|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 2:07:29 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
If a supernatural deity magically poofs into existence and produces mutations in bacteria then UCD is falsified. Do you or do you not agree?
I disagree. Assuming this would falsify UCD, I suppose this shows what is required to falsify UCD. A miracle. A miracle can falsify just about any scientific theory. I guess UCD is the only hypothesis that requires a miracle to falsify it. So then you contend that nothing short of a miracle can falsify UCD? Newton nor Einstein require a miracle to falsify their theories.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/26/2008 2:14:52 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 2:17:59 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I disagree. Assuming this would falsify UCD, I suppose this shows what is required to falsify UCD. A miracle. A miracle can falsify just about any scientific theory. I guess UCD is the only hypothesis that requires a miracle to falsify it. So then you contend that nothing short of a miracle can falsify UCD? Newton nor Einstein require a miracle to falsify their theories.
If a supernatural deity magically poofs into existence and pushes planets around wouldn't that falsify Relativity? Since we have never observed the non-natural production of spacetime does this mean Intelligent Falling is true until we prove otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 3:05:56 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
If a supernatural deity magically poofs into existence and pushes planets around wouldn't that falsify Relativity?
It could, but a miracle should not be required to falsify a scientific theory. Either way, if God did produce life right in front of you, it would not prove that prior life did not emerge and evolve independent God's action so it would not falsify UCD in terms of prior life.
quote:
Since we have never observed the non-natural production of spacetime does this mean Intelligent Falling is true until we prove otherwise?
No, but that's not what I'm arguing.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 6/26/2008 3:13:10 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 3:10:07 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
It could, but a miracle should not be required to falsify a scientific theory.
And yet that is exactly the mechanism that ID requires. If theories should not require miracles to falsify them then they should not be based on them either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 3:15:43 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
And yet that is exactly the mechanism that ID requires. If theories should not require miracles to falsify them then they should not be based on them either.
Humans designing something is something we observe. Life contains characteristics that are only seen in designed things (where the origins are known). If the implications of our conclusions are supernatural then science shouldn't have a problem with that. As long as our conclusions are falsifiable. UCD is unfalsifiable. ID is falsifiable.
Are you suggesting that the formation of IC and SC structures (such as the flagellum, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, limbs, etc.. or the DNA to produce them) independent existing IC and SC structures or design would constitute a miracle?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 11:01:07 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
ID is falsifiable. UCD is not.
You can say that all day long, Betta, but what exactly about ID can be falsified? Is there a list? Can you name just one aspect of ID that has been tested?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 11:04:21 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
You can say that all day long, Betta, but what exactly about ID can be falsified? Is there a list? Can you name just one aspect of ID that has been tested?
I've already explained how ID can be falsified several times on these forums.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/26/2008 12:53:24 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
You can say that all day long, Betta, but what exactly about ID can be falsified? Is there a list? Can you name just one aspect of ID that has been tested?
I've already explained how ID can be falsified several times on these forums.
No you haven't. If you had, there would be evidence you could easily repeat in a cut and paste. The truth is there is no real scientific evidence for ID. It doesn't exist and you cannot provide something which does not exist.
If you ever want ID to be viable in the science community, you can start with honest representation of what it is; namely hope. The Apostle Paul said that Hope is a good thing.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/27/2008 11:03:54 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Humans designing something is something we observe.
Humans were not around 3.5 billion years ago when life appears in the fossil record, nor were humans around for the diversification of life up until 100,000 years ago. You lack a mechanism.
quote:
If the implications of our conclusions are supernatural then science shouldn't have a problem with that.
Your arguments are a God of the Gaps argument.
quote:
Are you suggesting that the formation of IC and SC structures (such as the flagellum, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, limbs, etc.. or the DNA to produce them) independent existing IC and SC structures or design would constitute a miracle?
No, that is what you are suggesting. Now support it with evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/30/2008 10:50:12 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Who was the god of science who decided the only criterion for science was "falsifiability"? Thomas Kuhn or someone? I think what they were getting at was that science should suggest questions that are imminently testable. Evolution does this. It doesn't mean it is TRUE -- only that it is currently generating a lot of questions for testing.
The confusion surrounding the term "falsifiability" probably stems from the way statistics works. It is commonly said that one cannot prove an hypothesis using statistical analysis, only reject the null hypothesis. Of course, it is more accurate to say that a given study may or may not SUGGEST that one should reject a null hypothesis. That is, it proves things beyond a reasonable degree of doubt, but not absolutely. However, the null hypothesis is rarely the one in line with a tacit theory being explored. So, saying that a theory ought to be "falsifiable" seems disengenous to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, at the risk of repeating myself, ID seems to suggest to me a "black box," the realization of which means that inquiry will inevitably stop at some point. If you are content with the halting of inquiry, you are not a scientist but a bookseller trying to work on a comfortable retirement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/30/2008 4:04:59 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Who was the god of science who decided the only criterion for science was "falsifiability"? Thomas Kuhn or someone?
