RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,08:02   

Dave Springer really should look up Ad Hominem. It does not mean, what he thinks it means.
Quote
#

Red Reader- I know this might be tough for you, since you seem to reside is a Bizarro universe of logic, governed by the equation (zero original peer-reviewed research supporting ID) + (plenty of original peer-reviewed research debunking the irreducible complexity hypothesis) = (overwhelming scientific support for ID). But leaving that larger and oh so boring issue aside, and focusing on the article spawning this thread, my point is quite simple. If you think that the linked article provides scientific evidence for ID, I have every reason to doubt your reading skills and/or your critical thinking ability. At least you still have the ability to laugh at yourself. Enjoy the game today.

This was dj’s final answer. dj and his ad hominem vomitus are no longer with us. May they live happily together elsewhere.

Comment by dj — February 5, 2006 @ 10:30 am

   
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,08:14   

It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.

Only the 6-day people believe in no kind of evolution at all.

Therefore, whether we believe that this entire shebang was frontloaded at the big bang, whether we believe every particle was predetermined at the start, whether we believe that there was relative freedom in how things turn out, whether the front-loader inserted one or several common ancestors, whether we think evolution is ongoing or has in fact finished -- all these are subarguments.

So if Puck is right that evolution is agnostic, or that evolution takes no position upon the genesis of first life or the universe for that matter, then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,08:21   

Here's a delicious bit from Uncommon Pissant
Quote
By the way, I am more than halfway through “Of Pandas and People” and it is wonderful.

It seems boggling to me that anyone could think that the universe had no intelligent creator. We are fully capable of feeling the holy spirit. Shouldn’t the fact that this is repeatable and testable be included in “Science”?

Comment by Artist in training — February 5, 2006 @ 12:14 pm


No religion there.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,09:09   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2006,14:02)
Dave Springer really should look up Ad Hominem. It does not mean, what he thinks it means.

Most people these days seem to think 'ad hominem' means 'said something mean'.

DaveSpringer of all people should be a little more restrained about throwing around that accusation...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,09:20   

Yeah, calling an insult an ad hominem is just uneducated people trying to sound smart-like.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,09:33   

Although the error can be more subtle than might appear on the surface. Granted that DaveScot being a dunce doesn't directly refute any particular claim he makes. However, the knowledge that someone is a hardcore involuntary creationist DOES influence how his statements might be interpreted in a general sense.

And in DaveScot's world, calling someone an idiot is 'ad hominem' ONLY when DaveScot agrees with the idiot. When DaveScot agrees with the name-caller, then of course the idiot label is an objective fact-based observation.

I wonder how he'd respond to the statement that "you're dumber than manure and you're lucky you look better with your head up your ass, BUT in this particular case you happen to be right"?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,09:40   

Avocationist, in response to a suggestion that he had tacitly accepted "natural selection":
Quote
It just won't work. Random mutation isn't capable. Find more mechanisms. That one won't do.
It's important to keep your terms straight. "natural selection" and "random mutation" are two completely separate things. When you say "random mutation isn't capable": capable of what? Incapable of supplying the raw material for natural selection to act on? What evidence do you rely on, other than your personal incredulity? And when you say "random mutation", are you talking just about point mutations, or are you including chromosomal rearrangements, transpositions, duplications, etc.?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,09:40   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,14:14)
It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.

Only the 6-day people believe in no kind of evolution at all.

Therefore, whether we believe that this entire shebang was frontloaded at the big bang, whether we believe every particle was predetermined at the start, whether we believe that there was relative freedom in how things turn out, whether the front-loader inserted one or several common ancestors, whether we think evolution is ongoing or has in fact finished -- all these are subarguments.

So if Puck is right that evolution is agnostic, or that evolution takes no position upon the genesis of first life or the universe for that matter, then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.

Evolution (in the normal biological sense) says nothing about the Universe.

It simply says, that all species on the planet have a common ancester (or words to that effect).

Dogs do not give birth to cats, chimps do not give birth to humans.

A species gives birth to it's own species, but some "children" are slightly different to their "parents".

Some of these differences are selected for. Become bigger differences over time etc.

Geographical seperation of creatures of the same species can accelerate differentiation between offspring of the divided species.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,09:49   

Quote
then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.


Correct...basically.  ID posits that God is actively involved in the evolutionary process.

Theistic Evolution-God created evolution....therefore God still created you...just in a less direct sense.

