LA Times Columnist Slams Intelligent Design as a "Ruse" and a "Ploy"

Newsbusters.org ^ | 30 July 2006 | Dave Pierre

[UCANSEE2]

Wow. Big words. Lotsa words. From both sides.

In the beginning God created the universe.

Everything from that moment on was evolution.

Made possible by God giving every living cell the will to live .

Some ocean creatures evolve from plant to animal(fish/snake) at will.

Some creatures have not changed , that we know of, for tens of millions of years.

[PatrickHenry]

Swami, swami, in your tree,
Tell me more about ID,
I know it's science, I know it's true,
'Cause I bought all those tapes from you,
But in these threads, as you can see,
The Darwinists are picking on me!

[Stultis]

Sure. it is the same hypothetical which would demonstrate that "science" should be done with naturalistic assumptions....... (foot tapping)

I'll ignore the fact that this makes absolutely no sense as a reply to the question you were actually addressing. Dimensio can take that up.

Instead I'll just take your statement by itself.

Obviously there's no single "observation" that "demonstrates" the validity of only employing naturalistic mechanisms in scientific investigation. Instead there are two primary reasons why this is considered part of the "nature of science".

1. It works remarkably well. This principle has demonstrated that it is a very effective and fruitful constraint on organizing scientific thinking and application.

2. It's difficult (for most impossible) to see how the contrary assumption would work. If you allow non-naturalistic mechanisms you're removing significant constraints on scientific reasoning. If you can always (potentially) insert the step, "then a miracle occurs," it would seem that every theory automatically becomes ad hoc.

However, if you don't find this reasoning convincing, that's fine. If you don't like the limiting of science to naturalistic mechanisms, then there's a solution.

No, the solution is NOT pissing and moaning, whining like a liberal about unfairness and dogma, on a internet forum. The solution -- the only solution -- is to actually DO some "non-naturalistic" science and show us how it works (and that it CAN work) successfully.

Scientists understanding of the "nature of science" will ALWAYS be modified to accommodate a genuinely successful scientific theory. History proves this.

For instance it used to be generally accepted as part of the nature of science that force could only be transmitted by "impact," that is by physical contact or connection between material objects. The idea of forces propagating through space was once considered "occult" and unscientific. But today, thanks to Newton and Maxwell and many others, science is full of "field theories" that address exactly such "occult" forces.

Why? BECAUSE THEY WORK.

The downside is that the ONLY way you can change basic assumptions, proven fruitful and universally accepted (at least in actual application), about how science works is by coming up with a THEORY THAT WORKS that requires these understandings be changed to accomodate the new approach.

If you'd prefer to continuing whining instead that won't help. Unless it just makes you feel better.

[NicknamedBob]

"Is there a hypothetical observation that would falsify ID?"

Are you kidding? It happens all the time. How do you think they get driver's licences?

[infoguy]

1. Your position that something can't be both popular and scientific is ridiculous. Why can't it be both?

BTW: This debate invited Darwinists to grill ID proponents on the science. The 5-6 Darwin defenders included Dr. Larry Herber, prof. of Geological Sciences at Cal Poly Pomona and Dr. Bruce Weber, Prof. of Chemistry at Cal State Fullerton. I was there. The Darwinists did not fare well at all.

2. The position that ID is "not science" reveals that you 'd be best to educate yourself on the issue. At post #37, I've posted a number of helpful links. If you want to be honest and informed on the issue, you may want to check those out.

[Dimensio]

However, the meta question here is WHY is that assumption itself valid.

It is impossible to test claims resting upon an assumption that the fundamental properties of the universe are subject to change without notice.

As to providing a list of who made what statements about naturalism vs. ID, I really don't have a horse to ride in that race, and will beg out of those challenges, if you don't mind.

So it is no concern to you if your statements have no relevance to reality?

[Stultis]

Naturalism and Scientific naturalism is the stuff of solid proveable dependable reliable "facts" and religion is the refuge for deluded pathetic souls without enough courage to face "reality" blah blah blah

It's true. Most antievolutionists clearly do accept (even if without full awareness) a presumption along this line. It's why they want to treat the Bible as a science text: To shore up it's perceived validity.

