#272663 - 22/12/2005 14:44
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
Ok, well you left out my next line:
Quote:
The only question ID really asks is whether or not our existence and the world around us equate to the clock.
I mention this because you make it sound as if I'm an ID proponent ("The flaw in YOUR logic"), which I'm not.
Sorry about not quoting your whole statement, but I was going after that specific notion about the clock, regardless of whether it's one you support. "The flaw in your logic" meant the flaw in the logic that you brought to the table in this disussion. I'm arguing against ID here (well, against the teaching of it in science classes, more precisely) and if you are not an ID proponent, you're certainly "playing one on TV" for the purposes of our discussion. I'm happy to debate this with you, with the understanding that you're not squarely in the ID camp.
Quote:
Your argument about the knowledge that man makes clocks is a good answer to this latter statement, though I don't really think definitive. I'd like to hear more disccusion.
It's definitive that man makes clocks. We have evidence in the form of clockmakers, clock factories, etc. It's not definitive that anything made a specific clock, but in the presence of millions of clocks we know were made by man (we saw it happen) it's unlikely that any clock we see just materialized.
It is, however, not definitive, nor supported by any science, that anything created man.
QED.
Quote:
Not all scientific observations are testable.
Not all scientific *theories* are testable. Observations need not be tested all, because they're observations, things we see. "Did you see the bacteria in the petri dish die faster than it did with the placebo? Yes? Good, the antibiotic works." Observations are themselves part of the testing of hypotheses, not something to be tested.
Quote:
We have no way to test the Big Bang theory
We most certainly do. Those are scientific observations that support the theory. They do not constitute proof, but they constitute more evidence than the ID theory has (that being zero) so the Big Bang gets discussed in science class, and ID does not.
Quote:
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life.
Show your work, please. With so many galaxies and planets we haven't been to and cannot observe, all we know is that we're on one of the most ideal planets we can observe. How does that support ID?
As for the laws of physics part, I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but would be happy to read your source, assuming a layman like myself can make sense of it.
Quote:
Have you looked at the scientific backing for ID? It's certainly there- the question is whether it means what ID proponents say it means.
I have read summaries of several ID papers (none in their entirety,) but you're going to have to explain the term "scientific backing" to me for me to answer your question. Scientific backing, to me, means evidence, and I've seen nothing that comes close to evidence to support ID. Everything I've read from Dembski and other ID proponents has zero scientific evidence. Show me scientific evidence in any ID material, and I'll be happy to read it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272664 - 22/12/2005 15:10
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
It's funny, because this very concept is one of the ideas that, when I was very young, gave me the epiphany as to precisely how we could have evolved without a creator.
Right, that is the other way of looking at the evidence (which I briefly addressed in my first post). What I'm interested in is how to determine the difference between the two.
In fact, I believe I remember an example on the Skeptics Dictionary site talking about a shuffle of cards. The argument was that when you get dealt an extraordinary hand (say a royal flush in poker) that you do not assume that the game is rigged- in fact you know for certain that this improbability is a possibility because you saw it happen. This is analogous to your theory about how we could have ended up in the ideal location for our existence. We know the ideal poker hand can happen because it has happened, and with enough shuffles it’s going to happen at some point.
I find this example particularly interesting because I played a lot of spades in college. One time I managed to rig a deck so that another player got dealt every single spade in the deck. I just wanted to see his reaction, and he immediately laughed and turned over his cards. He hadn’t seen me rig the deck, and being dealt all of the spades is as probable as any other hand you can be dealt. However, he knew (as would you are I) immediately that the game was rigged.
So how do we know whether our “game is rigged”? If we could evaluate the number of shuffles- i.e. were there a number of opportunities for life to evolve and it just needed to find the right set of variables- then I think we’d have a good idea. But just saying that the universe is big, or even infinite, doesn’t convince me that life was waiting for an opportunity to evolve. Certain elements necessary to life as we know it are dependent on variables that are the same everywhere in the universe.
