#272693 - 24/12/2005 02:33
Re: Slapp!
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
in fact, the judge ruled that ID is not science.
And the irony of all this is that science isn't something that can even be ruled upon by a judge or jury. Scientific theories stand on their own evidence and require no judgement, merely the results of reproducible observations and experiments.
Of course, a judge can rule whether a given textbook is taught in a state-run school, and that's what this was all about.
That's probably the biggest potential long-term damage that this case could have, making people think that science itself can be unilaterally judged or voted upon. That's a dangerous road.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272694 - 24/12/2005 04:25
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Big Bang actually implies a specific point in time
Ummm.... no. Not really.
Because of limitations in the way we (human beings) perceive things, we have ingrained in us this concept of time as an immutable, linear process, a progression of "then to now to future".
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. Not energy, not matter, not space, not time.
So what started this whole clockwork universe we live in? We don't know. Perhaps we never will know. But that lack of knowledge does not prove that "God did it".
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272695 - 24/12/2005 04:50
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy
Science tells us no such thing.
You might be able to make a case for claiming that the process of evolution has tailored us to be ideal for the environment in which we live.
We are defined by our surroundings, not the other way around.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272696 - 24/12/2005 19:06
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
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.
To expand on your point....
I am on the invitation-only BBB (Big Blue Bunny) mail list and I got an email about 15 minutes ago which I have to believe you will find illuminating.
The gist of it is this: The Universe as we know it came into existence yesterday (Friday December 23rd 2005 in our calendar) at around 14:00 hours Zulu time. I was just leaving Starbucks, IIRC. BBB explains in the email that "our" universe was -- how can I put this? -- untarred from an archive of one of his previous works, the Universe "Edslen". BBB apparently ran some sed/awk scripts on the archive to fix up "global worming". While the results of his earlier effort were amusing, BBB really hated what David Lynch did with it, thus the Universe as we know it today.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272697 - 24/12/2005 19:29
Re: Slapp!
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
to fix up "global worming".
(...)
BBB really hated what David Lynch did with it...
OUCH.
Mommy, make the bad man stop.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272698 - 25/12/2005 00:16
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Roger]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
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).
I have no patience to wait until I read the rest of the thread before I nitpickingly correct this:
not verifiable, but falsifiable: something that cannot be 'shot down' by a piece of observation is not a scientific theory.
When I am posting already, let me add: ID defitively fails this test. Whatever we observe, it can be attributed to Creator. If ID proponents specified exactly what their thinly disguised Christian God did, without changing it to fit advances in science, than perhaps we could talk.
Even Jeff's concept of ID (which, I think, reflects more his honesty, intelectual and otherwise, than the sad reality of actual ID agenda) is untestable, therefore unfalsifiable, therefore outside of realm of science. As I said a number of times, many scientists engage in entertaining speculation about possibility that our Universe (or even the infinite Multiverse (set of universes) postulated in many different hypoteses) was created, but that interesting pastime does not pretend to be science.
What is missing from both the classic 'watch argument' and Jeff's with game of cards is that neither man of watch materialized all of a sudden out of thin air; we know mechanisms both came to being.
And for the ideal planet: ask Inuit, Berbers of Katrina victims how ideal it is... 
Edit: Heh, as I thought, everything I said was said by others....
Edited by bonzi (25/12/2005 00:45)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272699 - 25/12/2005 01:10
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
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.
I very much doubt ID proponents share your enthusiasm for real scientific debate  You give them way too much credit.
I strongly agree with Bitt's and others' observation that all ID is saying is "I don't understand it, therefore it is a result of intelligent design and/or intervention". How long will the lack of understanding of a particular phenomenon persist?
Consider astronomy: before 15th century planets moved in complicate, intricate system of epicycles, obviosly a work of God. Kopernik (Copernicus) untangled them into circles, and 15th century 'ID-ers' burned Giordano Bruno at stake for supporting that untangling, but soon accepted it in the form of 'celestial spheres', as more precisely described by Kepler (who offered accurate kinematics, but not dynamics of planets' motion); then Newton described their dynamics in a single equation barely ten characters long, introducing gravity; Einstein offered explanation of gravity, one we are still trying to reconcile with our knowledge of sub-atomic world; the jury is still out on that one.
For caveman with freshly acquired capacity for wondering everything was clearly a work of god(s)/spirit(s)/...
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272700 - 25/12/2005 01:19
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
And that's why people believe in God. Not because it makes logical scientific sense, but because it makes sense within their own soul.
Exactly, Billy. I took a look into mine (mind, since I don't feel I have soul), and He is not there; but that is irrelevant for this thread. Nobody here is trying to disprove God; merely to get those forcing it upon the world off our backs. Actually, the very fact that non-existence of God is not provable makes the strongest (and fatal) argument against ID.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272701 - 27/12/2005 12:59
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy
Science tells us no such thing.