The philosopher Karl Popper is usually associated with the falsifiability test for science. There are some problems with a strict application of it in all fields of science. However, it does accord well with the heavy reliance of science on inductive logic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 6/30/2008 5:19:13 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Thanks I'll have to look him up.
In the meantime, y'all, consider this:
Isn't it more or less the same as saying science asks questions that it projects it could but does not yet know the answer to to say that it its primary criterion is falsifiability?
So, my main point is, what questions does ID ask?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/6/2008 4:28:44 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 88
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please express how ID is science.
Is big bang theory science?
If so then so is ID.
Big bang theory implies metaphysical origins of the universe.
The universe had a definite beginning. It had a cause and is not eternal.
These facts imply a supernatural force that started it.
This is universally known amongst physicists.
It's also why the atheists among them are still trying so hard to find a better theory - because they recognize it implies a supernatural force.
ID has some possible metaphysical implications - unless we see aliens as the designers of life on earth as per the panspermia hypothesis.
Consider :
Only intelligence can be the source of coded information - nothing else ever creates coded information systems.
Only intelligence can create syntax and semantics such as we observe in DNA.
Only intelligence can cerate error trapping and correcting mechanism such as we also see in DNA.
Any computer geek knows this.
No natural source is even possible. No natural source can create language and code. BUT! DNA contains it's own language.
ID simply recognizes this fact and moves to logical inferences based on such features.
So ID is the science of detecting intelligence-originated features in nature.
It is a first intuitive. Evolutionists must deny that ID detection is intuitive. But denial is their main game anyway so go figure.
This is proven by the fact that both Crick and Dawkins felt a dire need to support their atheist delusions by inventing designoids (Dawkins) and denying the obvious design present in bio systems.
quote:
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - Francis Crick Wonder why huh! Isn't it obvious that he would never have said this if the design was not so conspicuously obvious that it intrinsically contradicts the biologist's ubiquitous Darwinian indoctrination? Exactly the same "do not go where the evidence leads if it doesn't support Darwin" mentality of Dawkins' "designoids"
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/6/2008 4:38:17 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Only intelligence can be the source of coded information - nothing else ever creates coded information systems.
Only intelligence can create syntax and semantics such as we observe in DNA.
Only intelligence can cerate error trapping and correcting mechanism such as we also see in DNA.
Right out of the starting gate your assumptions are faulty. DNA predates humanity and any known intelligence, so you cannot claim that nothing else creates 'coded information systems' but intelligence. Furthermore, the bits that comprise a human designed machine don't generally have a natural affinity for one another to combine and self assemble through chemistry, nor do they reproduce.
quote:
Any computer geek knows this.
I beg to differ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/6/2008 4:50:18 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 88
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Only intelligence can be the source of coded information - nothing else ever creates coded information systems.
Only intelligence can create syntax and semantics such as we observe in DNA.
Only intelligence can cerate error trapping and correcting mechanism such as we also see in DNA.
Right out of the starting gate your assumptions are faulty. DNA predates humanity and any known intelligence, so you cannot claim that nothing else creates 'coded information systems' but intelligence. Furthermore, the bits that comprise a human designed machine don't generally have a natural affinity for one another to combine and self assemble through chemistry, nor do they reproduce.
You're begging the question. You assume no intelligence existed prior to DNA. But DNA exhibits extreme intelligence in it's coded info.
Again, demonstrate a coded system that was not based on intelligent designers. Show me a symbolic code that did not require intelligence.
You completely miss the gist of the argument.
Good luck.
quote:
I beg to differ.
Indeed? Differ all you like. You're wrong. Show me a complex coded info system that does not require any intelligence.
Show me a language that has no intelligence behind it. Explain to us how exception trapping and correction mechanisms can arise without pre-knowledge of the correct system state.
Again, good luck.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/6/2008 6:06:53 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
You're begging the question. You assume no intelligence existed prior to DNA.
It's possible.. but we don't have evidence of any.
quote:
But DNA exhibits extreme intelligence in it's coded info.
Or perhaps genetic information systems are the systems that make intelligence possible... hence, they predate intelligence. This seems like a better assumption to start with, seeing as how every known and observable intelligence is made possible through some sort of genetic information system.
quote:
Again, demonstrate a coded system that was not based on intelligent designers.
You're hard pressed to take a step outside, without stepping on it... we call it life.
quote:
Show me a symbolic code that did not require intelligence.