Ah, so how about “Life as we know it?”
Douglass Adams, who was an atheist I trust you know, made the analogy of a puddle of water contemplating its existence. It would assume because of the way the ground around it was perfectly suited to its shape then there must be a creator, rather than attributing its own shape and size to the ground around it. It’s a good argument, however not conclusive. There are plenty of other examples that can be made where an object’s surroundings were created with the object in mind by an intelligent designer- say microphone in a form fitting case- obviously it was created by a designer with purpose and intent- the case was created based on the microphone’s need to be protected, which is the reason it fits so well.
In both cases of the microphone and the puddle, scientific observation can tell us whether specific design was involved. The question is whether science can tell us that about our own existence (either way).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272665 - 22/12/2005 15:12
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
Not all scientific *theories* are testable.
I'd go further than that. It isn't a scientific theory unless it is testable. If it's not testable, it's just hearsay and hypothesis.
This is one of the foundations of the scientific method. A theory must (as I understand it):
- explain current observations
- be verifiable
- make a testable prediction of something that's not been observed yet (otherwise it could have been tailored to fit what we already know).
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272666 - 22/12/2005 15:27
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
if you are not an ID proponent, you're certainly "playing one on TV" for the purposes of our discussion. I'm happy to debate this with you, with the understanding that you're not squarely in the ID camp.
Just to clarify, I believe in an Intelligent Designer (obviously), but I'm not certain whether scientific observations can lead to the reasonable conslusion of one as ID claims. That claim is what I would like to see discussed rather than the Creation vs. Evolution bit that always gets dregged up.
Quote:
Observations need not be tested all, because they're observations, things we see. "Did you see the bacteria in the petri dish die faster than it did with the placebo? Yes? Good, the antibiotic works." Observations are themselves part of the testing of hypotheses, not something to be tested.
Ok, good clarification of terminology. The idea behind ID, though, is that scientific observations support the existense of an Intelligent Designer.
Quote:
more evidence than the ID theory has (that being zero)
This being the point of interest. The observations that I've heard have been very convincing, though also offered in a vacume without a chance to hear from non-ID.
Quote:
assuming a layman like myself can make sense of it.
Hah, nice jab.  I think you've probably got a better handle on science than I do.
Quote:
I have read summaries of several ID papers (none in their entirety,) but you're going to have to explain the term "scientific backing" to me for me to answer your question. Scientific backing, to me, means evidence, and I've seen nothing that comes close to evidence to support ID. Everything I've read from Dembski and other ID proponents has zero scientific evidence. Show me scientific evidence in any ID material, and I'll be happy to read it.
If I get a chance I'll try to re-locate some of the sources talking about the scientific evidences that support an Intelligent Designer. Truth be told, I've gotten rather tired of the discussion because of how it's been twisted into something else for ideological reasons, but as I stated in my first post, I'm actually interested in hearing real discussion on the topic.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272667 - 22/12/2005 15:30
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
- explain current observations
- be verifiable
- make a testable prediction of something that's not been observed yet (otherwise it could have been tailored to fit what we already know).
Does the Big Bang theory meet these requirements? We cannot verify that it happened, though our observations (see the link above) indicate it is a reasonable conclusion. We also cannot make a testable predicition of the Big Bang, since it was a non repeatable one time occurance.
Edited by JeffS (22/12/2005 15:32)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272668 - 22/12/2005 15:36
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
We also cannot make a testable predicition of the Big Bang, since it was a non repeatable one time occurance.
There are actually a whole lot of testable predictions that can be measured with things like radio telescopes. Stuff like background radiation. Astronomers and astrophysicists are constantly reporting about the results of those kinds of tests.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272669 - 22/12/2005 15:44
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
There are actually a whole lot of testable predictions that can be measured with things like radio telescopes. Stuff like background radiation. Astronomers and astrophysicists are constantly reporting about the results of those kinds of tests.
