Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.
...
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.
On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Research what? How do you research the assertion that we will never have a non-design explanation for something? What are the research implications of "We may as well just admit God did it!?"
We're supposed to be discussing the concept of ID and whether it's scientific, and further, whether it will continue. One side appears to be presenting facts and evidence, and the other side can't seem to grasp what science is. I've just read a post that claimed, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that rationality cannot exist unless we assume an entity for which there is no evidence. After a certain number of exchanges, both sides hurl insults, which is typical. I find the debate quite frustrating,
It’s quite high isn’t it.
I'll take it for granted that you encoded a sarcasm tag.
Are you aware of the content of a significant part of public school curriculum these days? To introduce ID would elevate the quality of education.
I have a son in his freshman year of high school. My wife is the director of education at a franchise of a nationally-respected tutoring business. So let's say I have a good layman's grasp of "public school curriculum." Not surprisingly, it varies radically, depending on the locality, the dedication of the school board, the interest level of the parents, the administration & faculty of the school, and, of course, the student. In our school system, it's okay. A couple of towns away, it's pretty ghastly.
But I'd be interested in finding out why you think that introducing a concept that doesn't bother with using scientific concepts (except in the pejorative sense of "using"), will improve things.
ROFL!
Too funny!
Perfect. You have argued that it is not possible to develop general theories from phenomenon. That argument must also apply to the general theory of evolution. You can not allow one and dismiss the other with the same argument.
Of course, it is reasonalbe to draw theoretical inferences and theories from data. ID is precisely that. In fact, it is more. ID affirms the very collection of data because it is coherent with the act of science as rational, reasoned activity.
There is no evidence for evolution in a priori assumptions. It is, in a clearer sense than is ID, a theory.
San Francisco??
Interesting you mention obsesssion.
Do you think part of the problem might be the definition of stochastic? Basically, it just means 'random', but then there are stochastic processes that have more mathematical structure and theory behind it.
Similarly, the use of concepts like Monte Carlo. Some people just use it to mean random, but there is also a well-defined mathematical theory behind it as well.
I probably don't need to be telling you any of this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
As I remembered it, perhaps imperfectly, the only class of psychologists who got things right were the behaviorists. I bet Cognitive Therapy would have worked well too, but it wasn't around then.
Ahhhh!... But if your agent-based model describing such natural forces as gravity is correct, Intelligent SuckTM might be the missing link to Intelligent Design then? Or would conscience necessarily dictate that as well? ;) LOL!
IDS? Excuses? Who made Science? Scared of comparison? I rest my case.
ID makes much more sense than does evolution. IF you wish to believe you came from a big bang, a drip, and then an ape then so be it but don't attack me because I don't agree with you. Oh, are you a Christian? If so, why are you ashamed of your Faith?
Facts? Man made facts? Are they factual? Are they made up? Who came up with these theories and then said they were factual? Science is man made. I rest my case.
devastating placemarker!
Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
Applied mathematics is harder than pure. (Been there, done both.) Not to mention numerical analysis and coding implementations. Euclid's book on circles doesn't help where the rubber meets the road.
God made the world or the world made god? Where's your proof?
”And the argument on this thread by a proID poster that: they ought to teach ID because they already teach gay classes, fisting, and Harry Potter(?)....well hell, I can't argue with that. If those are the standards you all are holding ID to, I'd say it fits in just swell”
But if you say that, you degrade your own character as well as the character your part of this debate. That is, you appear unable to have momentarily abandoned the use of logic.
Intelligent Design does not fit in with those topics (I would say it differs infinitely). The difference is right in front of you. The topics you mention are of a nature quite simple and easy to define. (They are crude, disgusting and ridiculous and I will demolish any argument of those who disagree. I never met a Marcuse or a Derrida I couldn’t crush in debate.)
On the other hand, ID has inspired many highly sophisticated discussions like parts of this one, involving the exploration of topics such as linguistics, biology, genetics, ecology, theoretical physics, calculus, metaphysical philosophy, religion and epistemology.
Teach a worthy subject like Intelligent Design instead of the ridiculous ones that pervade our current public school system. Replace some of the garbage with something good like ID.
Indeed. The John Templeton Foundation is dedicated to finding common ground between science and religion. Their website says, inter alia:
The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and science through a rigorous, open-minded and empirically focused methodology, drawing together talented representatives from a wide spectrum of fields of expertise. Using "the humble approach," the Foundation typically seeks to focus the methods and resources of scientific inquiry on topical areas which have spiritual and theological significance ranging across the disciplines from cosmology to healthcare.
They have millions to spend. The annual Templeton Prize is currently $1.4 million. They're the real deal. And they've washed their hands of ID.
Now in The List-O-Links:
NEW Does the John Templeton Foundation support intelligent design?
“We're supposed to be discussing the concept of ID and whether it's scientific, and further, whether it will continue.”
“…I'd be interested in finding out why you think that introducing a concept that doesn't bother with using scientific concepts (except in the pejorative sense of "using"), will improve things.”
Intelligent design (pay careful attention to this) is a theory which involves trying to form a conclusion by just thinking about things. 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.
Intelligent design includes the laws of mathematics. It does not violate them—there, that eliminates a lot of unnecessary arguments seen in this thread.
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.
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.
Your statement is wrong on several points.
Theory is the goal of science; you don't move on from theory to a higher level.
No theory can be proven.
Facts are observations which have been confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers.
There is more support for the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity.
(Perhaps you should study a little more science. Your complete misunderstanding of how science works overshadows any points you are trying to make.)
[I'm a day behind on this thread, trying to catch up. If this has already been point out--please ignore.]
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.