You completely miss the gist of the argument.
Good luck.
Looking for evidence of craftsmanship from some intelligence may be an endeavor worth looking into (philosopher's have been going at it for thousands of years, with no hope of resolution in sight). But the big guns behind the ID movement don't seem to be to interested in actually pursuing it. When the ID movement stops playing politics and starts producing evidence and research, I'll take them seriously.
quote:
Indeed? Differ all you like. You're wrong. Show me a complex coded info system that does not require any intelligence.
Show me a language that has no intelligence behind it.
Analogies taken way beyond the point of usefulness and then some. If you want to call DNA a 'symbolic language', then there it is. It predates any known intelligence.
quote:
Explain to us how exception trapping and correction mechanisms can arise without pre-knowledge of the correct system state.
Again, good luck.
Genetic programming perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
Selective pressures exert a real force upon populations of organisms which reproduce imperfect copies of themselves.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 7/6/2008 6:23:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/6/2008 7:07:18 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
You make fair points.
However, my specific question is:
What testable questions does ID ask?
I don't think I have received an answer. This reasoning is my sole basis for denying it is science -- to say nothing of whether it is true.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/6/2008 10:03:36 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
What testable questions does ID ask? Are there features or characteristics of an entity which can be used to detect its design and/or causation by intelligent agency? For instance, is there an example of an object with irreducibly complex parts which has resulted from natural, unguided processes? So far, no one has demonstrated such an outcome which is exceedingly strong evidence for ID regarding those kinds of objects.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/6/2008 10:13:09 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
What testable questions does ID ask? Are there features or characteristics of an entity which can be used to detect its design and/or causation by intelligent agency? For instance, is there an example of an object with irreducibly complex parts which has resulted from natural, unguided processes? So far, no one has demonstrated such an outcome which is exceedingly strong evidence for ID regarding those kinds of objects.
Is irreducible complexity impossible to form naturally? Of course not:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
"Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced directly by gradual evolution3. But why not? Behe's reckoning goes like this:
* (P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts.
* (P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional.
* (C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional.
Of course, Behe's argument is invalid since the first premise is false: gradual evolution can do much more than just add parts. For instance, evolution can also change or remove parts (pretty simple, eh?). In contrast, Behe's irreducible complexity is restricted to only reversing the addition of parts. This is why irreducible complexity cannot tell us anything useful about how a structure did or did not evolve."
Want to see evidence of an irreducibly complex system that has evolved in modern (fairly) times?
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#how2eatpcp
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/6/2008 10:26:03 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Want to see evidence of an irreducibly complex system that has evolved in modern (fairly) times?
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#how2eatpcp Well, that's a wonderful example of circular reasoning, drj, but it says nothing about the ability of natural, unguided processes to produce IC systems.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/6/2008 10:32:35 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Want to see evidence of an irreducibly complex system that has evolved in modern (fairly) times?
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#how2eatpcp Well, that's a wonderful example of circular reasoning, drj, but it says nothing about the ability of natural, unguided processes to produce IC systems.
Care to elaborate on your circular reasoning comment?
This example meets criteria for IC, yet we have a clear evolutionary path for the system, sans the intelligent designer.
The question you should be asking, is given that we don't know everything there is to know about all natural processes and what structures they can and cannot form, how can we reliably say IC systems cannot be produced naturally? What are these IC systems that have been identified anyways, that must be impossible to form by natural processes?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 8:14:26 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Are there features or characteristics of an entity which can be used to detect its design and/or causation by intelligent agency?
okay,
Now, how would you test that? And don't tell me you don't know because you are not a scientist. Just wait for someone who would like to answer it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 8:31:38 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
What are these IC systems that have been identified anyways, that must be impossible to form by natural processes? I never claimed it is impossible to form IC sysstems by natural processes, only that none have ever been demonstrated to result from them. If you're trying to falsify ID, demonstrate one instead of regurgitating talkorigins propaganda!
quote:
Now, how would you test that? And don't tell me you don't know because you are not a scientist. Just wait for someone who would like to answer it. I am a scientist, hhi, and just as I've explained to drj, we make observations of IC systems every day and none yet have been demonstrated to result from random, unguided processes. That's pretty strong scientific evidence for ID, is it not? How would you test for natural causes producing IC systems?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/7/2008 9:23:53 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
we make observations of IC systems every day and none yet have been demonstrated to result from random, unguided processes. That's pretty strong scientific evidence for ID, is it not?
Please describe these experiments. I am curious as well as skeptical.
What further study do these observations suggest?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
They rely on cause-effect, not chance for their findings and observations. In fact, they study cause-effect in every particle they observe.