Right, and a lot of that info is in Tony's link to wikipedia. I guess I'm just trying to nail down the definition of what we mean by "testable". However, all of this is good insite into what would be required for ID theory to qualify as science. If we decide the evidence is strong that there is an Intelligent Designer, what tests would we be able to run, what would we expect to find upon further investigation, to support the theory?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272670 - 22/12/2005 16:00
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
If we decide the evidence is strong that there is an Intelligent Designer, what tests would we be able to run, what would we expect to find upon further investigation, to support the theory?
Yup, that's the crux of the question.
Your post about the rigged card game is an interesting one. We could, following that idea, get a sample of the number of "shuffles" (planets in the universe), and if we knew all the variables that determine whether a planet supports life, and had a large enough observation window (number of eons), we might be able to compare the actual number of life-evolving planets with the predicted number based on the variables.
The only problem is, as difficult as that experiment would be, even THAT doesn't count as a testable theory for ID, because if the prediction were different from the result, it doesn't automatically point to a creator. It might, for example, point to an incorrect assumption about one of the variables.
How do you test whether the game was rigged in the case of the card shark dealer? You try to observe him shuffling. Perhaps watch him with a high-speed camera. How do we apply that analogy to testing the ID hypothesis? How can we check, scientifically, whether God is keeping the Ace on the top?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272671 - 22/12/2005 16:29
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tonyc]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 12/05/2002
Posts: 205
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life
I have issue with this idea being evidence for ID because we don't know any other places where the laws of physics are don't apply. If course the laws of physics are suited for life, we exist because of them. Since our type of life is a derivative of them, we cannot help but to express how they work for us.
It is almost akin to the chicken/egg dilemna. Do we say this just becasue we are its evidence? Could there be other environments that are even more suitable for life that for some reason didn't produce life?
Also, when we look at our existance, we see it as orderly and assume that it required a designer. But, of course it looks orderly - becasue it is from what we're derived. It is the only reality that we know so by nature we will see it as organized.
It seems that ID is just trying to place a personality on much of what we've found through science. Perhaps people feel more comfortable making animals and objects appear like people - like we do in cartoons - to make them easier to accept.
With science, we observe and make theories that are supported by the observations. Just because the observations look more intricate/organized than we could have thought them up or designed them to be, doesn't mean that someone else did.
Could god exist without a designer? The god concept sure seems pretty intricate to me. How about something with such power that it could create a god - that must have a designer as well. The pattern seems logical, but it becomes a big mess that has no evidence from it's very root - and therefore becomes a waste of time.
_________________________
Brent
RioCar MK][a 20GB+80GB
'96 Saab 900s (Not any more)
Still looking for a good way to install in a 2010 BMW 3 series with iDrive/NAV
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272672 - 22/12/2005 17:10
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
It's like pushing against air. If you say one thing, there's always the God cop out: "well, God made it that way". The debate is pointless. There is no evidence that can be presented that can possibly convince an ID person because all evidence was conjured by God in the first place.
I keep trying to come up with something more to say, and there just isn't anything else. There is absolutely no way you can disprove that the universe was created by an extra-universal being because he could conceivably manipulate any possible thing in our reality.
And if that's true, why bother studying science at all? It's liable to change at any second.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272673 - 22/12/2005 17:43
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
If you say one thing, there's always the God cop out: "well, God made it that way".
But see, the moment ID proponents resort to that reasoning, they've lost the debate. The whole point is that they claim they can provide scientific support that God made it that way. It's one thing for "God made it that way" to be your hypothesis- it's another to use it as evidence.
Of course, losing the debate doesn't mean that God doesn't exist; only that they've been able to prove so scientifically.
I believe that God exists- but not on the basis of ID theory.
Quote:
There is absolutely no way you can disprove that the universe was created by an extra-universal being because he could conceivably manipulate any possible thing in our reality.
And if that's true, why bother studying science at all? It's liable to change at any second.
