Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 A Nice Summation of the Problem with ID
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 16

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2005 :  11:51:31  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
I just found this article on Yahoo News and thought it very good for the average Joe. Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050923/sc_space/intelligentdesignthedeathofscience

I particularly like how it lays out what ID's main arguments are, uses examples, and then explains how science has thoroughly destroyed them.

Markie - if you find your way to this thread, you might find the basic principles of science outlined herein helpful. I find that ID proponents often don't understand why ID isn't science and this is a nice article sort of laying it out.

-Chaloobi

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9672 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2005 :  15:49:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi

I just found this article on Yahoo News and thought it very good for the average Joe. Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050923/sc_space/intelligentdesignthedeathofscience

I particularly like how it lays out what ID's main arguments are, uses examples, and then explains how science has thoroughly destroyed them.

Markie - if you find your way to this thread, you might find the basic principles of science outlined herein helpful. I find that ID proponents often don't understand why ID isn't science and this is a nice article sort of laying it out.

Excellent article, which takes up one of my favourite evidence of evolution: The Nylon Bacteria.
Markie, if you want to know more about the Nylon Bug, please write so in this thread, and I'll post a link to a nice place to read more about it.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

markie
Skeptic Friend

Canada
356 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  11:16:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send markie a Private Message
Found my way to the thread. Guys, this of course is old, old news. My God, bacteria have specialized to the extent that some can live in rocks kilometers below the surface of the earth! So of course it is not surprising that bacteria can mutate via things like frameshift mutations to metabolize almost anything like nylon. That life has this incredible capability of lateral adaption (not even to speak of vertical progression) can actually be taken to *promote* aspects of ID thinking, the way I see it.

Mark
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  12:39:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
But markie, the way you see it is not the way ID is being presented.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  15:28:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Markie:
That life has this incredible capability of lateral adaption (not even to speak of vertical progression) can actually be taken to *promote* aspects of ID thinking, the way I see it.

You can point to absolutely anything in the universe and say that it *promotes* aspects of "ID thinking". I challenge you to find a single example that does not.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

markie
Skeptic Friend

Canada
356 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  18:55:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send markie a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks

quote:
Originally posted by Markie:
That life has this incredible capability of lateral adaption (not even to speak of vertical progression) can actually be taken to *promote* aspects of ID thinking, the way I see it.

You can point to absolutely anything in the universe and say that it *promotes* aspects of "ID thinking". I challenge you to find a single example that does not.
You raise a good point. Yes personally I see even the seemingly simple mechanistic workings of the universe to be an inspiring pointer to a great Architect.

One might regard diseases and such which plague humans as being antithetical to ID theory. Of course evangelical christians have a response to that, saying that disease and such is the result of the 'fall' of Adam and Eve. My view is substantially more complicated, but suffice it to say that there are outcomes which are not totally expected in a universe in which law and freedom run such a fine balance.

Mark

Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  19:28:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message
quote:
One might regard diseases and such which plague humans as being antithetical to ID theory. Of course evangelical christians have a response to that, saying that disease and such is the result of the 'fall' of Adam and Eve.

Or it could be the devil, or it could be...
quote:
My view is substantially more complicated, but suffice it to say that there are outcomes which are not totally expected in a universe in which law and freedom run such a fine balance.

Where would you draw the line? Which outcomes are from a designer? Which are purely natural?

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  20:04:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Markie, is there anything which could definitively disprove the "Great Architect" conjecture?

Because, of course, man creating life (however you define it) could very well be in the "Architect's" plans. Such a feat would disprove nothing. I'm looking for a possible concrete falsification.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  20:12:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
Markie, is there anything which could definitively disprove the "Great Architect" conjecture?



Of course there isn't.

That is the appeal to markie and those who think like him.


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
Go to Top of Page

markie
Skeptic Friend

Canada
356 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  21:02:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send markie a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
Where would you draw the line? Which outcomes are from a designer? Which are purely natural?
Well I could ask the question, is the 'will' of man purely natural? Man has become a 'designer' of sorts himself, and almost instintively views himself as somewhat above the natural. And indeed he does have a wee bit of transcendence over the merely natural (imo). That is, he is somewhat free of a strict causality, by his will decisions. A little god of sorts. Of course by definition ultimate Deity would be ultimate volition, under no subservience to another principle.

The physical lawful mechanism of the universe would represent a subset of God's 'habits' so to speak. There, some theology for ya, at not extra charge.

So as you can see, as one who sees all things sourced and unified in Deity, I am not disposed to any strict separation of 'designer outcomes' and 'natural outcomes'.

The phenomenon of 'will' may not contradict known physical laws, but it does take good advantage of the tiny uncertainties inherent therein, producing potentially large effects which appear to be highly improbable.

Mark
Go to Top of Page

markie
Skeptic Friend

Canada
356 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  21:15:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send markie a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Markie, is there anything which could definitively disprove the "Great Architect" conjecture?