Quote
It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.


This addresses a serious misconception about the use of naturalism in science.  

If i tell you that water has suddenly started flowing out of a rock.....how would you explain it?

Would you attribute it to the same phenomenon that is reported in the bible....or would you attempt to find a natural source for the water?

You would most likely try and find a natural source for the water.

You may not find one...and at that point you may attribute it to a supernatural cause.

Science, however, always attempts to find the natural solution.  They may never find one....and that would validate your belief in a supernatural cause.....but because they learn nothing from a supernatural cause....they will always strive to learn more.

You cannot fault science for taking this approach.  If you do fault science for assuming a naturalistic world...then you are faulting them for being skeptical.

  
phishyphred



Posts: 26
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,11:43   

open mouth insert foot...(up to knee)

http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/adhominem.html

(ad HOM-uh-nem, ad HOM-uh-nuhm) A Latin expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,12:35   

who stuck his foot in his mouth?

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,04:33   

JAD and Dave Springer are fighting over at Uncommon Descent:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/781#comments

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,04:38   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,14:14)
It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.

Only the 6-day people believe in no kind of evolution at all.

Therefore, whether we believe that this entire shebang was frontloaded at the big bang, whether we believe every particle was predetermined at the start, whether we believe that there was relative freedom in how things turn out, whether the front-loader inserted one or several common ancestors, whether we think evolution is ongoing or has in fact finished -- all these are subarguments.

So if Puck is right that evolution is agnostic, or that evolution takes no position upon the genesis of first life or the universe for that matter, then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.

What you are describing is the differences between atheism and theism.  But, I thought this was about science, and not religion?  All science, evolution included, is about finding the natural explanation for things using natural methods.  It's called methodological naturalism.  It's an explicit admission that we have no supernatural methods and we have no way to figure out supernatural means or entities.  If you have a way of using a supernatural method or proving the existence of the supernatural, by all means provide it.

Also, if you want to be intellectually honest, you should not limit your criticisms to evolution.  By your definition, all science is atheistic, since no science includes god.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,04:49   

I ventured over to the ATBC page on UD and found this:

Quote
This is a place for me to send messages to the peanut gallery at After The Bar Closes since Wesley banned me there. Plus it just tickles my fancy knowing you ATBC clowns will have to type “darwinsucks” to get to it.

02/01/06 I’m still the blog czar. Whoever bet end of January just lost. As JAD would say “Who is next?”

02/04/06 Wesley Dingleberry discovers and bans unsecure/open proxies. Oh bother! Back to dynamic IPs to get around it.  

Filed under: Education — DaveScot @ 8:50 am

How juvenile.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,05:20   

Uhoh - DS just upset JAD again - and JAD implies that he's quitting:

Quote
I love that “case closed” DaveScot. That is a beauty. I’ll give it my careful consideration. I would of course consider an apology. That is the kind of a remark that has no place anywhere in a forum presumably concerned with a phenomenon that has never been observed. Have a nice forum.


(However I would be shocked if JAD really has left for good).

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,06:31   

Quote (GCT @ Feb. 06 2006,10:49)
I ventured over to the ATBC page on UD and found this:

Quote
This is a place for me to send messages to the peanut gallery at After The Bar Closes since Wesley banned me there. Plus it just tickles my fancy knowing you ATBC clowns will have to type “darwinsucks” to get to it.

02/01/06 I’m still the blog czar. Whoever bet end of January just lost. As JAD would say “Who is next?”

02/04/06 Wesley Dingleberry discovers and bans unsecure/open proxies. Oh bother! Back to dynamic IPs to get around it.  

Filed under: Education — DaveScot @ 8:50 am

How juvenile.

What must it be like to be an IDC freak who takes himself seriously and who realizes that buffoons like this are the best they can do? That this is THE best 'science blog' that IDC has? In the back of their brains, aren't they embarrassed to realize their side can't do any better than this?

And yet they stick with them anyway and keep coming back.

I know, they deserve each other.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,06:50   

"Cosmo Theorist" Dr. Raj Baldev just made his third appearance on Uncommon Descent, this time posted by a new moderator named Scott:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/784

Don't these guys ever learn from each other's mistakes?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,07:06   

The post has been deleted, but I saved the link to the article on "Dr." Raj Baldev:

http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=854

Some choice excerpts:

Quote
"The Earth is one, the Sun is one, the Moon of the Earth is one, our Solar System is one, the ID behind the entire set up is also one. Only those people can conceive and decipher this truth, who have a particular positive gene in them."

