RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (121) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >   
  Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed., Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker - A film< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:13   

Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!

That's not to say people don't hijack the theory to extrapolate to some sort of supernatural intelligence. But as I said in the lead up to my question, the nature of the supposed intelligence is beside the point. The question is, do we need to posit some sort of intelligence for the origin of life or not? I've yet to hear anyone attempt a full frontal answer to that question.

  
LawnBoy



Posts: 3
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:18   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
"why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not"

There are a couple of things here.

1) Your premise is flawed.  You equate two ideas that you claim both rely on an external intelligence.  In fact, that reliance is only in ID.  Panspermia does not assume an outside intelligence at all.
2) Panspermia is just a hypothesis.  It hasn't been proved enough to be considered a theory.  Considering it a valid scientific hypothesis is acceptable.  Calling it a valid scientific theory wouldn't be acceptable.  Trying to use political means to force Panspermia to be taught in public schools as equivalent to real scientific theories would be even less acceptable.

  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:20   

Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks, Lawnboy. I'll concede your first point--sort of. Certain versions of Panspermia don't require an external intelligence, but others do. Apart from that though, I agree that the best Panspermia can ever be is a hypothesis, because it doesn't answer the ultimate question of how life originated in the universe, just how it originated on earth.

As to your second point, I'm trying to cut away the religious and political baggage attached to this issue and focus on the scientific questions.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:21   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:13)
Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!

Certainly not in public, it doesn't.  What they say is that they can use tools to infer design in biological systems*.  But, when it comes to any type of questioning as to the identity, means, or motive of the designer, ID is mum.  So, basically, they infer design and call it a day.  Doesn't that strike you as rather....umm....incurious?

* That they say they can do so hasn't exactly incented them to actually do so in practice.  Here is a link to a discussion where Uncommon Descent contributor Salvador Cordova was asked to provide a working example of Dembski's Explanatory Filter as applied to a biological system.  Read it for yourself and see if he succeeded in doing so.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:23   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:08)
Erasmus: You can't be serious in saying evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. Have you ever read "The Blind Watchmaker?" "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"?

Science has a great deal to say about the origin of life, and in particular that branch of Chemistry/Organic Chemistry known as Abiogenesis has a very great deal to say.  If chemists coopt the word evolution to refer to the chemical interactions that led to life ("chemical evolution"), that still does not mean that biological evolution has anything to say about abiogenesis.  It just means that the word evolution has an explanatory utility outside of biology.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:25   

Hi kevin

Yes I have read blind watchmaker.  Richard Dawkin's personal metaphysical opinions should not be conflated with science.  I don't think he has this problem.  I do think that you guys have this problem.  You routinely misrepresent your religious presuppositions as empirical findings. Example:  'assuming' design helps scientists do X.  YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DESCRIBED WHAT DESIGN IS

This doesn't stop you guys from constructing a humongous marketing and political edifice upon this shifting sand where you refuse to go.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
sarion



Posts: 1
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:25   

Hi Kevin, I was following this thread and I noticed the nature of your posts. You seem to be a supporter of ID, however do not feel you can be expected to defend it, either saying you are not here to answer questions, or that you don`t know, but suggest that someone else does. However, you expect the others on the board to defend the theory of evolution by answering your questions on the subject.

Could you answer the, in my eyes, main question that has been posed of ID? It does not seem to me to be too much to ask.

What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:31   

Kevin, is there any chance you're going to respond to the earlier comments on the Templeton Foundation?

Or the Holocaust?

Or "cdesign proponentsists"?

Or answer the question, "what is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?"

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:32   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.

For panspermia, people may offer mechanisms. "Design" is not a mechanism. You cannot test for it.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:51   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:10)
oldman said, "Very well. Then do you have any examples of how presuming design helps understand how do defeat such things? Or are we still only at the talking about stage? No lab work as yet? If not, how long will it take?"

I think this is a good question. Unfortunately, I'm not a scientist so I can't wheel out a stack of journal articles or anything like that. But I can say that several scientists we talked to in our film--especially cell biologists--are finding the assumption of design quite useful in their work. And I don't mean useful in terms of creating a grand explanation for life. Merely in their day to day lab work.

Of course the "assumption of design" is useful, because cells were designed.

We just disagree on what process designed them.

RM+NS, which I'm aware is not the totality of evolutionary theory, can be said to have "designed" cells. Evolution "designed" life.

If you find an organ in the body it's a reasonable assumption that it's "designed" to do something. Perhaps it's vestigial, perhaps not. Most likely not.

