable design.
Yes, I found in the 80s biochemistry to be incessantly "boring." I did not hear Will say that chemical biology got any less "boring" this past Fall but it was clear that he at least was open to functionalist investigations of proteins while he felt that as long as ID and Behe were not developing specific informations about the parts they consider IC then current science which *might* look into that was less boring.
I must say that the integration of biophysics and organismic biology still has not reached the place where some real progress can occurr. I think this is due to a false scholarship of "formalist" vs "functionalist" differences, especially as Gould had it. It seems to me that there is purpose in naming proteins and if an IDer does so and the names form some kind of hierarchy that *might* (after the creator's fact) have statisitcal significance for evolutionists who require a kind of design ("ordering") anyway then IF ID did the work it would not be objected by Will or most others here on EVC. It has not done this. That is all.
It seems to me philosophically that ID is trying to pry open a closed functionalist can of negativity (to any change, whether from religion or among scientists themselves)where a formalism hidden by IC remains. The photons I referred to whould indicate the "internal constraint" in the language of Gould and electrons could kinetically reveal the formality that ID may eventually find.
But again that is my opinion. Without a explanation of probability in ID I must sustain myself with only that thought, so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 6:06 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 99 of 168 (306965)
04-27-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by RickJB
04-27-2006 4:04 AM


Re: Return of the SETI
SETI uses the fact of our existence as a starting point! Life HAS arisen in the universe at least once and we are the result. We then look into the stars for radio signals on the slight possibility that others have used the same technological techniques.
Man existance is used a the base line in the formulation of a search for intelligence elsewhere. If intelligence does exist then per definition it must be comparable in some way to our intelligence in order for the search to prove successful.
ID, however, has not established that Gods existence is a fact. Therefore we have no way to determine what constitutes his/her/its designs. Before you can show that God designed us you must show that God can EXIST.
Mans application of intelligence is used as a base line in the formulation of a search for the application of intelligence. If intelligent design exists then per definition it must be comparable to our intelligent design in order for the search to prove successful.
SETI has not established that ETI's existance is fact. Its a shot in the dark search with only a single point of light with which to formulate a search: our intelligence. We have no way to determine what constitutes ETI's intelligence (beyond wild guess - we haven't even figured out how the life we know came into existance). Before you can begin a search for ETI you must show it can exist. Presuming it can exist simply because we do isn't showing anything - its presuming something. Now try telling that to SETI...
Now when it comes to looking for comparative intelligence with regard to SETI, we can at least assume that any creatures out there (if they exist) will be bound by the same type of physical laws and limitations that we are (gravity, electromagnetism etc) therefore we can make a working assumption as to the technological methods they may use (if they exist) based on our own experience. However, when it comes to using human intelligence as a guide to identifying God's design (if they exist) the problems are as follows:-
I've added a couple of "if they exist" to the above for tidiness sake
1. We have no physical evidence that any God has EVER existed.
2. As no God has ever been observed there is no basis to assume that God's actions are subject to the physical laws of nature in the same manner that we are, therefore we cannot make any meaningful speculation about his/her/its design methods.
We can dispense with 1. above for obvious reasons in a ETI search comparision. As to 2. You are correct. Up to a point. However, if God exists and he didn't break any physical laws and used similar design criteria as we do when designing then his designs should be discernable. IF these conditions THEN that result. Logic. And it works the other way around: IF that result THEN these conditions
Either search can only work on the basis of what we suppose might be the case. For all other intents and purposes the search is a blind one.
Yet one is considered scientific by you and the other not.
This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 01:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RickJB, posted 04-27-2006 4:04 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 04-27-2006 9:31 AM iano has replied
 Message 104 by RickJB, posted 04-27-2006 9:48 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 100 of 168 (306968)
04-27-2006 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by RickJB
04-27-2006 6:46 AM


Re: Return of the SETI
iano writes:
....(where I) explain more reasonably why I saw there being no need to start a thread as he requested
To which you respond:
As I said before a link will do nicely.
Did you actually read the paragraph I referred to? Here it is:
iano to crevo writes:
More seriously, I don't hold (nor have I held here) that there is evidence to satisfy at the court of scientific method (as opposed to Paul K's court of ToE). Not least because I'm not in a postion to evaluate the evidential arguments that may have been put forth. If ID is indeed a pseudoscience then it first needs to establish ways whereby its hypothesis can enter the fray. That is what I am investigating here.
I would ask you (and any others similarly inclinded) to pay particular attention to the last 2 sentences. And then desist from asking me for evidence of ID
And again, you've still yet to explain where we can find your "creation markers", or what they represent.
I call them design markers (or markers of design or hallmarks of design). Do you agree such a thing exists in human intelligent design? That an object can be examined and analysed so as to discern the reasons (for example) the designer used one design element over another. To explain why (for example) apparently redundant features included in the design were in fact necessary. Or (for example) to discern why a designer didn't use better componant than he did which would have better fitted the initally apparent function (eg: for reasons of obsolecence)
You may want to leap in at this point in arguing against ID design markers. But that is not the question I am asking you here. Human design markers. Do they exist is the question I am asking