Because, of course, man creating life (however you define it) could very well be in the "Architect's" plans. Such a feat would disprove nothing. I'm looking for a possible concrete falsification.
Great point. In fact, in my theology the Primary Architect does indeed have plans using other beings as sub contractors so to speak. But man is not qualified for the job of life creation, on several fronts.

I see no concrete falsification method for the generalized version of the Great Architect conjecture, no. But if man created life it would certainly falsify my theology in some of the particulars.

Mark
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2005 :  22:33:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
So who/what is the Great Architect? And who/what created the Great Architect? Where does the pyramid stop? If you claim a particular stopping point, you cannot prove that it is. All one has to do is add one more. There is no "reason" not to. Other than to say "that is my belief" and nothing more can be discussed.

Which is precisely why ID is not a science. Your use of the word "hypothesis" in some of your earlier quotes should be changed to "opinion", since there is no way to test it. And this is precisely why this should be in a theology or philosophy class, not in a physical science class.

Reminds me of story I read once (may have been Arthur C. Clarke) who asked an elderly woman about the earth. She beleived it was flat. He asked her on what the flat earth rests. She said a turtle. He asked what that turtle sits on. She said another turtle. He asked what does that turtle sit on. She said it was turtles all the way down.

Just because you can imagine the infinite, doesn't make it true.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Edited by - pleco on 09/26/2005 22:38:14
Go to Top of Page

ronnywhite
SFN Regular

501 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2005 :  00:19:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ronnywhite a Private Message
quote:
I see no concrete falsification method for the generalized version of the Great Architect conjecture, no.


RE delicate balances, etc. I don't think most agnostics (me, anyway) would have a problem agreeing that if one goes back enough eons in time, or developmental layers (before the Big Bang, for example) ID is as conceivable as any other explanation as to what might have "started it all"... as such, keeping the issue firmly planted in the Philosophy department. The disagreements start when people speculate that Man/Earth had some kind of significance to the designer as opposed to any other mammal, insect/planet, ephemeral object... or moreso as to the nature of such a special significance (that's where religions come in) that people can generally objectively agree upon without relying upon dogma, or "reaching" extensively.

Ron White
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2005 :  06:10:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by markie

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Markie, is there anything which could definitively disprove the "Great Architect" conjecture?

Because, of course, man creating life (however you define it) could very well be in the "Architect's" plans. Such a feat would disprove nothing. I'm looking for a possible concrete falsification.
Great point. In fact, in my theology the Primary Architect does indeed have plans using other beings as sub contractors so to speak. But man is not qualified for the job of life creation, on several fronts.

I see no concrete falsification method for the generalized version of the Great Architect conjecture, no. But if man created life it would certainly falsify my theology in some of the particulars.

Mark


Markie -

The point of the article is that because ID cannot be falisified, in any of it's incarnations, it is not science. It is a philosophical/theological argument. It should therefore not be taught along side or instead of scientific theories like evolution. I have no problem at all with it being included in some sort of philosophy class or comparative religions class in public schools. But it should not be confused with science. This is the heart of the issue. Not whether ID is worth discussing or not, or possibly true or not, but how it should be discussed and in what forum. Do you agree?

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 09/27/2005 06:12:51
Go to Top of Page

Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend

173 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2005 :  07:03:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Subjectmatter a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by pleco

Reminds me of story I read once (may have been Arthur C. Clarke) who asked an elderly woman about the earth. She beleived it was flat. He asked her on what the flat earth rests. She said a turtle. He asked what that turtle sits on. She said another turtle. He asked what does that turtle sit on. She said it was turtles all the way down.



I may be wrong, but I think that's from Terry Pratchett, Dr. Jack Cohen and Dr. Ian Stewart's The Science of Discworld

Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate
Go to Top of Page

markie
Skeptic Friend

Canada
356 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2005 :  07:22:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send markie a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by pleco

So who/what is the Great Architect? And who/what created the Great Architect? Where does the pyramid stop? If you claim a particular stopping point, you cannot prove that it is. All one has to do is add one more. There is no "reason" not to. Other than to say "that is my belief" and nothing more can be discussed...Just because you can imagine the infinite, doesn't make it true.


Is reality simply layer upon layer, ad infinitum? Perhaps, but I rather sense that the layers are finite, originating around an Infite core of perfect Unity. The I AM. An other alternative of course is that ultimate reality from which the universe sprang is Nothing.


quote:
Which is precisely why ID is not a science. Your use of the word "hypothesis" in some of your earlier quotes should be changed to "opinion", since there is no way to test it. And this is precisely why this should be in a theology or philosophy class, not in a physical science class.


I agree. It is a belief. An opinion rather than a hypothesis? I have in my mind that the 'life experiment' continues on after death, whereupon certain beliefs held now will eventually be generally confirmed or refuted. That is why I often endulge the word 'hypothesis'.

Mark
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 16 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.28 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000