The Philosophical implications of Darwinism/ID

Why should the "anti-IDists" need to come up with something? Why after what is more than a decade now (I think) haven't the IDists come up with "something"?As for being anti-ID I think the division into those two camps is acceptable. There won't be too many people who are on the fence (at least among those who know anything at all about the topic). However, if you did down a bit I think you might find that there are a couple of so different groups in the anti-ID crowd.One group are those I might call "Dawkinists". These are the group that you seem to have been thinking constitutes all of the anti crowd. They do not believe or accept any idea of a supernatural being existing. They will reject ID on this basis without any further consideration. Thee is nothing that the IDists can do to win this group over.Another group (and probably much the largest of all) are those who equate this with yet another attempt by the creationist crowd to break the church-state separation. These will reject ID based on that view alone. The ID crowd will have to do a much, much better job of separating themselves from the old line creationists to even begin to be considered by this group. It would have to start with a very public, loud rejection of young earthism and floodism as these are clearly not scientifically tenable.A third group (again smaller) might just be willing to give ID a chance. These people are believers, they would love to have some hint of god's existance in the natural world. However, they are turned off not by the idea of ID but by the tactics used and the nonsensical non-science that is put forward in so-called support of ID.

Ignoring???We have been spending a lot of time here recently paying attention to the evidence put forward. You may not understand the total failure of this evidence to stand up to even modest scrutiny but it has not been ignored.

quote:

---

That's just fine with us.
The only problem is your side doesn't have a methodological approach for testing anything, or making any assertions or predications about biological phenomena. So unlike our theories, its unfalsifiable.
I have already demonstrated this here.

---

Science: "Hey, look! A new kid on the block!"ID: "Hi guys! Mind if I join you?"Science: "Hell yeah, we mind! What have have you done, that makes you think you're worthy of us?"ID: "..."Science: "Yeah, thats what I thought. You aint got squat. Beat it."ID: "...um, I just got here. Let me join you, and I'll show you what I can do."Science: "No way. I know you, you're Creationism in disguise."ID: "Just gimme a chance!"Science: "GET IM! Kick his a*%!"This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 01:51 AM

quote:

---

Ignoring???

​

We have been spending a lot of time here recently paying attention to the evidence put forward. You may not understand the total failure of this evidence to stand up to even modest scrutiny but it has not been ignored.

---

Sorry, Ned. I didnt mean you, you seem like a reasonable fellow.

That's it right there.This is about the exchange that occured when cold fusion was announced. I remember following it with excitment pretty closely.The difference was that the cold fusion folks had one experiment, with apparent results. There were many who suggested that it was very unlikely without much further examination but there were a number who got right on it and tested the results.It failed and even now gets a bit of attention. But it got a bit of a chance to play. It produced what was claimed to be evidence in the form of an experiment.ID has, as you say, "...". Until you have something to bring to the table don't waste people's time.ID has produced a lot of words but, as you can see here, even those of us who are amateurs can poke holes in most of them. And the rest has been paid attention to by the those who play the game professionally. It was "welcomed" in just the way cold fusion was. It was scrutinized with tough minded rigor. It failed.That is just what science does everytime. It rips new ideas apart. Sometimes this produces an improved, stronger idea; more frequently it leaves nothing worth more consideration. That is what anyone in the game wants done. Only with very rigourous scrutiny can something be considered potentially sound.A few months ago I attended a talk by the guy who got a Noble for producing a bose-einstein condensate for the first time. There was a world wide race on with a potential Nobel in the offing. They got their results after about 5 years of work. But that doesn't count untill they publish. Did they rush it out?No, they spent, among themselves about a year trying to figure out what they could have done wrong. They looked for anything they could think of that would discredit their results. Then they published which required further tough scrutiny. Then the whole field had to jump on it and replicate the work.If you want to play the game that is the way it works. It is not an

But it must look like I have been ignoring most of what has been posted. (I have been reading over it -- but I have seen most of it before). There have been several others who have most clearly not been ignoring the evidence. They have been eating it for lunch.