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RickJB, posted 04-27-2006 6:46 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RickJB, posted 04-27-2006 9:38 AM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 101 of 168 (306973)
04-27-2006 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
04-26-2006 8:43 PM


The ID gravy train
You mean to tell me that evolutionary ideas haven't been around for ages too? Anaximander (c.610 -c547 b.c.) held the:
...(his) view that man achieved his physical state by adaptation to environment, that life had evolved from moisture, and that man developed from fish, anticipates the theory of evolution.
Evolution has been around in the modern science time for 150 years or so. No so ID. One would expect there to be a little catching up to do. Whilst it might seem impossible now, all it takes is for a little head of steam to build up and human pride (A "Giants of Science" laureate glitters enticingly) and natural inquisitiveness can be expected to release the brakes
Choo Choo!
This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 02:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 04-26-2006 8:43 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 04-27-2006 9:55 AM iano has not replied
 Message 153 by nator, posted 04-27-2006 4:45 PM iano has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 102 of 168 (306984)
04-27-2006 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by iano
04-27-2006 7:56 AM


Re: Return of the SETI
RickJB writes:
SETI has not established that ETI's existance is fact.
This would be a misinterpretation of what RickJB said, and of one of the principles upon which SETI is based. It isn't the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life that has been established as a fact, but the possibility of intelligent life arising in the universe that has been established as a fact. The existence of Homo sapiens on the planet Earth is the evidence supporting the possibility of intelligent life arising in the universe.
Given that intelligent life has arisen at least once in the universe, SETI concludes that it could possibly have happened more than once and at locations other than Earth.
Where ID differs from SETI is that there is no evidence of a single god anywhere ever. ID assumes the existence of something for which there is not a single example. ID cannot claim (not that they don't try) that the IDer could just be an intelligence and not a god because of the problem of infinite regress.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 7:56 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 10:43 AM Percy has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 103 of 168 (306987)
04-27-2006 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by iano
04-27-2006 8:18 AM


Re: Return of the SETI
iano writes:
If ID is indeed a pseudoscience then it first needs to establish ways whereby its hypothesis can enter the fray. That is what I am investigating here.
But the reason you are being pressed for evidence is that as opposed to investigating the possbility of ID evidence you seem to have spent just as much time bewailing the status of the ToE as a valid theory! You can't have it both ways. If you want ID to become a science then you:-
1. have to accept that the ToE has been a very sucessful theory so far.
2. have to accept that ID will have to rival the ToE in terms of evidence and predictive capacity.
Now as I have said repeatedly if you want ID to become science then you'll have to identify a creator. Until you do that you are arguing from ignorance.
Also the use of human design traits is of little valid use since you have no grounds to assume they reflect the workings of God. When we consider the creation of rock formations due to water erosion we don't turn to "human design markers", we look at the nature of water.
Want to understand the work of God? First you must show God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 8:18 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 11:02 AM RickJB has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 104 of 168 (306991)
04-27-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by iano
04-27-2006 7:56 AM


Re: Return of the SETI
iano writes:
Before you can begin a search for ETI you must show it can exist.
It can! WE (humanity) are a living demonstration of that fact!!
In this solar system a planet has been able to support life to the extent that its civilisations have developed communication systems based on electromagnetic radiation.
It might have happened elsewhere.
Your turn - show me physical evidence of a God.
This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 09:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 7:56 AM iano has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 105 of 168 (306992)
04-27-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by iano
04-27-2006 8:59 AM


Re: The ID gravy train
iano writes:
Evolution has been around in the modern science time for 150 years or so. No so ID.
How many years of lobbying legislatures, school boards and text book publishers do you think it will take for ID to make legitimate scientific progress?
The question is rhetorical, of course. ID is a premise based not upon any scientific observations or conundrums, but upon religious belief. And there's nothing wrong with that. The source of an idea cannot be used as an indictment of the idea. The problem is that the apple of ID has not fallen far from the religious tree, beneath whose canopy it remains. The ID apple has to somehow find a way to roll under the science tree so that legitimate scientific investigation can begin. Until it begins, there can be no scientific progress for ID.
Or to state the problem more obviously via analogy, how long do you think it would take you to drive from New York to San Francisco at 0 mph? I imagine that after 10 years of sitting on the Cross Bronx Expressway you'd still be yelling to passing traffic, "It's still early days, I'll get to San Francisco yet!"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 8:59 AM iano 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