Double Exposure, Inc.
  • December 01, 2020, 05:49:40 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Intelligent Design  (Read 12008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #30 on: October 28, 2008, 02:40:53 PM »

In as much as ID is a religious mythology, it's about as interesting to me as any other contemporary religion -- not at all, save for the historical and current social / political relevance of its adherents actions.

Where ID is also a sociopolitical movement and propaganda campaign by believers to redefine science entire and derail the progress of human technical advancement and growth, I think it is important to actively oppose that movement in all forms.
Great, show me where evolution is more than a myth. Scientific theory and understanding of how to calibrate tests have been based on the belief that it must have happened as evolution theorist say. Don't you see where the circular logic comes into play here? I understand that you have rejected Creationism / ID as simply some sort of mythology, but that does not mean evolution is a fact. I simply try to show data and theory that shows that maybe this "myth" may have some basis in fact. Science can not disprove Creationism, but science has certainly poked alot of holes in Evolution. At least open your mind enough to believe that at least there may be another possible explaination. Just because everyone believed the Earth was flat at one time, did not make it so.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2008, 04:37:35 PM »

I read carefully through that legal case. It did nothing to invalidate ID or creationism. I have never said anything else but that the actual inception of the world was supernatural, the science comes in by showing it is possible and by showing the glaring flaws in the THEORY of Evolution.

Apparently, not carefully enough. You keep bolding "theory". I trust I needn't type out the relevant movie quote?

This mostly started because Dave posted that Evolution was FACT.

Microevolution (by natural selection, I mean, rather than selection guided by human hands, the latter of which I hope is not even at issue here) is established fact. It has been demonstrated in a laboratory setting. It's pretty much a rock solid case.

It's macroevolution, speciation and changes over time that produce radically different organisms from a common ancestor, that your arguments are all arrayed against.

I posted all this to prove that it is far from fact, and can be shown to be possible by using science that another theory (ID) is at least possible. As far as whether the courts rule that because it is supernatural in nature and not thereby provable with science, I can not argue that. ID scientist can just show flaws in Evolution and then show that aspects of Creationism / Intelligent Design are possible.

See, that's just where you've gone off the rails entirely. As noted in the Dover decision, ID is by definition not a scientific theory. It is a religious doctrine dressed up in the trappings of science for political purposes (specifically to get around SCOTUS rulings that teaching creation science in public schools violated the first amendment, as creation science was in its time an attempt to end-run prior rulings barring creationism from the classroom). That was the entire point of the ruling, and you seem to have missed it.

ID posits that as evolutionary developmental biology has yet to fully explore or explain the entire course of biological history on earth (which, you know, is kind of an asshole standard to establish in the first place, but wev), and the exact, minute by minute, play by play course of the rise of life on earth has not been conclusively documented beyond the ability of even the most ardent and unreasonable denier to disbelieve, that this leaves open to debate how life as we observe it today has come to be.

Which assertion, as it happens, is true, albeit within a very narrow viewpoint and with a number of caveats.  Of course it is possible, even potentially beneficial, to review and debate and rethink prior research and explore new avenues in science. That is, as I've noted previously, the entire damn POINT of science.

BUT.

What ID goes on to do, is say that until the ridiculous burden of proof they place on scientific lines of inquiry are met, absolute ANY proposition which claims to explain the rise of life on earth has EQUAL WEIGHT, and that those same exacting standards do not apply to any of the explanations which involve supernatural elements.

And that's where it just proceeds to go from ignorant to stupid.

But I really hate dissecting and going over all the reasons why ID sucks as a religious mythology and social movement, because the entire enterprise is disingenuous. Why debate the bullshit that ID proponents come up with to justify their fake agenda? When it's pretty blatantly obvious, as noted by the court in Dover, that the true agenda of  ID is all about is changing the social and political landscape to make the populace (and thus, eventually, the courts) more friendly to making it possible to teach creationism in schools. Or, I suppose some might be satisfied with banning (or so watering down as to make meaningless) any elements of the curriculum (esp in science courses) that is objectionable to their religious beliefs.

