Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]

Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

[b_sharp]

Give it up CG, Fester's insistence on defining the world according to his own personal views is a demon even science can't exorcise.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It particularly explains why there is, on a universal scale, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. This is valuable because it relieves the observer from anticipating occasions where matter will behave in a way other than the intelligent designer intends."

You mean supernaturally? :) BTW, how do we have any clue what the designer *intends*? What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws? Like I said, you were much more coherent when you used to argue YEC.

"It is also valuable because it instills in the observer a sense of respect and awe for the manner and degree of detailed design with which the observable universe is imbued."

I already had that awe and respect for the intricacies of natural processes without needing to invoke an untestable designer.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Alrighty... better late than logical.."

I was already expecting late, so I wasn't disappointed. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"See? It's valuable because it makes you feel good to believe it. And that's what science is all about, right?"

Maybe if we're talking Whole Science. Real science on the other hand... :)

[Fester Chugabrew]

But it was all BS. They weren't really observing any forces.

You didn't do any reading, did you? No, it was not all BS. They were observing the same stars and planets we observe to this day. Of course they weren't observing the "forces" any more than you can observe the "force" of gravity. As they observed the planets they also observed and recorded human behavior. Over time they noted predictable, repeatable behaviors during certain times of year. Their observations are largely responsible for the analog clocks we've been using, divided into twelve hours.

And what predictions did they make regarding PMS.

I specifically referred to our ability to predict it these days. I suspect they also came to know and predict certain behaviors each lunar month, IYKWIM.

[Baraonda]

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?

Design by God.

[bobdsmith]

Again, an intelligent designer is a reasonable way to explain the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

Not all reasonable explainations are theories - in the scientific sense.

I have yet to see an evo suggest a better alternative to fit the evidence, and I have yet to see any evo enumerate those things science can accomplish without the presence of either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.

Even the explaination that we are brains in jars imagining the universe "fits the evidence". Simply fitting the evidence is not what makes an explaination scientific. Explainations that fit the evidence are a dime a dozen.

Nothing in the scientific definition of "theory" suggests there must be evidence to confute it in order for it to be a theory.

It's called falsifiability and it is considered a requirement for scientific explainations, whether or not they become theories. The reasoning behind this is that explainations that cannot be potentially disproven cannot be tested. Therefore what use are they other than philosophical curiosities? Again I present the "brains in a jar" explaination as an example of an idle curiousity that explains the whole universe perfectly and yet is not testable and therefore cannot be a scientific theory.

Even so, I told you that the evidence which best refutes the theory of intelligent design is matter that is not organized and does not behave according to predictable laws.

How would that refute intelligent design? Why would intelligence be unable to design unorganised and unpredictable systems? An omnipotent being, as you suggested, would be capable of anything. Therefore anything we possibly observe would never disprove it.

[Baraonda]

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?

Design by our Christian God.

I thought this is more meaningful and truthful.

[PatrickHenry]

Added post 704 to The List-O-Links in this section: ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE.

[bobdsmith]

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

-------

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

The scientific method contains an important part about testing. If an explaination cannot be potentially disproven then it cannot be tested. It's not a criticism of the explaination that this is the case, it's just that science cannot do anything with it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

BTW, how do we have any clue what the designer *intends*?

That would require a revelation of some kind if it entails matters of attitude, future plans, wishes, or other attributes one might ascribe anthropomorphically. Othwerwise the only clue we have is that organized matter continues to behave according to predictable laws exactly as planned.

What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws?

In view of the ubiquity of the designer's work I cannot think of anything, and I do not have to in order for the theory to work. I mean, causing a virgin birth, or changing water into wine, or walking on water - these are not "breaking predictable laws." They, too, are fully in accord with intelligent design, just as it is necessary with an automobile for the designer to jump in and tweak things occasionally.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Of course they weren't observing the "forces" any more than you can observe the "force" of gravity."

But we can test the force of gravity. We can indirectly observe it. No such luck with astrology.

". As they observed the planets they also observed and recorded human behavior. Over time they noted predictable, repeatable behaviors during certain times of year."

No they didn't. There aren't predictable behaviors based on birth date. It was much more than physical cycles they were attempting to predict; they predicted, as they do today, all sorts of things about love and romance, fortune or misfortune in wealth, the rise and fall of kings. That was the nature of the predictions made. These are all nonsense.

"Their observations are largely responsible for the analog clocks we've been using, divided into twelve hours."

That has nothing to do with astrological aspects of their work.

"I specifically referred to our ability to predict it these days. I suspect they also came to know and predict certain behaviors each lunar month, IYKWIM."

But menstrual cycles occur at all different times of the month. And this has nothing to do with astrology. Women didn't have to go to an astrologer to know when they were going to menstruate. You are now making up the nature of the astrologer's predictions.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The scientific method contains an important part about testing.

Yep. Let science test for cases where matter is not organized and does not act according to predictable laws. Then it will assist in establishing a non-intelligent, non-designer as explanatory of the universe as we know it.

[hosepipe]

[ I was already expecting late, so I wasn't disappointed. :) ]

(fileing fingernails)
Are you a pick'er?.. or a grin'er?... Teeth are irrelevant..
d;-)~',','

[bobdsmith]

Yep. Let science test for cases where matter is not organized and does not act according to predictable laws. Then it will assist in establishing a non-intelligent, non-designer as explanatory of the universe as we know it.

But such an observation would not refute an intelligent designer...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That would require a revelation of some kind if it entails matters of attitude, future plans, wishes, or other attributes one might ascribe anthropomorphically. Othwerwise the only clue we have is that organized matter continues to behave according to predictable laws exactly as planned."

So in other words, when observing and examining the natural world, all we need to do is figure out the predictable laws that govern matter. That's methodological naturalism, which is the only method that science use. And ID falls outside it's domain. The only way we can have any clue as to the designer's nature is through direct revelation. This too is outside of science.


"What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws?

In view of the ubiquity of the designer's work I cannot think of anything, and I do not have to in order for the theory to work. I mean, causing a virgin birth, or changing water into wine, or walking on water - these are not "breaking predictable laws."

They most certainly would be examples of breaking predictable laws. It's predictable law that Virgin births don;t happen. It's a predictable law that people don't walk on water, or change water to wine. You are trying to yet again redifine a word to suit your wishes and feelings, in this case *predictable*.

The only thing predictable about your posts are that they will continue to get zanier and zanier.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

On that note, my hand is cramping up, (might be a pinched nerve, or carpel tunnel, whatever it is, it hurts and I can't use but two fingers on my right hand.) so I am going to bed. Night all :)

[Coyoteman]

From a thread last summer:

I, Fester Chugabrew, am a Young Earth Creationist. I do not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution. Furthermore, I do not accept creation or evolution as proper objects of science in the strict sense. Lastly, VadeRetro notwithstanding, I attribute all tendencies toward verbal putzitude to be a product of those who ignore, disavow, or otherwise impugn the authority of biblical texts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456767/posts?page=198#198

[Doctor Stochastic]

Seems some just prefer to choose sides, irrespective of any morality that may apply to all people. Religion (under this interpretation) becomes a prescription for perpetual war. People do things because their religion requires it, not because of any good or evil involved.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.