"Please don’t run away from the truth of the Intelligent Design (ID) which is the original and all pervading creating force. It cannot be denied so easily by any needless logic."

"The impression of not supporting the ID openly by you is a dishonest act, this may simply suggest your inferiority complex, which in fact you don’t have. If you have clear faith based on your personal tested experiences that there is some power behind everything, then there should be no shirking from hiding the truth."

"If you stand determined by the right position of the ID, it shall not make you practically inferior than the scientists of any discipline in any sense since faith is an undoubted power of man and not his frailty."

"Don’t lose your moral strength under any scientific argument against ID.  Never think that may fail to prove the existence of Intelligent Design (ID). It is very much there."


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,09:00   

post 784 has been deleted, apparently. anyone got a copy? i can't find one this time.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,09:07   

Anyone here want to write a script which will surf uncommon descent every few hours and save the pages, so that we still have them after the Orwellians try to shove them down the memory hole?

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,09:54   

LOL. They post, then think, then delete. But never seem to learn from mistakes.

You would think that people who are concerned with societies moral decay would be more honest. Or maybe they are lying about that as well.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,09:57   

Score! Ed Brayton linked to Andrea Bottaro's copy of the missing post:


http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/upload/2006/02/Raj%20baldev.htm

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,10:01   

They get nuttier and nuttier. One day, DaveScot's going to see something he wrote, get pissed, and ban himself.

   
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,11:04   

Russell,

Quote
 Avocationist, in response to a suggestion that he had tacitly accepted "natural selection":It just won't work. Random mutation isn't capable. Find more mechanisms. That one won't do.It's important to keep your terms straight. "natural selection" and "random mutation" are two completely separate things. When you say "random mutation isn't capable": capable of what? Incapable of supplying the raw material for natural selection to act on? What evidence do you rely on, other than your personal incredulity? And when you say "random mutation", are you talking just about point mutations, or are you including chromosomal rearrangements, transpositions, duplications, etc.?

You are right I wasn't  being clear. Puck said that if we admit that an intelligence that is less than the Supreme created life forms, that I have admitted natural selection. But natural selection is a completely passive form of intelligence. And random mutation is not even a passive form of intelligence. I think both are inadequate to their tasks. Of course things get more interesting as we learn about more mechanisms. Many things that go on during meiosis appear very active and intelligent. I read a little about transpositions, rearrangements, etc., but I had a hard time differentiating what we actually know about them versus the conjecture that has been added. So, I just don't know enough about those other mechanisms, except that they appear to be candidates for ID.

I value my personal incredulity a lot, don't you? I can't imagine doing without it.
*******************
Stephen Elliott,

Quote
It simply says, that all species on the planet have a common ancester (or words to that effect).


Well later evidence shows this isn't quite true, but I'm not sure how important a point this is.

Quote
Geographical seperation of creatures of the same species can accelerate differentiation between offspring of the divided species.

But it's conjecture that this can lead to new species.
************************
PUCK,

I did answer a previous post which you may not have seen. It's in about the middle of the now page 14.


Quote
If i tell you that water has suddenly started flowing out of a rock.....how would you explain it?

Would you attribute it to the same phenomenon that is reported in the bible....or would you attempt to find a natural source for the water?

You would most likely try and find a natural source for the water.

You may not find one...and at that point you may attribute it to a supernatural cause.

Science, however, always attempts to find the natural solution.  They may never find one....and that would validate your belief in a supernatural cause.....but because they learn nothing from a supernatural cause....they will always strive to learn more.

You cannot fault science for taking this approach.  If you do fault science for assuming a naturalistic world...then you are faulting them for being skeptical.


My approach is a little different. And this speaks also to the remarks of GCT. Of course there are no supernatural scientific methods and of course I cannot fault science for taking the approach that they use. The thing is I see no need for the word 'natural' because there is so little meaning to the word supernatural.
Let us say I cannot find a natural explanation for the water. Does that mean it was supernatural? Well, it might mean that some other being caused it, or that sometimes human beings (Moses for example) tap into some forces in nature that we had hitherto not known about. Should our dogs regard our actions as supernatural because they cannot fathom how we did them? By this type of definition of supernatural, we have already entered the realm of supernatural beinghood as compared to ourselves millenia ago, or even hundreds of years ago.