WHY any right thinking person would seek to further undermine the US educaitional system (and thus ultimately overall technological advancement and scientific achievement) in a world where maintaining an edge in these areas is key to US political, economic, and security interests is somewhat beyond my ability to figure out.

One of my arguements has always been, 'Where did all these elements and proper conditions come from?'

If there were a concrete answer to that question, there would be no reason for this discussion.


Niether evolution nor ID will ever be proven, until it can be recreated.


So you're in the "no" camp, WRT to the tree falling unobserved in the forest question?

Neither can be done unless God creates something for us to see, or scientists can show they can create something out of nothing, then make it evolve into a higher lifeform. I don't see either happening, at least in our lifetimes,

It takes a lot of time and expense to build the instruments and laboratories capable of testing hypotheses in these areas, and even more time and effort and expense and sometimes luck to stumble across a decent testable hypothesis in the first place.

You mistake the aims of science, however. The point is not to rewind the universe or recreate it - the point is to develop the best possible explanation from what we know, and keep hammering at it and knowing new things until such a time as a set of rules with no real exceptions exists that describes pretty well what's happened before and accurately predicts (or at least allows for) what comes after. The quest for a GUT in physics, for example.


so I will believe in my faith and you will believe in yours, but make no mistake, both are a theory based on faith. Yours in scientists who work from an idea and make what they observe fit their theory. And mine where I believe in my God and what he says and try to show those of you who will only believe in scientific data it is at least as viable a theory as yours.

And here you're wrong on a couple of points. First of all, in the sense of religious faith (ie: belief without or despite contrary evidence, which I understand to be something of a virtue in religious circles), I don't believe in anything at all. Haven't yet, and probably won't. In the sense of "based on what I know, and the facts available, this explanation makes the most sense, so in the interests of being a functional actor in the world, I will include this in my operating assumptions until it proves incorrect", sure, I believe the sun will probably come up tomorrow and that, barring power failure or filament fatigue, the light will come on when I flick the switch.

When you say ID is a theory based on belief, it is a theory in the common sense (a hunch, an hypothesis, one possibility) and it is belief in the religious sense. In as much science can be construed as a theory based on belief, it might be characterized as theories in the scientific sense (well reviewed and well tested operating assumptions that generally hold true and make sense based on the best understandings of the day) based on belief in the latter sense I described (that the sun will come up tomorrow).

To say the two are thus comporable betrays a certain willful ignorance.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Bulova

  • Paul Birnbaum. The one and only. (Aren't you lucky?)
  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2008, 06:34:13 PM »

Let's talk about science for a bit, as it relates to "Where did we come from?"

When Darwin first proposed natural selection, it was based on his observations. As far as expanding it to the whole of life on Earth, it still had some gaping holes.

As time marched on, and scientists refined the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species based on more observation, experimentation and research, those holes grew smaller and smaller as data was filled in.

What has happened over the course of time is that the Scientific Theory of evolution has become more and more supported and generally accepted by the scientific community, not because it is Godless, but because it is based on records of historical change in species and the development of life, and shows no sign of requiring the intervention of an outside, supernatural agency.

No "theory" dependent on the intervention of a supernatural agency can ever be observed or reproduced, therefore it falls outside of the realm of science and into the realm of mysticism. It does not conform to the generally accepted "scientific method." As a result, religious belief has no place in the laboratory, nor in a science class.

As I've already said, the Dover decision doesn't invalidate the idea of ID; it does, however, very clearly remove it from the standing of a scientific theory. ID is not science, it is a religious belief, with its roots in creationism. The supernatural cannot be proven (or disproven) in a laboratory or by the scientific method. Evolution remains the only scientific theory that comes close to explaining the natural origin of life on earth, and the process of natural selection, as observable and verifiable by scientists.