However, if we take that tack then everything is designed then ID "theory" says nothing in specific about anything at all.

Is there any biological life that in your opinion is not designed?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,11:55   

wait a minute, old man, ain't DNA designed?

Seems like we can just stop there.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,12:14   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.

I'm not confused. Panspermia is a red herring. ID has set itself up as an alternative to evolutionary theory as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. The "conflict" in your movie is between ID and evolutionary theory. If you made a movie about panspermia, I missed the memo.

But you are dodging a question that was put to you several times. Here it is again.

What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?

(chirp chirp)

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
millipj



Posts: 10
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,12:25   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:10)
But I can say that several scientists we talked to in our film--especially cell biologists--are finding the assumption of design quite useful in their work. And I don't mean useful in terms of creating a grand explanation for life. Merely in their day to day lab work.

Using an assumption of design is not the same as thinking that they (cells) were designed. To pretend that it does shows a misunderstanding of how most scientists work.

I work as a chemist. For much of my day-to-day job I can use a simple "ball and stick" model of how a molecule behaves. I can treat electrons as charges on the atoms.

When I need to consider how a molecule bonds to a surface I use a different model involving electrons filling bonding and anti-bonding molecular orbitals.

However, I know that these are both merely useful approximations but that neither of these models is a correct representation of the molecule as described by quantum mechanics.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,12:34   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?

In my professional experience, they are so eager for reviewers that they
1) Will let in anyone who says they’re a reviewer from such-n-such rag/paper (although I have never actually tried this, of course - I have ethics)
2) Give out free tickets to the public
3) Throw t-shirts at the crowd
4) Distribute press packets

Actually, non-disclosure agreements do have precedent – such as the secret audience preview of Gone with the Wind. However, I think that was verbal, simply to not reveal the plot, etc.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,12:56   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.

Kevin,

Go back to my post here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry98561

It explains the vast differences between ID and real science.

Please stop fudging basic scientific concepts. Here are some examples:

Hypotheses:
abiogenesis (multiple, actively being tested)
prions in 1982
panspermia (multiple, not much activity)
ID (but only if they offer testable predictions; your comrades are afraid to test any of them)

Theories:
evolution (massive number of successful empirical predictions)
prion (since ~1995, as a result of hundreds of successful empirical predictions)

Do you get the basic picture, or are you being dishonest?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,13:00   

Kevin is not a scientist nor does he play one on TV.  However, he is a writer who contributed to the soon-to-be blockbuster, Expelled!

So, Kevin is in an excellent position to tell us specifically who was expelled from what.  Expelled! is about expelling, not panspermia.  Let's get back to the explanations of the expellations.

Start with Sternberg since we're all very familiar with that piece of history.

From what was Sternberg expelled and by whom?

After Sternberg, Kevin, please regale us with Behe's heart-rending story.

Thanks.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,13:06   

I have never heard any serious scientist associate the hypothesis of panspermia with that of an alien intelligence seeding life on Earth.  I am sure the possibility has been discussed, but there is no serious scientific effort to develop the idea of panspermia along those lines, and certainly nobody is arguing that it should be taught in science class in high school.  Even the fans of panspermia accept this as the correct approach to take.

But panspermia is certainly a legitimate scientific hypothesis when it comes to the idea that simple lifeforms (that evolved elsewhere) may be able to survive the hardship of space for some long period of time.  Discoveries of extremeophiles here on Earth and the possibility of bacteria and other single cell organisms surviving on space-born missions are just two areas of related research (that already bear fruit).

It may not be much more than an interesting hypothesis (and it may well be wrong), but panspermia has already contributed to the scientific debate on the origins of life (but not evolution).  That is in stark contrast to ID, which has had no bearing on the scientific debate (as opposed to the political debate) at all.

So, Kevin, while in theory panspermia may hold out the tiniest of chances that alien intelligence was the agency of life on Earth it is no more likely than, say, aliens were responsible for carving the Face on Mars.  You can't rule it out completely but there is no useful scientific value to researching into it.  In fact, unless an alien species turns up on Earth's doorstep and to claim us as their own, there is no avenue of scientific research available. (And if those aliens do show up, it might be a victory for IDists, but they would be royally pissed off with the identity of the designer :) )

In that way, panspermia it is precisely like ID.  As soon as you invoke an intelligent agency, you leave the realm of science and into the realm of religion or fantasy or science fiction.  Conflating those two realms over the idea of panspermia is no help in making the case for ID as science. In fact, it proves the opposite.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,13:35   

Kevin M.:

 
Quote

From reading people like Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, Darwin, and others, evolutionary theory most definitely includes the origin and diversity of life.