The only question about any phenomenon is how did it occur. That it occured by some utterly coherent process is without doubt. The only question for science is whether our tools will come to understand it. I tend to be very optimistic that it will. When the word supernatural is used, in most minds it means magic. I think there is resistance on the part of many scientists to accepting a spiritual reality because they think it means: acceptance of incoherent goings-on in the universe; submitting to an unlikeable God.

I don't care if your fairy godmother waves her wand and a coach and six appear. If she did it, it was within the laws of nature. We must figure out how it was done.

It isn't that I fault science for being skeptical, it's that I fault people for thinking that the alternative to methodical investigation is to assign magic. This is equally so for religionists and atheists. I fault them for thinking that the existence of God is in any way opposed to nature and how nature works. In other words, there's no "either-or"
No one phenomenon is more natural or supernatural than another. Our reality has much depth to it, and we are investigating its depths and parameters. Reality is all of a piece and ultimately there cannot be separations into different realms called natural and supernatural - there can only be ignorance that creates what appear to be gaps.
***************
GCT,

Quote
But, I thought this was about science, and not religion?
Yeah, I'm new here and I do not want to be annoying. Problem is the topic comes up all the time. I think its unavoidable because the core of this whole debate is about whether we live in a purely material universe or not. There's no way really to discuss ID or evolution as understood by many of its most famous proponents without taking atheism/theism into account.

My biggest interest is more philosophical, about the nature of reality itself, conscousness, and what human beings are doing with themselves. I see that it is very hard for most people to approach truth objectively because their emotions  color their motives.

To me it appears that there is a blockage in ability to communicate because for many on the 'scientific' side religion is repugnant to them. I find good reasons for that.
In my opinion, Christianity is stuck in the dark ages, and is only beginning to think about moving out. On the other hand, many in the scientific community, reacting to that primitiveness, are in a state of suspended animation in their ability to find more useful ways to think about reality.

Time for the deer to move out of the headlights.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,11:15   

Can you tell us what a purely material universe is?  

Can you tell us what a universe that is a mixture of material and non-material stuff is?

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,11:21   

Well when one says hey this is so complicated a space alien,  or time traveler, or god mustadoneit aint science and it's bad theory.  

First you find the god/space alient/time tarveler and learn all you can about him/her/it.  THEN you can poke around and make theories about what he/she/it might have done, but the IC or specified nonsense argument is plain dumb.  It's retarded thinking.  At least selling it as science is dumb but I'll admit it makes great 3am bull session material, well when you're philosophizing with a bong in hand that is.

Here is the facts - we don't know anything about any gods, space aliens or time travelers and until we do sitting around asserting one of those fellows contributed something to human biology is dumber than dumb, it's intellectual retardation.

Pardon me for being so un-pc but I am sick to my stomach from listening to the moronic "philosophy" of ID cultists and apologists.

Behe's whining today put me over the top...What a bunch of misguided, misinformed, cry babies.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,11:35   

avocationist:

Quote
But natural selection is a completely passive form of intelligence.

Agreed.
Quote
And random mutation is not even a passive form of intelligence.

Yes, but it is not represented as one. Mutations are the food selection consumes.

Quote
I think both are inadequate to their tasks.
They work together. Food won't contribute to your growth unless you eat it. So the eater is required. But if you have no food, your capability to grow won't be realized. So the food is required. It's a tandem process.

So you're right, neither *by itself* is adequate to the task.

Quote
I don't care if your fairy godmother waves her wand and a coach and six appear. If she did it, it was within the laws of nature. We must figure out how it was done.

Yes, exactly so. In practice, 'supernatural' seems to have two meanings. As an explanation, it means "I don't understand how this works, but I can't bring myself to admit ignorance." As a pacifier, it means "anything you want for which there is no evidence (or for which the very real evidence is something you can successfully ignore) is *really true*, because nobody can prove me wrong."

Quote
By this type of definition of supernatural, we have already entered the realm of supernatural beinghood as compared to ourselves millenia ago, or even hundreds of years ago.

My reading of scripture is exactly thus. Stuff happened. Nobody understood it. Nobody admitted igorance. Instead, they made up gods and magical forces. They lived in a "demon haunted world" full of spirits and miracles, omens and portents, deep mystical purposes imposed by forces beyond our ken.