Getting past that, there are people who cling to their faith. All very well and good. You are not alone in being entitled to do so. I have my own faith and religious beliefs, as well. I just know the difference between it and science.
Logged
President Bartlet: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Do you know why?

Will Bailey: Because that's the only thing that ever has.

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2008, 10:27:49 AM »

I agree that the moment of creation can not be observed and quantified, so therefore can not be classified as Science. Everything that comes after it can be however. Showing the flaws in Evolutionary theory, and there are many, is Science. Showing that many of the theories and tests were devised with the end result used as a variable to calibrate the tests, is science. Showing the age of the Earth to be far less than the theory of Evolution suggests, is Science. Simply having another opinion on the origin of species, is a valid scientific persuit. Certainly most who fall into the trap of accepting this theory, and trying to promote it, do so simply because there is not another viable theory without admitting to the possibility that there might be a Godlike force out there with an intelligent design for the Universe. Just because we can not explain or quantify God, simply because of his nature being unexplainable and unquantifiable does not mean that science has to continue to persue a bad theory. Most of the holes that have been filled in have been done by scientists who come up with other theories and test cases specifically designed to explain the holes. I am not asking people to accept that God created the Universe. I simply would like people to, with an open mind actually throw away what they think they know and look at the data and form an opinion based simply on what they see, not on theories made to 'fill in the gaps' of evolution.
Logged

Bulova

  • Paul Birnbaum. The one and only. (Aren't you lucky?)
  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2008, 10:46:09 AM »

Most of the holes that have been filled in have been done by scientists who come up with other theories and test cases specifically designed to explain the holes.
This statement misrepresents the objectives of the scientific method. It is not to find observations in order to validate a hypothesis. It is to see if observations validate a premise enough, in order to "promote" it to the standing of "Scientific Theory." Good scientists know that once they bring pre-conceived notions into their exploration, they are deviating from pure science. As such, good scientists are prepare to adjust their hypotheses to fit the observation, rather than vice versa.

I am not asking people to accept that God created the Universe. I simply would like people to, with an open mind actually throw away what they think they know and look at the data and form an opinion based simply on what they see, not on theories made to 'fill in the gaps' of evolution.
To ask this, you, yourself should be prepared to do the same. If you can present data supporting the premise of "Intelligent Design," more power to you. But a presumed "lack of data" creating "holes" in the theory of Evolution is not the same thing.

Let's not put a discussion of religion and science on the table at the same time. I'm having difficulty with the concept. I believe in G-d. Most of the details of my belief are personal. I believe that s/he*, if not actually creating the Universe, created the conditions for the Universe to exist. Science reveals (slowly) what those conditions are. But arguing a position that, by necessity, removes G-d from science, is difficult for me, as a non-atheist/non-agnostic. Every time I read what I write, it sounds like I don't believe in G-d, which is not the case.

* There really needs to be a non-gender-specific pronoun that doesn't hold the negative connotation of "it," since I also believe that a specific gender is not applicable to G-d.
Logged
President Bartlet: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Do you know why?

Will Bailey: Because that's the only thing that ever has.

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2008, 12:58:52 PM »

I agree that the moment of creation can not be observed and quantified, so therefore can not be classified as Science. Everything that comes after it can be however.

It's not me you're agreeing with, then. Science, or perhaps more aptly the scientific method, is (in most relevant sense here) a process for determining what natural causes may lead to observed results in nature. By definition, anything supernatural falls outside the bounds of this process. This would include any designer/creator/god/wev. The "moment of creation" is not presently definable, but conditions in the natural universe at the time, or shortly thereafter, can be determined by observing the aftereffects, and learning the rules of how energies/matter/wev interact well enough to figure out what most likely had to have happened before in order to lead to where things are now. Most likely, of course, being the operative caveat. The universe may've been formed from Ceiling Cat's first hairball, but it's not particularly likely, and there's nothing to support that assertion.