However the proevolution types here are entirely unanimous on the fact that scientific claims are NEVER "proveable". Furthermore most (not all, but a higher percentage than on the other side) hold that science and religion are NOT, and should not be correctly viewed as, directly competing approaches to understanding the world.

[Dimensio]

Sure. it is the same hypothetical which would demonstrate that "science" should be done with naturalistic assumptions

Non-sequitur.

[Dimensio]

The position that ID is "not science" reveals that you 'd be best to educate yourself on the issue. At post #37, I've posted a number of helpful links.

The "ID in a Nutshell" article amounts to question begging and an appeal to ignorance. That is a poor basis for a claim.

[Stultis]

It is impossible to test claims resting upon an assumption that the fundamental properties of the universe are subject to change without notice.

Ah. Dimensio put it much more clearly and succintly than I did, i.e. my point about non-naturalistic theories being automatically ad hoc.

[infoguy]

"The debates and controversy are not between/among evolutionary scientists, but between religious believers and scientists ..."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. As I posted in another post, this debate invited Darwinists to grill ID proponents (most of whom were scientists) on the science of ID. The 5-6 Darwin defenders included Dr. Larry Herber, prof. of Geological Sciences at Cal Poly Pomona and Dr. Bruce Weber, Prof. of Chemistry at Cal State Fullerton (scientists). I was there. The Darwinists did not fare well at all.

[Coyoteman]

evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

Many ID proponents are evolutionists. "Evolution" has such a broad meaning that it is really unfair to paint it in contrast to ID or CS (which truly are beliefs and not falsifiable theories). "Evolution" can mean such a broad spectrum of positions that I wish the howling over it would go away. Most religious people (with the exception of the hard core young earth types) do not object so much to "evolution" as the insistence that:

1) "Science" is to function with naturalistic assumptions

2) Empirically based beliefs have more "substance" than non empirically based beliefs and can be "proven" rather than simply "believed" (aka "hoped for")

qed: Naturalism and Scientific naturalism is the stuff of solid proveable dependable reliable "facts" and religion is the refuge for deluded pathetic souls without enough courage to face "reality" blah blah blah

It is impossible to simply cruise a thread on "evolution" or to read an article like the one in the Times or read responses to the recent Kansas debacle to see this kind of sneering from the naturalistic community.

The theory of evolution, as used by scientists, is not overly broad. It covers, as Darwin pointed out, the origin of species, that is, how species came to be through common descent.

I agree with you that ID and CS are beliefs and not falsifiable theories.

Science has to function within naturalistic assumptions; something that can't be observed in any way is pretty tough to deal with. Neutrinos were a tough case, but they finally caught some of the little wigglers. Measuring or catching spirits and deities has not yet been demonstrated.

Science, based on naturalism, is completely separate from religious belief. Scientists have no problem with that. Where a lot of us have problems is the distortion of science, both data and theory, in an attempt to make it fit religious belief. The global flood is an example. Geologists gave up on that in the early decades of the 19th century, well before Darwin wrote--and they were creationists. Creationist websites to this day still contain a great deal of distorted science in an effort to "prove" a global flood.

If there is "sneering" it is over the distortions of science. I personally avoid comments on people's beliefs, but when they make false or distorted claims about science, for example, that science proves that there was a global flood, I tend to respond with fact and well-reasoned theory (i.e., science). Maybe a little sarcasm too, on occasion.

[infoguy]

Your post was a big waste of time by you. See post #37 and check out the links I've posted there. It sounds like you need to educate yourself on the real science of intelligent design.

[RFC_Gal]

How does one falsify ID 'theory'?

[balrog666]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. As I posted in another post, this debate invited Darwinists to grill ID proponents (most of whom were scientists) on the science of ID. The 5-6 Darwin defenders included Dr. Larry Herber, prof. of Geological Sciences at Cal Poly Pomona and Dr. Bruce Weber, Prof. of Chemistry at Cal State Fullerton (scientists). I was there. The Darwinists did not fare well at all.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a shill you are, you silly little person!

Your link has no "debate", no "information", and is nothing more than an advertisement to sell tapes to the most foolish of believers.

[Dimensio]

You just have blindly swallowed the NON SCIENTIFIC assumption that science should be done in an assumption of naturalism,

How else could science operate?