To manipulate their environment (and what is more human?) under these conditions, they projected gods as being like super-people, able to leap tall buildings, or at least control weather and confer immortality, all while remaining invisible. But because the gods WERE human, despite all these magical powers, we could manipulate nature by manipulating the gods. And even then, humans were highly skilled at manipulating other humans - through flattery (prayer), bribes (sacrifices), and deals (I'll worship you if you rain on my crops).

Today, this doesn't work anymore. Now we believe we actually need to *understand* stuff. And some of the stuff is pretty complicated. What a headache.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,11:38   

Quote
...about transpositions, rearrangements, etc., but ...I just don't know enough about those other mechanisms, except that they appear to be candidates for ID.
Yes, I guess the more one doesn't know about a given phenomenon, the better a candidate for ID it appears. From my perspective, these all look like pretty random phenomena.

Quote
I value my personal incredulity a lot, don't you? I can't imagine doing without it.
Indeed. But you can't base a logical argument on it, let alone a scientific theory.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,12:54   

Avocationist-

I have to congratulate you....I was working my way up to using Hume...and you beat me to it.

Quote
Puck said that if we admit that an intelligence that is less than the Supreme created life forms, that I have admitted natural selection. But natural selection is a completely passive form of intelligence.


You didnt specify, and I dont believe any IDist specifies, the form of Intelligence necessary for ID.  Going back to Paley's watch....watches nowadays could be designed, tested, and manufactured without any human interference.  The computer programs necessary for this would most likely have to be written by a human....but that is just an analog for Theistic Evolution.  The only difference between the watchmaker analogy and evolution is that the watchmaker requires a certain product...Evolution does not require any particular end.

Quote
Let us say I cannot find a natural explanation for the water. Does that mean it was supernatural? Well, it might mean that some other being caused it, or that sometimes human beings (Moses for example) tap into some forces in nature that we had hitherto not known about. Should our dogs regard our actions as supernatural because they cannot fathom how we did them? By this type of definition of supernatural, we have already entered the realm of supernatural beinghood as compared to ourselves millenia ago, or even hundreds of years ago.


Aye, there's the rub....

You got it exactly....We shouldnt regard the unknown as supernatural.  We should continue to seek "natural" explanations of phenomenon.  We know that the world has to be natural.

Now, here is the problem with ID.  
Evolutionary Theory claims things evolve over time.  It suggests the method and the means for evolution.  Scientists constantly strive to refine our understanding of the methods of evolution...i.e. natural selection
Intelligent Design claims that an Intelligent Agent designed life in some form....either directly or ?indirectly?.  It doesnt say anything about how ....it only claims that "something" caused us to evolve.
All of ID theory is based around detecting the "Designer".  In ID the "Designer" is the theory.

Let us go back to the rock in the desert.
If a regular Evolutionary Theory Scientist was there....we would attempt to discover the source of the water..the pathway the water took.  He would ask about the "how".

An IDist would claim that water was flowing from the rock.  He would claim that something caused the water to flow from the rock.  Then he would pronounce that "Something" has caused the water to come out of the rock.  He would then seek to prove that the water could not flow out of the rock suddenly without a catalyst.  He would ask the "who"

The difference is....we all know that "something" caused the water to flow out of the rock.  A catalyst was most likely necessary.  The problem is that the IDist is ignoring "how" the water is flowing out of the rock.  It doesnt further our understanding at all to claim that "something" caused something else.  It furthers our understanding when we try to figure out "how" "something" caused something else.

Who is a  great question for philosophy...and that is why I keep mentioning it.  ID is a wonderful philosophical viewpoint.  It is one that is shared by many rationalists...and includes the Catholic Church.  It is not a very good scientific viewpoint....because it never bothers to ask how?

Science right now believes that Evolution occurs because of natural selection.  If evidence, not sheer probability pointed towards an entity controlling evolution...science would have problem theorizing one.

Let me explain...if we kept finding organisms that were not well-suited to their environment(if polar animals froze to death all of the time)...that would indicate natural selection had flaws.

If we kept finding that organisms were perfectly designed...such as a complete lack of vestigial organs....or more efficient design...we would suggest some interference.  

Right now, however, organisms seem designed...but not horribly well-designed.  You have to remember that natural selection is a design algorithm.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2006,13:44   

LOL. Slate magazine:

Galileo and
the Intelligent
Design Wackjobs
Who Love Him


You can bet the Disco Institute's Media/Judge Complaints Department will be whinging about that.

You should read the article, if you haven't, it's good

Slate ID article

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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