Showing the flaws in Evolutionary theory, and there are many, is Science.

Not so. Noting that some observed phenomena are not easily or adequately explained by the current theory, or more importantly showing in some conclusive fashion that they contradict the operative theory in certain cases, can be part of the scientific process, yes. Saying that theory is "full of holes" because the current understanding or available data do not accurately explain or anticipate everything in nature is... well, ridiculous.

Showing that many of the theories and tests were devised with the end result used as a variable to calibrate the tests, is science.

Again, not really so. Showing that researchers produce bad data or untrustworthy data because they intentionally biased the outcomes of their experiments is not so much a scientific process as... I dunno, journalistic one? Exposing frauds is laudable, but it's not "science", per se. It's necessary for the results of research to be considered trustworthy, and it supports good science, I'll give you that.

Showing the age of the Earth to be far less than the theory of Evolution suggests, is Science.

That's kind of an odd thing to say. Evolution by natural selection necessitates / predicts an old earth, to be certain, given current understandings. But the current understandings of the age of the earth are not based solely in the field of biology - geology, astronomy, cosmology, and other fields all add to our understanding of the age of the earth (and, for that matter, universe).

Regardless of the precise age, it is generally not considered to be anything in the 6-10K year range. And you haven't presented anything contradictory to this -- nothing scientific, anyway (and no, it's not scientific just because some quack got a degree from somewhere).

Simply having another opinion on the origin of species, is a valid scientific persuit.

Well, no, not really. If the alternative theory is based on observations in nature, and is concerned with other naturalistic causes for same, then I suppose it could be considered a scientific pursuit. But presupposing supernatural agents involved in those processes is decidedly not. As ID does just that, presupposes supernatural causes, it is not a scientific theory (this was one of the key points of the Dover case you reviewed so thoroughly).

Certainly most who fall into the trap of accepting this theory, and trying to promote it, do so simply because there is not another viable theory without admitting to the possibility that there might be a Godlike force out there with an intelligent design for the Universe. Just because we can not explain or quantify God, simply because of his nature being unexplainable and unquantifiable does not mean that science has to continue to persue a bad theory.

Science does not apply to the supernatural. If your god obeys natural laws, then fine and well.

Most of the holes that have been filled in have been done by scientists who come up with other theories and test cases specifically designed to explain the holes.

You are seriously missing the point. If you come up with an idea, and it's not entirely right, but you go back to the drawing board and tweak it, and then it works out better, that's generally a good thing. You've cast it here as just the opposite.

I am not asking people to accept that God created the Universe. I simply would like people to, with an open mind actually throw away what they think they know and look at the data and form an opinion based simply on what they see, not on theories made to 'fill in the gaps' of evolution.

You'd like people with no specific training or education in the relevant disciplines to review raw technical data and documentation in order to form their own opinions? I'd say that while I'm totally for everyone going out and learning as much as they can, this is likely to be a daunting task for most people.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2008, 01:11:14 PM »

Let's not put a discussion of religion and science on the table at the same time. I'm having difficulty with the concept. I believe in G-d. Most of the details of my belief are personal. I believe that s/he*, if not actually creating the Universe, created the conditions for the Universe to exist. Science reveals (slowly) what those conditions are. But arguing a position that, by necessity, removes G-d from science, is difficult for me, as a non-atheist/non-agnostic. Every time I read what I write, it sounds like I don't believe in G-d, which is not the case.

Just keep your god out of my peanut butter, and it's all good.

Or, less fliply -- compartmentalize, it's how most people reconcile their faith-based pursuits and their reasoning. Or, if your god is an extranatural force with no direct impact on the world since the beginning of time, there's not even a hint of cognitive dissonance there - the two work out together just fine.