At least in some part I think it does. It is hard for me to imagine any life that can survive being on a planet that gets obliterated, which happens a lot more often in other areas on the galaxy. This, at least, is not being tailored to our environment but rather is either lucky or divinely purposed.
Quote:
You might be able to make a case for claiming that the process of evolution has tailored us to be ideal for the environment in which we live.
I don't think you can make this case over ID, and unless I see more evidence from ID people, I don't think they can make it over your perspective. This goes back to the puddle of water vs. microphone case analogy earlier. I just don't know how we can know whether we are sutied to our environment or vice versa.
To the thread in general: I spent a little time googeling for answers to the "how do you test ID" and came up short. I also found that a lot more of the big ID thinkers seem to be targeting evolution directly than when I was origionally informed and educated about the claims of ID (by some of these same thinkers).
I have to agree (for the moment) with the assessment that most of the ID arguments come down to "we can't explain it so it implies a designer", which I also agree falls short of science and therefore does not meet the standard of being taught in a classroom.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272702 - 27/12/2005 16:19
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
a planet that gets obliterated, which happens a lot more often in other areas on the galaxy
Maybe I missed something, but we've only just very recently, like within the last five years, started finding planets surrounding other stars, and even then, in most cases, it's just inference from stars wobbling, implying a planet circling them, or a momentary dimness of a star for which the existence of a planet seems an apt explanation. I'm not sure we've ever gotten a picture of another planet, but I want to say we have and it was little more than a dot.
What evidence is there of other planets being "obliterated".
Even if you look at other planets not being able to support humans, there are a number of different species on this planet that cannot survive in the same environments, from needing an oxygen-rich atmosphere (mammals, birds, reptiles, etc.), to needing an oxygen-rich body of water (fish, molluscs), to needing a carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere or body of water (plants, algaes), to needing hydrogen-sulfide-rich bodies of water (green sulfur bacteria, alvinellids). Other "extremophiles" exist as well.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272703 - 27/12/2005 16:40
Re: Slapp!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Sorry, I didn't mean to say planets ARE getting obliterated- rather that there denser areas where any planets that exist would be in great peril. Ours is in a much less volatile portion of the galaxy. I do have the book I read this one in, so I can look up the references when I get home (if I can find the book).
My point is that not all things claimed about our unique situation can be ascribed to adaptating to the environment.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272704 - 28/12/2005 16:09
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/08/2000
Posts: 2091
Loc: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
But there are also areas which are even more stable. If you look at the odd areas life is found in on the Earth, it is clear that something will fit any niche. Our niche is almost ideal from our point of view because we have evolved to fit it. This indicates nothing special...in my atheist opinion - we have seen the smallest fraction of our galaxy, let alone the universe, so what can we say about life elsewhere, other than the likelihood of some type of life filling a niche is high because we are here and space is big...very very big.
_________________________
Rory
MkIIa, blue lit buttons, memory upgrade, 1Tb in Subaru Forester STi
MkII, 240Gb in Mark Lord dock
MkII, 80Gb SSD in dock
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272705 - 06/01/2006 02:06
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Sorry to take so long with a reply... vacation.  Quote:
Quote:
in fact, the judge ruled that ID is not science.
And the irony of all this is that science isn't something that can even be ruled upon by a judge or jury. Scientific theories stand on their own evidence and require no judgement, merely the results of reproducible observations and experiments.
Did you read the ruling? This is why the judge ruled ID to be 'not science'. He didn't rule it 'not science' based on the validity of the theory itself -- he ruled it 'not science' because there was absolutely no evidence shown during the trial that it met the standard definition of science (let alone the one you propose above). In fact, it was said that the definition of science itself would have to be changed before ID could be considered science.
Quote:
Of course, a judge can rule whether a given textbook is taught in a state-run school, and that's what this was all about.
Yes, but to do that, the judge has to apply several tests as set out by legal precedent, one of which is to determine the secular value of what's being argued about. Read the judgement -- it's very, very thorough it its reasoning. Calling ID 'not science' is only a part of the basis for the ruling.
Quote:
That's probably the biggest potential long-term damage that this case could have, making people think that science itself can be unilaterally judged or voted upon. That's a dangerous road.
It's a dangerous road, but it's not a road that can be started upon based on this ruling -- in fact, that road is the one that the ID proponents took in the first place, which the judge admonished them for.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272706 - 06/01/2006 10:42
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
I appolgize for not reading through all of the posts. I've come to this thread late intentionally for various reasons. But I did want to say that what really saddens me about this whole mess is that I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I believe in God and I believe in evolution. The two can even support one another.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272707 - 06/01/2006 20:21
Re: Slapp!
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I believe in God and I believe in evolution.
Me too (on the latter point). Nothing mutual exclusive about them.
Except that Evolution should not be taught in a class about Religious Studies, and nor should Religion be taught in a class about Science. That's all this mess is about.
Both can be taught.
Cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index