|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2005 : 13:51:44 [Permalink]
|
Again, if you feel that the Wikipedia article is incorrect in saying that ID is "ostensibly" a science, then you should go "fix" it.
I never claimed that. You are are the one who claimed it is only a political movement. I claimed it was both a political movement and a philosophy. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 14:06:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I claimed it was both a political movement and a philosophy.
And there are at least 4 people in this thread trying to explain to you that it isn't. Can you admit that you may be misinformed on this issue or are you just going to continue to post excerpts from a Wikipedia article?
The first book to to systematically promote the phrase "Intelligent Design" was Of Pandas and People, in 1989, and this is why:
quote:
Intelligent design followed the Supreme Court's rejection of creation science as night follows day: At the time that Edwards was decided, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (a publisher of Christian texts) had been developing Of Pandas and People as a creationist work to advance the FTE's religious and cultural mission.44 After the Supreme Court rejected the proffered expert opinions in Edwards claiming that creation science is ‘science,' Kenyon and FTE took their draft textbook (which advocated for creationism) and, with all the elegance of a word processor's algorithm, replaced references to ‘creationism' with the new label ‘intelligent design.'45 When they issued Pandas's first edition just two years later, they presented intelligent design as if it were a new intellectual endeavor rather than merely a rechristening of creationism. But Pandas defines ‘intelligent design' exactly as an earlier draft had defined ‘creationism.'46
44. Buell 07/14/2005 Testimony at 87; see also Forrest Suppl. Rep. at 10-13.
45. Buell 07/14/2005 Testimony at 98-99; App. IV-G; Forrest Suppl. Rep. at 4-8.
46. Buell 07/14/2004 Testimony at 98-99; Forrest Suppl. Rep. at 5.
The origin of the Intelligent Design movement was a concerted effort by Creationists to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling. It did not spring up as an extention of any previous philosophy or design arguments.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/10/2005 14:44:35 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 17:54:28 [Permalink]
|
And there are at least 4 people in this thread trying to explain to you that it isn't. Can you admit that you may be misinformed on this issue or are you just going to continue to post excerpts from a Wikipedia article?
Why would I change my mind because of 4 people on an online forum? I would think I'd change my mind because I heard a better idea, not just because 4 people disagreed with me. Also, who are those 4 people who are saying that ID is not a philosophy? I though only you and Dave W. had stated it that way.
I haven't denied any positive claims you guys have made about the origins and dominating role of ID in society.
Anyway, I've reflected more on this issue, and I was starting to think you guys might be right, but then I came to my senses. Look, ID is a philosophy. That doesn't lessen the fact that it is also a political movement, or even that its origins are rooted in politics and creationist pseudo-science. But it has gone beyond that. Sure, you could say it is based on ignorance and mishmash of different creationists ideas that don't logically fit together, and that would be true. But is that all there is, or is one of those ideas in that mishmash the philosophy of ID?
I did some more poking around the internet and came across this article: http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm#H2 The section called "Contemporary Versions of the Design Argument" is all about ID, and it discusses the philosophical ideas of ID and philosophical criticisms of those ideas.
I tried to look up some background info on some of the other proponents too. One, Stephen C. Meyer, went to grad school at Cambridge U. on a scholarship to study history and philosophy of science, and he based his dissertation on his interests in origins of life as they relate to ID.
If you want to say that ID is a poor philosophy, fine. I won't disagree with you. But it is a philosophy! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/10/2005 18:01:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 19:07:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I tried to look up some background info on some of the other proponents too. One, Stephen C. Meyer, went to grad school at Cambridge U. on a scholarship to study history and philosophy of science, and he based his dissertation on his interests in origins of life as they relate to ID.
Yeah, and the sad part is is that to get an "ID article" into a science journal, Meyer needed the help of an editor to push it through an abbreviated "peer review" which shamed the journal itself. Why the hell would someone with such excellent schooling, and a Christian to boot, stoop to such deceitful methods to publish an article which didn't say anything about ID and/or evolution that hadn't already been said and debunked 10 years before? Meyer has thrown his eduction (and his Eternal Soul) out the window in attempting to force scientific validity onto ID. He obviously doesn't care one bit about any alleged "philosophy" of ID, so his credentials are irrelevant to the question at hand.