If said extra-universal being is not constantly manipulating our reality then science has a very real use. And since we've been able to study science and make sense of it over the years it appears to be a reliable discipline, etra-universal being or no.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272674 - 22/12/2005 18:14
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Okay, if the point of ID is to embrace and extend science with the addition of God, let's see where that takes us. If that's the case, then they must have some respect for science in the first place. So let's say that there's a specific case of ID interference -- the bombardier beetle, to choose an example. The ID proponent would say that the BB can exist only because God manipulated it to exist. We would assume that since they're saying that God enhances science, that would lead us to more scientific revelation. But it does not. It completely short-circuits science. It does not provide any testable theory and exists only to compete with a more plausible approach that can be tested.
At its base, it still subverts science with magic.
On the other hand, if all it says is that God must have had a hand in science and that science it still completely valid, then that's religion. It has no bearing of any sort on the scientific process.
So it's either magic, and, as such, unassailable, or irrelevant to the scientific process, and, as such, philosophy or religion. And there's no inbetween; it either subverts science or it does not. It doesn't make any difference how little it happens or how long ago it happened. Any speck of magic throws off the whole shooting match.
It seems to me that it's the modern equivalent of "Here Be Monsters".
Edited by wfaulk (22/12/2005 18:26)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272675 - 22/12/2005 18:23
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Quote:
the ID proponent would say that the BB can exist only because God manipulated it to exist. We would assume that since they're saying that God enhances science, that would lead us to more scientific revelation.
Just because He created the BB doesn't mean that he's actively manipulating it. He created the universe with order and laws. To understand more of my God, I seek to understand more and more science and the order and laws He created. I just do so without a bias toward evolution.
Quote:
Any speck of magic throws off the whole shooting match.
Not if the universe was spoken into existence with the laws of science in place. As long God is not actively manipulating and changing said laws, we can study and measure and quantify to our hearts content.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272676 - 22/12/2005 18:29
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Not if the universe was spoken into existence with the laws of science in place.
True, but that's not magic as far as we know. That lies well in the realm of "things we have no knowledge of". And if it's the case, which I'm perfectly willing to admit it might be (I don't personally believe so, but it's as valid as any other explanation, of which there is not one) it's again irrelevant to science. Science studies our reality, not attempt to explain how that reality came to be.
In particular, if that's the case, then it's not at odds with the concept of evolution. Evolution seems to obey the laws of nature and explain our reality reasonably well. There are certainly gaps in it, but there are gaps in Newtonian physics, too. That doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it incomplete.
I suppose it's possible in the future that science might have the facility to enter that arena, but that just means, again, that "God" is the new "Here Be Monsters".
Edited by wfaulk (22/12/2005 18:32)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272677 - 22/12/2005 18:32
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
We would assume that since they're saying that God enhances science
ID does not claim that God enhances science, but rather the other way around. The idea is that science can be used to provide evidence to the existence of God.
And if they're right and there is reasonable scientific evidence that God exists, that doesn't necessarily subvert science. It is well within ID that God set things up in the beginning and the stepped away. Christiantiy might teach differently, but ID encompases both a view of God who intervenes and one who does not.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272678 - 22/12/2005 18:34
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
It is well within ID that God set things up in the beginning and the stepped away.
Not to rehash, but then how does that put it at odds with current scientific ideas, evolution in particular?
My point is that the people pushing it, and it's their notion that we're complaining about, obviously do not follow that particular train of thought. I have no problem with that viewpoint, but, again, it doesn't belong in the science classroom any more than Shakespeare does.
Edited by wfaulk (22/12/2005 18:36)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272679 - 22/12/2005 18:39
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
In particular, if that's the case, then it's not at odds with the concept of evolution.
Evolution is not at odds with ID, which is the point I think everyone keeps missing, on both sides. Individual proponents may not agree with evolution, but the belief that God set up evolution and created humans that way falls within ID.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272680 - 22/12/2005 18:51
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Not to rehash, but then how does that put it at odds with current scientific ideas, evolution in particular?