* There really needs to be a non-gender-specific pronoun that doesn't hold the negative connotation of "it," since I also believe that a specific gender is not applicable to G-d.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2008, 03:27:53 PM »

If you take the theory of evolution back as far as it goes, and then keep going, you get to the Big Bang theory.
Now, in short, we all know that the Big Bang theory says that at some point a long long time ago, all the matter in the universe gathered together and due to reasons I'm sure a physicist can explain better than I, went BOOM! And that all of the universe is essentially the shrapnel from that explosion.
So, before the Big Bang, what?
Where did the matter come from?
Where did the laws of phisics that said that matter would attract itself in to one big ball, and then explode come from?

My point is, that no matter how devoutly you hold on to theories such as Evolution, you eventually go back to a point where there is no scientific answer. (I know, that is the whole premise of ID)
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

Bulova

  • Paul Birnbaum. The one and only. (Aren't you lucky?)
  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2008, 10:28:25 AM »

* There really needs to be a non-gender-specific pronoun that doesn't hold the negative connotation of "it," since I also believe that a specific gender is not applicable to G-d.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun
That entry doesn't help ONE BIT!
Logged
President Bartlet: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Do you know why?

Will Bailey: Because that's the only thing that ever has.

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2008, 11:04:15 AM »

If you take the theory of evolution back as far as it goes, and then keep going, you get to the Big Bang theory.

Actually, you just go back to the greatest common ancestor of all existant life. Technically, other theories come into play to explain the formation of the earth, universe, etc.

Now, in short, we all know that the Big Bang theory says that at some point a long long time ago, all the matter in the universe gathered together and due to reasons I'm sure a physicist can explain better than I, went BOOM! And that all of the universe is essentially the shrapnel from that explosion. So, before the Big Bang, what?
Where did the matter come from? Where did the laws of phisics that said that matter would attract itself in to one big ball, and then explode come from? My point is, that no matter how devoutly you hold on to theories such as Evolution, you eventually go back to a point where there is no scientific answer. (I know, that is the whole premise of ID)

The whole premise of ID is to discredit legitimate scientific inquiry in order to promote a political agenda. Let's just be clear.

The BS stated premise (which is disingenuous at best, and outright lie at worst), is to offer an alternative theory to, well, just about everything in science, but specifically regarding the origins and development of life on earth. The problem is that it presupposes a supernatural actor, and thus falls outside the realm of scientific inquiry. It just has no place. ID is not compatible, unless it ditches the supernatural explanation.

If ID proponents want to do something to benefit their case, they need to show that their designer is not supernatural, but natural, and subject to natural laws, and thus scientific inquiry. And then, following that scientific process, prove that designer exists. That'd settle the argument, hands down.

But no one's trying to do that. Why is that?
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #40 on: November 02, 2008, 11:02:43 AM »

The whole premise of ID is to discredit legitimate scientific inquiry in order to promote a political agenda. Let's just be clear.

The BS stated premise (which is disingenuous at best, and outright lie at worst), is to offer an alternative theory to, well, just about everything in science, but specifically regarding the origins and development of life on earth. The problem is that it presupposes a supernatural actor, and thus falls outside the realm of scientific inquiry. It just has no place. ID is not compatible, unless it ditches the supernatural explanation.

If ID proponents want to do something to benefit their case, they need to show that their designer is not supernatural, but natural, and subject to natural laws, and thus scientific inquiry. And then, following that scientific process, prove that designer exists. That'd settle the argument, hands down.