You might think that if the proponents of ID were at all interested in the philosophical aspects of the design argument, they'd be publishing ID articles in all sorts of philosophy journals. Why aren't they doing so? Why is it that they're only interested in biology and math journals?quote:
If you want to say that ID is a poor philosophy, fine. I won't disagree with you. But it is a philosophy!
I think ID is a philosophy like "try to get laid every day" is a philosophy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 19:14:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I think ID is a philosophy like "try to get laid every day" is a philosophy.
Dave, there is no need to bring my beliefs into this discussion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 21:02:00 [Permalink]
|
You might think that if the proponents of ID were at all interested in the philosophical aspects of the design argument, they'd be publishing ID articles in all sorts of philosophy journals. Why aren't they doing so? Why is it that they're only interested in biology and math journals?
Because they are religious nuts with a political agenda. See - we do agree on all the important points!
I really don't want to debate this anymore; I'm glad you guys have turned to humor. I think whether ID can be classified as a philosophy or not is a pretty trivial point, and slight variations in semantics have come into play - as always! - in this discussion.
Hey, either of you check out the article form my last post? I thought it was interesting because I hadn't seen all those philosophical arguments for and criticisms of ID before, probably because most critics stop after making the case that it is not science. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 22:16:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sorry, H. I thought your philosophy was "try to get drunk every day." Or is that Dude's philosophy?
Can't speak for Dude, but that too is a philosophy to which I subscribe. You can call me many things, but one-dimensional isn't one of them.
marfknox, I did skim that paper you linked. Most of the various arguments I had heard before and was aware of why they fail--both in theory and in practice. That's still why I contend that ID is not philosophy, as a collection of failed arguments does not a philosophy make. Otherwise Storm's collection of bad arguments and unsupported speculations concerning ghosts and hauntings would constitute a "philosophy." That, I think, would be giving these ideas more weight than they merit. Just call it what it is: junk science.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/10/2005 22:17:56 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 00:35:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sorry, H. I thought your philosophy was "try to get drunk every day." Or is that Dude's philosophy?
Seriously, I am not that shallow.... My philosophy encompases more than just a single aspect of debauchery!
quote:
Anyway, I've reflected more on this issue, and I was starting to think you guys might be right, but then I came to my senses. Look, ID is a philosophy. That doesn't lessen the fact that it is also a political movement, or even that its origins are rooted in politics and creationist pseudo-science. But it has gone beyond that. Sure, you could say it is based on ignorance and mishmash of different creationists ideas that don't logically fit together, and that would be true. But is that all there is, or is one of those ideas in that mishmash the philosophy of ID?
People have been trying to legitimize this garbage as a valid science and philosophy for a single reason... if they can't, it lessens the power of the political tool. If they can look around and say, "See? We are a legitimate philosophy and a legitimate science! We have a handfull of SMART people who say so!", then the tool gains credibility in the eyes of people (apparently many nowdays).
Science, as we all should know, is tied deeply to philosophy (PhD??). It has long been recognized that they are inseperable.
When you grant the ID movement status as a legit philosophy, then you can be inferred as granting it status as a legit science.
If there is a philosophy contained in ID, then it is the philosophy of deliberate deception, obfuscation, and outright lying. For that is the basis upon which ALL their arguments rest.
Of course, it is really kinda senseless to have a semantics argument over what is and isn't a philosophy. The damn word has a very broad definition. Do we mean a system of values by which one lives? Do we mean the various acedemic disiplines in which it is possible to earn a PhD? Do we mean investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods? Do we mean the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs?
Let me break it down like this...
ID fails as an emirical science. Therefore, not being based on any evidence whatsoever, it fails as a legitimate philosophy of science or any other philosophy which involves critical examination and evidence.
ID fails the tests of logic. Therefore, it fails as a philosophy in which logic, as opposed to empirical evidence, is used as the basis.
ID proponents adamantly refuse, in most cases, to provide a hypothesis naming the "designer". Of what use it as a philosophy that examines fundamental assumptions or beliefs if they can't even propose a designer for their alledged design?
ID, to my knowledge, makes no claims to be a system of values by which people should live their lives... no philosophy there..
What is left? Epistemology? No.... ID makes no claims or arguments concerning any specific epistemology.