I doesn't. Only the idea ID is at odds with is that we came to exist without God, which evolution itself does not claim.
Dembski's definition of ID is "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence." So it's not as much about proving evolution false as it is proving that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for our existence. And since it uses science, and science alone, to get there, that is why they argue it belongs in a science classroom.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272681 - 22/12/2005 18:53
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't miss that point, but the vocal proponents seem to not believe that. And those are the people we have a problem with.
I can abide by a scientific discussion of the failings of evolution, and they do exist, but the current vocal proponents seem to have no such interest. They specifically want to undermine evolution, or so it would seem.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272682 - 22/12/2005 18:55
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
No, it uses science to show how amazing certain creatures are, then takes a leap of faith and says "since I don't understand it, it must be the work of God". It takes a lot of hubris to assume that since one cannot comprehend something that it must be the result of divine interference.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272683 - 22/12/2005 19:06
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I don't miss that point, but the vocal proponents seem to not believe that. And those are the people we have a problem with.
I can abide by a scientific discussion of the failings of evolution, and they do exist, but the current vocal proponents seem to have no such interest. They specifically want to undermine evolution, or so it would seem.
Yes, and this is my frustration with the subject. If ID proponents say that evidence for God exists through science, then it'd be really cool to see this exhange of ideas delt with scientifically bewteen those on eithre side rather than trying to attack/defend evolution. If that were to take place and non-ID were able to say "we don't agree with the conclusions drawn, but the science used is solid", then it'd be worth talking about putting it into schools where students can learn what various scientists say about the subject and how science applies to it. It'd be no different than many of the other theories over which scientists disagree. Right now, though, we aren't seeing those discussions, mainly because everyone sees it as Creationists taking a new approach because they can't get pure Creationism taught in schools.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272684 - 22/12/2005 19:13
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
All right. Let's backtrack.
Is the currently proposed ID nothing but creationism in sheep's clothing?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272685 - 22/12/2005 19:17
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Is the currently proposed ID nothing but creationism in sheep's clothing?
As stated, no. In practice, seems to be. Or at least everyone views it that way. I don't think Dembski and the other major proponents view it as creationism, but likely a lot of parents pushing for it in schools do.
I actually don't hear much about ID at my church- only creationism. My understanding of ID was gained by listening to Dembski and others talk on the radio and reading articles.
Edited by JeffS (22/12/2005 19:20)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272686 - 22/12/2005 20:16
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I can abide by a scientific discussion of the failings of evolution, and they do exist,
Just want to take a moment to point out: our current theories of biological evolution could (hypothetically) be suddenly and disastrously proven false, and that would still not be a proof of ID. Knocking one theory down doesn't automatically prove a competing theory. Science isn't a boxing match.
We need some sort of evidence other than "it's too complex for us to understand". A statement like that just makes scientists want to do more work to learn the bits we don't understand yet. In order to actually do serious science with ID as a theory, we need something specific. Something we can test and try to falsify. How EXACTLY do we check to see if God's keeping the ace on top?
Surely, if the ID people are seriously doing SCIENCE, they've got something testable and falsifiable to offer up. In all the discussions of ID, I have yet to see an example of one simple testable hypothesis. Admittedly, I haven't read the "Pandas" book. Does it contain anything like that? I'd be interested in knowing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272687 - 22/12/2005 22:56
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
It completely short-circuits science. It does not provide any testable theory and exists only to compete with a more plausible approach that can be tested.
At its base, it still subverts science with magic.
No, you can still study how a clock works, eventhough it was made by the almighty Clockmaker.
I think the Big Bang is the Big Cop-out. "There was a huge explosion a long time ago, and now we exist". That only explains an observation. It doesn't explain why. God explains why.
