Cubist
Posts: 559 Joined: Oct. 2007
|
Quote (ArborealDescendent @ Feb. 28 2015,19:56) | Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2015,19:22) | Quote (ArborealDescendent @ Feb. 28 2015,17:22) | I'm new here, just an interested layman, and I would just like to let my stance on the issues be known. I accept that evolution works but I also think that ID researchers like Dembski are on to something. |
What is it, exactly, that those guys are "on to"? As far as real science is concerned, they ain't got jack. Contrary to what you may have heard or gleaned or concuded from pro-ID propaganda, real science has a methodology to detect design, and this methodology is widely used in those branches of real science (forensics and archæology being my 'go to' examples of such) which are explicitly, directly about investigating intelligent design. That methodology can be summarized as "form a hypothesis of how whatever-it-is was manufactured, and make observations & do experiments which can test your hypothesis-of-manufacture".
ID-pushers never address the question of Manufacture. Which is kind of peculiar, really; if you only Design a thing without Manufacturing it, well, there's nothing to detect the Design of, now is there? But ID-pushers explicitly reject the notion of forming a hypothesis of Manufacture, generally on grounds somewhere in the neighborhood of but gee, we wouldn't want to make any unjustified assumptions on the nature/motives/methods/whatever of the Designer, now would we. So, okay, ID-pushers claim to have this rilly kewl methodology for detecting Design, and they claim that their methodology doesn't require making any assumptions whatsoever about the Designer.
Now, if that actually were true—if ID-pushers really did have a Design-detecting methodology that doesn't require making any assumptions whatsoever about the Designer—that would be way the hell nifty.
But they don't.
Quote | They are facing a lot of criticisms but so did Darwin when he first proposed his theory. |
That's right—in real science, every new idea gets put through the wringer of intense criticism, which means that the reception ID gets is nothing unusual at all, contrary to the help help we're being suppressed by a brutal, dogmatic Establishment!!1! narrative that so damn many ID-pushers try to sell. Good on you for not accepting that narrative, arborealdescendant.
Quote | If the formalized ID theories being put forth now… |
Hold it.
What "formalized ID theories"?
Over at the Discovery Institute's website, they've got an Intelligent Design FAQ, whose very first question is: Quote | 1. What is the theory of intelligent design? The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. |
Note well that the assertion that such-and-such is best explained by an intelligent cause is not, in fact, an EXPLANATION for such-and-such. Rather, such-and-such is best explained by an intelligent cause is a bald, unsupported assertion that whatever the explanation for such-and-such may be, an intelligent cause will be part of that explanation.
Note well: There isn't any shadow of a hint about what that 'intelligent cause' is supposed to have done, or how that 'intelligent cause' did whatever it's supposed to have done, or why that 'intelligent cause' did whatever it's supposed to have done, or, well, anything at all about the 'intelligent cause' they insist is part of the 'best explanation' for…
Hmmm. "certain features of the universe and of living things". So, not only does ID not have anything to say about the Designer, ID is also uselessly vague about what, exactly, the Designer is supposed to have Designed.
Interesting, that.
So… um… according to what the biggest, most prominent ID-pushing organization around says the theory of ID is about… the theory of intelligent design can be summarized as somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something.
Quote | [if ID-pushing notions] had nothing going for them, they wouldn't be creating all the fuss that they are. |
I agree, but I suspect you've misidentified the thing which ID-pushing notions have going for them. Judging by what you've written here, you seem to believe that ID-pushing notions have real, true, honest-to-Francis-Bacon scientific validity going for them… and they just don't. What they do have is the support of religious zealots and wannabe theocrats, some of whom (Howard Ahmanson leaps to mind) have supported flat-out Creationism in times past.
Quote | All Dembski and ID colleagues are saying is that their are scientific methods to detect intelligent design in nature despite how it got there… |
And they're right—as I noted above, there are scientific methods to detect intelligent design, and there's no reason at all those methods couldn't detect design in nature. The thing is, ID-pushers like Dembski et al are not using any of those scientific methods. Rather, they've come up with bogus non-methods that wow the ignorant and those who are predisposed to believe in God.
Quote | The fact that a Creator could have designed through evolution gets lost in the fray from the public's perspective… |
The position God did it, and He used evolution is what's called Theistic Evolution. And if that 'fact' is indeed "lost in the fray from the public's perspective", don't you think people like Ken Ham, who explicitly reject Theistic Evolution in favor of Young-Earth Creationism and say that YEC is the only valid position a Christian can take, have just a tiny bit more to do with that 'fact' than anything real scientists might have said or not said?
Quote | …and the evolutionist side is going to look idiotic when someone like Dembski does nail down a solid method for detecting design scientifically. |
"when someone like Dembski does nail down a solid method for detecting design scientifically"? So… you acknowledge that Dembski & Co. have not, in fact, "nail[ed] down a solid method for detecting design scientifically" yet. Cool.
Quote | I have a hunch it is only a matter of time and if like Miller says, we don't "rescue the argument from design" for science, Dembski and colleagues are going to use scientific proof of an ultimate designer as segway to revert the public to a stronger, young earth creationist view of the universe, like 100 years ago. |
So… you acknowledge that ID's leading lights are, in fact, using ID as a stalking horse to push that good old-time Creationism. Cool.
Quote | I heard Dembski at another debate, at Princeston with Lee Silver, briefly mention that if a designer can be detected, then it would throw even the "other" aspects of natural selection into question....to my mind he was speaking even of microevolution. |
Right, right. You acknowledge that ID is an attack aimed at discrediting evolution. Cool.