Where does that leave ID as a philosophy? Right smack in the same place that religious fundamentalism is.
So, if you want to say that ID is a philosophy in the same way that YEC is a philosophy... then I'd agree.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 02:09:32 [Permalink]
|
"...there is no philosophically intermediate position between science and religion."
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci Jan. 17, 2005blog
So?
Let me see if I've got it so far.
Here is a beleif system that stands on ground that doesn't exist.
As someone who has come lately to this debate, I would appreciate if someone would take the time to clarify a couple of points for me.
Who are these people and who do they represent if not science or religion?
What is their ultimate aim? |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 07:05:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sorry, H. I thought your philosophy was "try to get drunk every day." Or is that Dude's philosophy?
I've started a new movement by incorperating both into my own philosophy. Problem is, I can never figure out which to strive for first... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 07:36:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Hey, either of you check out the article form my last post? I thought it was interesting because I hadn't seen all those philosophical arguments for and criticisms of ID before, probably because most critics stop after making the case that it is not science.
I know you're tired of debating, but listen: most ID critics these days quit talking after saying "it's not science" because the refutations of ID claims were made 20 years ago (or more, since most of the claims are warmed-over creationism), and haven't changed. It takes much less time to end the scientific "debate" by simply saying "it ain't science."
As far as those arguments, I'm having a hard time with them as philosophical arguments, since to me, they're clearly empirical arguments. I know you don't want to debate this anymore, but the first sentence on that web page reads, "Design arguments are empirical arguments for God's existence." Let's look at the "Contemporary" stuff:
The Argument from Irreducible Biochemical Complexity: This is an empirical claim - that the probability that natural processes can create IC systems is so small as to be impossible. In other words, this isn't an argument for ID, it's an argument against evolution. It's also a rewording of an anti-evolution argument first proposed by Darwin himself, "what good is half an eye?" Creationists have spent 140+ years glorifying Darwin's question, and ignoring his answer.
The Argument from Biological Information: Leaving aside the fact that the argument rests upon a fictitious "Law of Conservation of Information" (which the cited web page does not deny), Meyer's probability argument is, once again, an old creationist empirical argument, from shortly after the structure of DNA was deduced. Even though it's strictly anti-abiogenesis, creationists still confuse abiogenesis with evolution, and used this argument against evolution specifically for decades before the invention of ID.
Fine Tuning (both types): See the stuff about probability arguments, above. While these are, indeed, used by IDists today, the source of fine-tuning arguments goes back decades prior to the existence of ID itself (the Confirmatory Argument, as acknowledged, is a weaker version of the older argument, and meant to plug one hole - but opens another).
Don't forget that basic creationism not only denies evolution, but denies the Big Bang theory, too. Fine tuning arguments began by being worded "the universe is too precise to have been created by chance, so God did it." Rewording them positively to say, "the universe is so precise that a design hypothesis should be entertained" does not modify the argument sufficiently to say that it's a different argument than the one creationists use. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 07:47:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
"...there is no philosophically intermediate position between science and religion."
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci Jan. 17, 2005blog
So?
Let me see if I've got it so far.
Here is a beleif system that stands on ground that doesn't exist.
As someone who has come lately to this debate, I would appreciate if someone would take the time to clarify a couple of points for me.
Who are these people and who do they represent if not science or religion?
As H. Humbert points out, they do represent religion, but present themselves as scientists so as to obfuscate their main goal of religious indoctrination. By planting the seeds of Creationism, they hope to be able to gain an advantage in prostelyzation with the young. This is aimed at non-fundamentalist Christians and non-Christians.
quote:
What is their ultimate aim?
To teach Creationism (relabled Intelligent Design) and thereby indoctrinate children into their own type of religious thinking in a sneaky way. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 08:59:38 [Permalink]
|
When you grant the ID movement status as a legit philosophy, then you can be inferred as granting it status as a legit science.
This doesn't make sense. Not all legit philosphies are legit sciences. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 14:17:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
When you grant the ID movement status as a legit philosophy, then you can be inferred as granting it status as a legit science.
This doesn't make sense. Not all legit philosphies are legit sciences.
It makes perfect sense when the alleged philosophy's proponents are doing everything they can to be recognized as a science (except, of course, doing actual science). That's the political nature of the ID beast. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