I know that I was born out of my mother, and I know that I'm a living human being, and I know how my body works, how my life is sustained by the air I breathe in. And I know that all because of science. But I still don't why I perceive, or understand, or love. I know why animals eat, sleep, and reproduce, and I know why men seek power and women. All these things are observable by me and I can explain them because I've seen it before; I've observed it before, and I can even graph trends on a chart and develop theories. But still, I don't why I'm here.
Have you heard of sensory deprivation? It's a brutal form of torture, especially if executed to the fullest extent. All fives senses are taken from a person; they cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or feel. They can only think, and they go insane when left alone with their own thoughts. They cannot observe anything, and thus science becomes non-existant, yet they still have their thoughts. They're left alone to question why, how, and what they are. Our observations of the outside world, and thus science, act as only a narcotic to keep this internal insanity from consuming us. But it's there. It's there because deep down in your soul you want to know why. And I don't think that question will be aswered by finding a fossilized imprint of a monkey or a tint of red light in a damned telescope. You won't see God with your eyes, or with a telescope. Only within your own soul.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272688 - 22/12/2005 23:18
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/12/2001
Posts: 5528
|
Quote:
I think the Big Bang is the Big Cop-out. "There was a huge explosion a long time ago, and now we exist". That only explains an observation. It doesn't explain why. God explains why.
How does saying god explains why not a big cop out as well?
[edit]Terrible grammar[/edit]
Edited by tman (22/12/2005 23:28)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272689 - 22/12/2005 23:24
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tman]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
How does saying god explains why isn't a big cop out as well?
Like I said, you can only find the answer to why within yourself, not because someone said God pointed his magic finger, or because a scientist said a giant explosion occured. And that's why people believe in God. Not because it makes logical scientific sense, but because it makes sense within their own soul.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272690 - 23/12/2005 00:06
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Not because it makes logical scientific sense, but because it makes sense within their own soul.
Yup. Exactly.
That is why it needs to be taught in a classroom other than a science classroom.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272691 - 24/12/2005 01:48
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Your argument about the knowledge that man makes clocks is a good answer to this latter statement, though I don't really think definitive. I'd like to hear more disccusion.
Well, I suppose when you find a couple of human-designed clocks having sex, mingling their designs, and creating a baby clock that's similar, but not identical to the parent clocks, then I suppose you might actually have a reasonable parallel for the process of evolution.
Quote:
Have you looked at the scientific backing for ID? It's certainly there- the question is whether it means what ID proponents say it means.
All of the scientific backing I've seen for ID has been able to stand on its own about as well as a two-legged milking stool. Further, I read the entire ruling by the judge on this case. According to that ruling, the scientific backing for ID is, well, to but it bluntly, non-existant -- in fact, the judge ruled that ID is not science. Here's a great quote:
Professor Behe [the ID folk's expert witness] remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, [...] ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition. (page 28 of the pdf)
The 'reference' book at the center of this case, Of Pandas and People, is, I think, a fairly frequently cited book regarding the 'science' of ID. According to the evidence in the case, the earlier edits of the text used Creationism. In later edits, all instances of Creationism were replaced with ID (see page 32 of the above pdf).
If there is actually scientific evidence for ID, then where is it? Why have there been no peer reviewed papers? Not a single scientific organization willing to lend it any credence? (Also see the pdf, but I don't have a page number handy.)
Really, read the ruling -- the ID proponents and expert witnesses come out looking like absolute idiots.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272692 - 24/12/2005 01:53
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Admittedly, I haven't read the "Pandas" book. Does it contain anything like that? I'd be interested in knowing.
According to the ruling (see my previous post), it doesn't. In fact, ID is basically a 'moving goalposts' problem. Science doesn't explain X, so therefore, X is proof of ID. Meanwhile, science explains X, but it still doesn't explain Y, so therefore, Y is proof of ID. Half of what's in Pandas is outdated -- science has already proven wrong the arguments contained in Pandas, so the ID folks are moving the goalposts.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index