RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Occam's Aftershave

Posts: 1451
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,10:55   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty.

It already is taught that way.

Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.

Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.

And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein.

Sadly, that's ALL it is.

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

Great.  We'll teach ID in philosophy class.

And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”

Maxwell imagined little demons pushing molecules around too.  That wasn't evidence there are little demons pushing molecules around.

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere.

LOL! Sure thing.  :p

But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore truth:

...and of course your religion get to decide what is truth, right?  :p

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

Bullshit.  ID uses a purely negative approach of "if science can't explain this to my satisfaction, then ID wins by default".

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics.

More bullshit.  All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.

Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

ID doesn't use the same method.

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

The assumption is that the designer in each case was human.  If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.

One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF!  MAGIC MAN DID IT!'

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID."

No shit.

6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

But that's not what ID is.  ID is about putting your particular religion back into science.  Not gonna happen.

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

You mean there is tons of God-Of-The-Gaps bullshit.  But we understand.

So..... let's discuss.

Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp?  If not, there's nothing to discuss.

JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]