Ned, I look at the evidence like a court of law. Y'know how before they hold a trial, they go before the judge and determine if there is enough evidence to hold a trial?If ID was being charged with being true, I would say there is enough evidence to hold a trial. Not enough to convict, but thats ok. First things first.

Is it me or has this thread gone from "The Philosophical implications of Darwinism/ID" onto "Why won't anyone listen to the IDists!!??"Incidentally, I am in this camp: I really wish there was something in ID, I've really given it a try, it would be utterly great if it had some actual substance. However, they just seem to have rhetoric and mathemagics. If they have anything more than that, they've failed to present it.What are the philosophical implications of teaching our kids something on that basis?

What Modulous said.If there is any evidence of a designer/creator, it's more likely to be found in a physics lab or observatory than it is in a mangled re-hash of information entropy, or other such hogwash.Personaly, I've always fancied Carl Sagan's ending to "Contact" as a nice proof.
(And if you've only seen the film, you won't know what that is...)

---

Mat 27:5 And he went and hanged himself
Luk 10:37 Go, and do thou likewise.

Well, the grand jury has been held. The evidence doesn't stand up. As I have noted you may not understand the math but others (for the most part I also) do. It is flawed, wrong, useless and not convincing. Arguments from incredulity aren't very convincing if you understand the issues under discussion. Those and some fancy looking, wrong math won't give much chance of "conviction".

I think the only way in which Darwinism can be seen even remotely as "philosophical" is as a view that replaces religious explanations for the diversity in biological nature with naturalist ones. It is therefore most tenuous to cast it into the role of "philosophical framework for all secular religions." Darwinism doesn't deal with the question of meaning, it only proposes a mechanism for evolution.Also, I hold that "secular religion" is a contradictio in terminis, even if it is a matter of dispute. Wouldn't that constitute a redefinition of the meaning? After all, if, as you say, "evolution is by design and hence contains meaning" {emphasis mine, P.}, then wouldn't that meaning be the meaning intended by the designer? Wouldn't the meaning be somehow inherently fixed in the design?If the meaning can be defined a posteriori, then there might as well have been no meaning at all. And that is exactly the position that I hold: there is no inherent meaning in the world at large, but we can define meaning and purpose for our existence ourselves.Likewise is there no morality in the world save the morality arising from being a human in a human society. This is demonstrated by the fact that different societies have different morals. Realising that 'evolved' on the one hand, and 'physical' and 'material' on the other, are not necessarily linked, my answer would be 'no'. Certain aspects of humanity, like morality, or language, are not physical, but are nevertheless evolved.I guess that would make me a Darwinist in your view. I have no problem with that, or it should be that you assign some, in my view, unwarranted attributes to a Darwinist, like 'amoral' perhaps (maybe even 'immoral'), or 'atheist'. (I am an atheist, by the way, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily follow from being a Darwinist.)

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Please explain how my logic is circular.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Could you try to keep the subtitles up to date? Thanks

Ah, I see. Well, I guess Im wasting my time here then.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 05:10 PM

If these two figures (the "geometry" in them ) are complementary and
reflect determatively this next

(Thus lenticel viscous with pit tori adapt to electric field inversions dynamically due to the molecular rxn of cellulose to external field alternating currents across generations of changing dielectrics)& in the proposition (this would mean that one could go out into the back yard and correlate the lenticels in various species of trees and compare (them)) with different geographies (WITH THE SAME FORMALISM THAT PUNC EQ APPLIES TO FOSSILS)(I BSM propose) then it seems to me, Darwinism becomes philosophical, in your Psense and it does so, by Nature's God no matter what metaphysics it suggests in different stations NOT on Earth.Picture reference urls are:
torus/margo
lenticle ellipse
repeating circuit
http://www.pnu.ac.ir/.../Film/plants/media/ch01/lenticel.htm
place of supposed causalityThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 05:01 PM