Quote | So the evolutionist side needs to seriously consider that a "designer" of some sort might be a verifiable scientific possibility… |
Dude. Real scientists have "consider[ed] that a 'designer' of some sort might be a verifiable scientific possibility". Real scientists in fields like forensics and archæology are all about 'designers'. What real scientists haven't done, and should continue not to do, is treat the overarchingly vague non-hypothesis somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something as if it was an honest-to-Francis-Bacon scientific theory.
Quote | and co-opt it, as Miller puts it, for the service of science. I believe that this can be done by taking the stance that a designer programed life to come about through the physical laws like Miller seems to believe. |
If Miller wants to think that, bully for him. It's not a scientific stance, and Miller knows it's not a scientific stance, but he's welcome to think that if he wants to.
Quote | I could be wrong but if evolutionists don't try to bang this point home in the minds of the public, when the ID side comes up with a convincing scientific method to detect design they'll use new found credibility with the public to take them even further back towards creationism. |
What, exactly, do you think real scientists ought to do to combat this threat? Be as specific as you can, please. |
There is a lot here to respond to so I'll try. I think we are underestimating the prospects of being able to scientifically detect real design in biology. |
Exactly which "prospects" do you think real scientists are "underestimating"? If you think real scientists are "underestimating" the "prospects" of eventually, at some indefinite time in the future, "being able to scientifically detect real design in biology", I disagree; I don't know of any real scientist who would categorically deny the mere philosophical possibility of "being able to scientifically detect real design in biology". Now, there are a lot of real scientists who, having looked at the evidence of actual living entities, have reached the tentative conclusion that there ain't no Design in biology… but if any of those real scientists are dogmatically committed to the proposition that there ain't no Design in biology, I am unaware of them. As best I can tell, any of those tentatively-denying-Design-in-biology real scientists would change their minds if they were presented with any actual evidence to support the proposition of Design in biology. If you think there are any real scientists who are, in fact, dogmatically committed to denying Design-in-biology no matter what, perhaps you might want to, you know, identify any of those dogmatic Design-in-biology deniers.
Exactly whose fault is it that nobody who pushes Design-in-biology has yet managed to pony up any friggin' evidence in support of their position, arborealdescendant?
Quote | Evolution is a fact in my mind, but just because it is doesn't mean that an intelligence couldn't have created through evolution. So either way there is intelligence behind it. |
Hold it. "doesn't mean that an intelligence couldn't have created through evolution" is not an established fact; it is, rather, an acknowledgement of a possible hypothetical scenario. So there's no "either way" about it! There are, in fact, (at least) three "way"s, which is one more "way" than you acknowledge. Specifically, you're tryna make it seem like the only two "way"s are Designer-who-used-evolution, and Designer-who-didn't-use-evolution, and you are eliding the third "way" of evolution-without-any-Designer-at-all.
Quote | It doesn't matter how the intelligence created the designs in nature and Dembski has repeatedly stated this in his debates I've watched. |
If all you mean to say here is that Dembski claims to have a Design-detection methodology which does not require forming a hypothesis of Manufacture, then sure—I fully agree that Dembski has, indeed, claimed to have a Design-detection methodology which does not require forming a hypothesis of Manufacture. If, on the other hand, you mean to say that Dembski really and truly has a Design-detection methodology which does not require forming a hypothesis of Manufacture, then I cordially invite you to get stuffed. Because he just doesn't.
Do you really think it would be a good idea for real scientists to give a pass to bullshit non-theories, on the grounds that said non-theories might, at some indefinite future date, turn out to not be bullshit after all? If so, I'm curious to know what other bullshit non-theories, besides ID, you think real scientists should give a pass to on the grounds of their potential validity in the indefinite future.
Quote | What simply matters is that you can statistically point to the fact that an organism is "really" designed period. |
I call bullshit. No, you cannot "statistically point to the fact that an organism is 'really' designed period". Or if such a feat is indeed possible, no ID-pusher has yet managed to present anything within bazooka range of a valid statistical methodology for doing so.
Quote | You ask for formalized ID theories? Dembski's CSI method is "formalized," albeit wrong at this point. However, that doesn't mean it will stay that way. |
That's nice. Since you apparently agree that Dembski's CSI thingie is not currently valid, it is unclear to me why you point to an as-yet-hypothetical future time when Dembski's CSI thingie might conceivably acquire the validity which it does not currently possess. What's your game here, arborealdescendant? Do you think real scientists should give Dembski's CSI thingie a pass on the basis of its potential future validity, rather than treat it in accordance with its present lack of validity?
Quote | On your point about YECs like Ham....yes they have something to do with the misconceptions about the public not viewing evolution as a creative designer force, but the ID movement is different than them and more sophisticated and can have more impact. |
"the ID movement is different"? I call bullshit. The ID movement is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the greater Creationist movement, and the only "difference" between ID-pushers and Creationism-pushers is that ID-pushers, as a group, are somewhat less likely to make with the God-talk when they're addressing non-religious audiences.
Quote | You ask me to be specific about what scientists can do to combat ID. Do exactly, what Miller proposes. Biology needs to acknowledge that there is "real" design in nature for those folks that are religiously inclined and push the possibility that the designer used evolution to create. |
That's an… interesting… tactic you propose, arborealdescendant. Exactly where does the notion of supportive evidence come into play, in said tactic? Should real scientists ignore and/or downplay the fact that ID does not, at present, have any supportive evidence? Should real scientists ignore and/or downplay the fact that the entire friggin' ID movement, as currently constituted, just plain is an exceptionally deceitful 'morph' of good old Creationism?
|