But no one's trying to do that. Why is that?
   The main reason noone is trying to do that is because, 1) Many ID proponents believe in an all powerful, ever present, all knowing God that can not be quantified because he lives outside of the laws of nature he created. 2) If some entity is powerful enough to create the world, he is far beyond the science we know.
    The case you sited specifically speaks of the origin not being science, and therefore should not be taught as a scientific theory. It could be taught as a philosophy or a religion, but that i neither here nor there. Taking it out of a governmental context, the science that shows that ID is possible is worth persuing. Just because something is wildly accepted does not make it good theory. I remember in grade school being taught that we were heading into a global ice age, and that within 60 years the Northern continents would be unlivable. In the late 80s to today, practically every scientist fell for the man-made global warming myth, which is more likely that the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles which are perfectly normal. Scientists frequently go with the prevailing theory of the day and fit their data to that theory, under the guise of simply refining the theory. When there is enough data to reexamine a theory and show it is not necessarily good theory science eventually discards popular theories and persues others. In this case, since ID has a supernatural element to it, many scientist just dismiss it out of hand without giving a second look even if the evidence is good enough to at least let it be considered. This is a shame.
    A theory is taking observable data and then drawing conclusions from the data. When there is a popular theory, many scientists are guilty of trying to make the data try to fit that theory. Since many of them simply can not accept the possibility of God because they can not quantify or measure God, they simply fall back to a he must not exist attitude. Some times you have to accept that there are things beyond what you can measure. We can't teach these things as science but if you accept this it will help you in scientific endevours.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #41 on: November 02, 2008, 11:15:34 AM »

In this case, since ID has a supernatural element to it, many scientist just dismiss it out of hand without giving a second look even if the evidence is good enough to at least let it be considered. This is a shame.

See, the problem with that is that by definition evidence that requires the supposition of a supernatural force at play can't be subjected to the sort of testing that is required to verify it. If it can be tested within the bounds of the natural world, it is by definition not supernatural. So which is it?

A theory is taking observable data and then drawing conclusions from the data. When there is a popular theory, many scientists are guilty of trying to make the data try to fit that theory. Since many of them simply can not accept the possibility of God because they can not quantify or measure God, they simply fall back to a he must not exist attitude. Some times you have to accept that there are things beyond what you can measure. We can't teach these things as science but if you accept this it will help you in scientific endevours.

If you accept that certain things are beyond the reach of scientific inquiry, forever and always, that will assist you how?
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2008, 11:39:47 AM »

AS I said earlier, if you go back far enough, you get to a point where science doesnt have an answer.
A question I asked then, -Where did the matter that coalesced in to one big mass and then exploded in the big bang come from?
-Where did the laws of physics that said that all that matter would attract in to that one big mass come from?
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2008, 11:42:34 AM »

See, the problem with that is that by definition evidence that requires the supposition of a supernatural force at play can't be subjected to the sort of testing that is required to verify it. If it can be tested within the bounds of the natural world, it is by definition not supernatural. So which is it?

If you accept that certain things are beyond the reach of scientific inquiry, forever and always, that will assist you how?
The reason it is valuable is that instead of assuming that it must be that evolution happened, therefore making it so you must have an Earth and a universe that is millions of years old, you can look objectively at the data available and draw conclusions based solely on the data. If the data points towards a younger Earth, then without preconceived notions you can draw conclusions based on your findings. Albert Einstein originally fudged his data when he concluded the Universe was expanding, because he did not think it was possible with the knowledge available to him, and his understanding of how the Universe must work. When he finally looked objectively at the data he realized his mistake, and called it the greatest mistake of his life. He could not explain how it was possible, but he just saw that it was. Many scientists who are afraid of being labeled as a kook fudge their data as wel to make it fit with their understanding of Evolution and a millions of years old Earth. It limits them because they are afraid of coming out with an arguement that could be misinterpreted as supporting Creation or ID. As I said it is truely a shame. We need a visionary that is not motivated by what he has seen before to simply do the math and see where it leads. Then have others look objectively at it and not try to make it fit with one current theory or the other. Who knows maybe some have done this and we just don't hear about it because so many have already made up their minds.
Logged

Bulova

  • Paul Birnbaum. The one and only. (Aren't you lucky?)
  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2008, 08:38:34 PM »

