Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
Can you cite one paper where this is actually done?
You might check the original article, wherein a spokesman for the Templeton Foundation says that when they wanted to actually fund ID research, as opposed to debates, no one applied.
IDers claim one could detect design. However, no one ever tries it.
By the way, the process of speciation can be and is being examined by scientific methods.
(correction to post 477)
That is, you appear to have momentarily abandoned the use of logic.
Wrongo. Scientific theories arise frrm induction, not deduction. Science is speculative.
The difference between science and ID is not in the kind of reasoning involved in forming hypotheses, but in whether the hypotheses have consequenses that can be confirmed or contradicted by evidence.
“Can you cite one paper where this is actually done?”
Fascinating. My statement, “The approach of intelligent design is to analyze phenomena, through the use of logic and math, in order to reach a conclusion,” itself arises from my own a priori (and simple) reasoning. A priori reasoning is present in any instance of human discourse.
“By the way, the process of speciation can be and is being examined by scientific methods.”
Examination by scientific methods is vastly inferior to demonstration by scientific methods, thus speciation goes in the category of untested ideas next to intelligent design.
Actually, it's your posts that give that impression. ID assumes an unspecified "intelligent designer." It very carefully avoids naming this "designer." Read up on it. Your continued nattering about atheism puts you squarely in the creationist camp. Additionally, your points tend to be logical fallacies of the "evolution leads to Nazisms/fascism/communism/rap music" sort. These arguments are exactly the ones creationists use.
We have no doubt the distinction between "evolutionist and useful idiot commie" is too subtle for you ... as is the distinction between science and politics.
Oh, so evolution says nothing in any way about "the existence or involvements" of any diety? It doesn't say that humans could have originated without a diety? If it says anything it says that -- and that is saying something extemely important about a diety, whether you are willing to admit it or not.
There's that "deity" objection again, neatly proving the point I was making above. And you're right about that much -- the Theory of Evolution says nothing in any way about "the existence or involvements of any deity." You really ought to read a little about it before you attack it. In this respect, the TOE is exactly like every other theory in science: no deity enters into any of them. And it also does not address the beginning of life. Your ignorance of the theory is all-encompassing.
But have fun -- name the deity involved in germ theory. Or the one in electromagnetic theory.
In fact, that is precisely why Marx and Hitler latched on to it. But I can't believe that even you are stupid enough to not know that.
Hitler and Marx breathed a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen. Better stop doing that. Hitler used germ theory. That must go out, too. We can see where you're headed, even if you can't.
Or can you see the fallacy in the above thinking, but not in your trying to connect the Theory of Evolution to Hitler and Marx? BTW, some people objected to the Theory of Evolution because it had so obviously inspired soulless, Godless, capitalism. Is that also in your catalogue of objections? If not, why not?
After all is said and done, the fact remains that the purely naturalist theory of evolution is the intellectual lynchpin of communism.
Oh, please. Even if your statement is true, it's meaningless insofar as the validity of the theory goes. All science is "purely naturalist." Is it all, therefore "the intellectual lynch pin of communism"?
It's dogmatic "science" may ultimately succeed in salvaging communism from the ash-heap of history -- and useful idiots like you will be largely to blame.
Nice ad hom. All science is "dogmatic" in the sense that it expects theories to conform to its requirements in order to be considered science. Again, if you were really pushing ID and not a religious viewpoint, you'd realize this. But you're not so you don't.
Evolutionary science, like all fields of science, is the gathering of data through different means. The theory is used to explain the data. The theory fits. And you just said that it is reasonable to make inferences and theories to explain the data. That's all evolutionary theory is doing. As far as I'm concerned, it's only the scientific explanation for God's creation.
ID just doesn't have any means of gathering data for measuring design. As long as that remains so, it cannot be accepted as a science. But ID can still be true as a metaphysical idea. Unfortunately, God likes to keep secrets.
Perhaps the point would carry a bit more weight if you were able to point to a concrete example of someone actually doing that, rather than simply asserting that that's how it's done. It's one thing to assert that "the approach to human flight is to flap one's arms until one flies away like a bird" - it's quite another to show an example of an actual someone actually flying like a bird....
Examination by scientific methods is vastly inferior to demonstration by scientific methods, thus speciation goes in the category of untested ideas next to intelligent design.
"Demonstration" is not the only means of testing theories, unless you are prepared to claim that until we make a star in the lab, the theory that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion is untested - indeed, that it is untestable.
I know that's what Christians believe. My point, which you appear to have missed, is that how do you know your belief is right? There are many, many religions on earth. For Pascal's wager (and that's essentially what you were stating), to make any sense, there has to be one, and only one set of possibilities: a Christian God or no God. All other Gods are omitted, on what basis I do not know. I realize your belief is in the Christian God.
Now if that isn't straight forward enough, then I can't help you any further. :)
I'm beyond help. Just ask my wife.
Speculation is by definition untested. The question is whether a speculation can be tested. All of science advances through speculation. But speculative ideas need to be productive; they must suggest research.