The reason it is valuable is that instead of assuming that it must be that evolution happened, therefore making it so you must have an Earth and a universe that is millions of years old, you can look objectively at the data available and draw conclusions based solely on the data. If the data points towards a younger Earth, then without preconceived notions you can draw conclusions based on your findings. Albert Einstein originally fudged his data when he concluded the Universe was expanding, because he did not think it was possible with the knowledge available to him, and his understanding of how the Universe must work. When he finally looked objectively at the data he realized his mistake, and called it the greatest mistake of his life. He could not explain how it was possible, but he just saw that it was. Many scientists who are afraid of being labeled as a kook fudge their data as well to make it fit with their understanding of Evolution and a millions of years old Earth. It limits them because they are afraid of coming out with an arguement that could be misinterpreted as supporting Creation or ID. As I said it is truely a shame. We need a visionary that is not motivated by what he has seen before to simply do the math and see where it leads. Then have others look objectively at it and not try to make it fit with one current theory or the other. Who knows maybe some have done this and we just don't hear about it because so many have already made up their minds.
It saddens me to see the amount of misunderstanding about the scientific method displayed by intelligent people.

Although it is possible that there are (what I would call "so-called") scientists who go into the laboratory with a preconceived notion about the conclusion they wish to achieve, real scientists, for the most part, are exploring what *is* and adjusting their concepts to fit the actual data observed.

Objectively, based on current understanding of the science, and observation and qualification of the data...

...it is generally accepted by geoscientists that the Earth is about 4- to 4.5 BILLION years old. The Universe, according to measurements of the distance between galaxies and stars, their relative velocities as measured by the Doppler effect, and the background cosmic radiation, is now believed to be 12 BILLION years old (since the Big Bang, a theory still supported by the observable data).

Mind you, these conclusions are subject to adjustment based on the discovery of new data, but more importantly, THEY WERE NOT REACHED WITH A PARTICULAR GOAL IN MIND. It was through observation, discovery and evaluation of available data points by which scientists were able to make these determinations.

And it is quite the mischaracterization to say "Einstein fudged his data." He came up with the "cosmological constant" in order to make the data he found "best fit" the theory he'd constructed according to his best current understanding of how the Universe worked. Eventually he realized his mistake, adjusted his equations, got rid of the Cosmological Constant and called it "the biggest mistake" of his life. But this serves more as an illustration of how a true scientist keeps searching for the truth, even when the current set of equations seems to leave out an effect they've observed. The Cosmological Constant was called a "fudge factor" applied to the equations describing the observed rate of expansion of the Universe in order to account for the effect of gravity. Later, the missing piece of the equation was discovered (or more accurately, figured out), the Constant was no longer needed, and understanding of how the Universe works was improved.

See: Einstein's Legacy; look for "Einstein's Greatest Mistake"

No, and let's be very clear about this: NO SCIENTIST is afraid that data he observes that leads to a particular conclusion or supports a particular hypothesis will result in his being "labeled as a kook." Rather, if it is discovered that data was fudged in presenting a research paper, more likely that team will be discredited (recall "cold fusion"). What you described as Einstein having "fudged his data" was actually him "fudging" his equations so that they would fit the data (the actual observed rate of expansion of the Universe). And what it really meant was that the equations were wrong; NOT the associated data.

All scientists actually do is devise formulae to explain and predict mathematically the behavior of the Universe. They are successful when the observed behavior is accurately predicted by the math; and not so much when an observed behavior deviates from the prediction of the formulae. The best Cosmologists and Physicists are, in fact, visionaries; in no way motivated by any preconceived notion about what they are observing. And then they prepare their papers, and they are, in fact, submitted to others who examine them objectively.

Your argument disparages the efforts and aims of true Scientists worldwide. I truly believe you owe all of them apology.

And still, it can be categorically stated that NO OBSERVED PHENOMENA, NO COLLECTED DATA supports the hypothesis presented by Intelligent Design or "supernatural" Creation.
Logged
President Bartlet: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Do you know why?

Will Bailey: Because that's the only thing that ever has.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up