“Scientific theories arise frrm induction, not deduction. Science is speculative.
I will allow that the “d” and the “e” should be replaced by the “i” and the “n”. But let us not be distracted by minor errors involving labels, the underlying concepts are well understood.
“The difference between science and ID is not in the kind of reasoning involved in forming hypotheses, but in whether the hypotheses have consequenses that can be confirmed or contradicted by evidence.”
I have addressed this point above, and if it is the basis for any opposition to ID, it demands opposition to the theory of evolution.
Remember, the major gist of this whole argument is not to define the difference between science and ID, but to debate whether ID is appropriate and tenable. So far, it reaches the standards which uphold the theory of evolution.
Theories have implications that can be examined and researched. Unless, like ID, they have no implications and can accomodate YEC and people like Denton, whose assumptions about natural history are indistinguishable from mainstream biology.
Go ahead and throw out everything we've learned in the last 150 years. All progress -- it's all based on man-made facts and man-made theories. Man-made science came up with the theories that man-made technology then used to create electrical power plants, electrical wire, CRTs, and keyboards. Or do you think that somehow God appeared one afternoon and filled all the COMP-USA stores with computers?
Go ahead and rest your case. Ignore germ theory. Ignore everything based on it. Your choice. doin't foist it on me.
And in your spare time, please demonstrate that God is not man-made.
ID is not in opposition to evolution. The most well known advocates of ID accept evolution as a given.
The problem with ID is it promiscuous. It sleeps with fundamentalists and Darwinists on the same night. It is not discriminating and has no way of being discriminating.
Quite so.
“Perhaps the point would carry a bit more weight if you were able to point to a concrete example of someone actually doing that, rather than simply asserting that that's how it's done. It's one thing to assert that "the approach to human flight is to flap one's arms until one flies away like a bird"
You’re asking for a concrete example of an a priori thought process? You just tripped yourself and plunged into the abyss of lost arguments.
“ "Demonstration" is not the only means of testing theories, unless you are prepared to claim that until we make a star in the lab, the theory that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion is untested - indeed, that it is untestable.”
Careful attention to my posts reveals I am not among those demanding tests for the purpose furthering my argument.
Intelligent design has not been tested. Evolution has not been tested. Both, however, have been examined by scholarly methods.
I guess that means no. Of course you can't. It hasn't been done.
Examination by scientific methods is vastly inferior to demonstration by scientific methods, thus speciation goes in the category of untested ideas next to intelligent design.
Please give me an instance of where a theory was 'demonstrated' as opposed to 'examined'.
Entirely unencumbered by the need to meet the requirements of a scientific theory.
The approach of intelligent design is to analyze phenomena, through the use of logic and math, in order to reach a conclusion. The a priori approach. Not appropriate for public education? It’s what Einstein did. Remember, Einstein’s ideas were not verified immediately and were highly controversial.
Einstein never felt the need to have a school board change the rules of science so his theory could be taught to high school students. He proposed a scientific theory, offered potential disproof (kindly enlighten us as to the potential disproof for ID), and then, when partial vindication for his theory was presented, held out for additional support. That's how science is done. Thanks for reminding us about Einstein.
Intelligent design includes the laws of mathematics. It does not violate them—there, that eliminates a lot of unnecessary arguments seen in this thread.
ID uses mathematics in the absence of all the known factors, so the math is junk, too. As I've posted before, ID pretends to be able to tell us the odds of rolling a six in an unknown number of passes, with an unknown number of dice, each having an unknown number of sides. Go ahead and show us how you'd calculate the odds under those conditions.
Moving along. Known facts of chemistry, biology and physics arise from deductive logic, starting with observations and measurements of particular phenomena, in a way that can be tested by science. The theory of evolution, specifically speciation as posted by Cicero above, does not. For the sake of an accurate understanding, please devote time and careful attention to grasping this fact.
When did Cicero's post become the "official" version of the Theory of Evolution? We here at Darwin Central must have missed the memo.
We are all susceptible to various forms of weakness. That includes moments (brief we hope) of intellectual confusion like that suffered by those who have missed the fact that the theory of evolution demands a glaring leap of faith.
No faith at all. It is the theory that best explains all the known evidence. If you think it's based on faith, you're not paying attention.
Doesn't that just summarize every crevo thread.
I'm asking for a concrete example of someone engaging in the process of ID as you have described it. I would have thought that was reasonably obvious.
Evolution has not been tested.
Sure it has. "Demonstration" is not the only method of testing a theory.
“ID is not in opposition to evolution.”
I didn’t say ID was in opposition to evolution.
I said that if you oppose ID because it cannot “be confirmed or contradicted by evidence,” then you must oppose the theory of evolution, which to date cannot be confirmed or contradicted by evidence.
“The problem with ID is it promiscuous. It sleeps with fundamentalists and Darwinists on the same night. It is not discriminating and has no way of being discriminating.”
To say that the content of a complex idea overlaps the conten of two other complex and generally opposite ideas fails to offer any relevant criticism as to whether the first idea is valid, tenable or otherwise appropriate for human study.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.