Nobody's disputing "diversity". What's at issue is abiogenesis and its relation to evolutionary science.

My understanding is that the processes identified by evolutionary science aren't limited to acting upon life-originated-by-abiogenesis, and could be expected to produce the observed diversity of living organisms even if modifying life-originated-by-design. So far as understanding evolutionary science is concerned, abiogenesis is a big "don't-care" term. (Though I should note that if Kevin ever came within ten yards of Andrew Ellington, any argument Kevin would care to make on the topic of abiogenesis would be shredded in seconds.)

Now, if Kevin is claiming to be able to demonstrate an obligate dependence of evolutionary science upon abiogenesis and to base this upon consideration of the literature, it is his responsibility to share the supporting citations. Kevin seems to have overlooked doing that in his comment, but I'm sure he'll be by to rectify that shortly. Until then, though, I don't see a supported argument.

Still no response that I've seen on the main point as noted as pending at least since the 1997 DI conference: what would an ID hypothesis look like, and how would you test it?

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 27 2008,20:46

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
KimvdLinde



Posts: 12
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,13:49   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
<
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not? What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID? Would the theory be more acceptible then? And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable? After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth. We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is. But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not? Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not. That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?

Quote
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not?


Because ID invokes a undefined non-materialistic source, while the other does not.
Quote
What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID? Would the theory be more acceptible then?

ID is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. If you would strip away the undefined intelligent source that explains everything, there is no hypothesis left.

Quote
And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable?

No, Panspermia is based on seeds of life being found in the universe, an it does not require an undefined non-materialistic intelligent designer. The causes for that can be very well purely materialistic, and as such, they differ in a key aspect, the need for a undefined NON-materialistic entity.

Quote
Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not?

Origin of life: Out of the ream for evolution.
Diversity of life: No.

Quote
Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not.


Origin of life hypothesis and Panspermia are scientific as they are limited to what we can test and measure. ID invokes a non-materialistic intelligent designer, and as such is outside the realm of science.

Quote
That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?

No, invoking a non-materialistic source is not science.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,13:52   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:13)
Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!

Nonsense.

Google "cdesignproponentsists" if your education is really that incomplete. ID has no arguments beyond recycled creationist arguments; IDists merely sanitize them for constitutional purposes. If they had scientific arguments, surely you would be able to answer the outstanding question on this thread.

What is the theory of intelligent design and how can it be tested scientifically?

Oh, and if you need more proof that religion is the core of ID argumentation, see this recent drivel from Casey Luskin (spokesgerbil for the Dishonesty Institute), documenting his fantasy dialogues with folks who understand reality a bit better than he does. Note that it only takes 7 steps to get to the core of the ID argument - "you guys are wrong because you are atheists."

All science so far...

ETA - HT, FtK

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
KimvdLinde



Posts: 12
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,13:57   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:03)
"Is it supposed to?
I always understood them to be 2 separate things." (Sorry, haven't figured out the quote function yet.)

From reading people like Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, Darwin, and others, evolutionary theory most definitely includes the origin and diversity of life.

I think you ask a very telling question here: What difference does the origin of life make to current evolutionary theory about the diversity of life? (I'm summarizing.) There are two ways to answer that question. First, if it makes no difference (as you seem to be saying) then what's all the fuss about ID? Second, I think it would make a huge difference. If we look at a cancer cell as nothing but a highly successful Darwinian accident, that assumption will affect how we attempt to combat it. But if we can assume it was designed, we can reverse-engineer the cancer cell and potentially develop much more effective ways of defeating it's internal programming. Not the best example, perhaps, b/c I'm sure someone is going to turn around and say, "How could a good God design cancer?" But that's a philosophical question about the nature of God, not a scientific one.

Quote
I think you ask a very telling question here: What difference does the origin of life make to current evolutionary theory about the diversity of life?

Nothing.
Quote
There are two ways to answer that question. First, if it makes no difference (as you seem to be saying) then ered directly in how evolution was occurring. ID does not what's all the fuss about ID?


Because ID claims that during the long long evolutionary history of life in earth, the intelligent designer interfust claim that the first cell was made by God after which he did not interfere anymore.

Quote
Second, I think it would make a huge difference. If we look at a cancer cell as nothing but a highly successful Darwinian accident, that assumption will affect how we attempt to combat it. But if we can assume it was designed, we can reverse-engineer the cancer cell and potentially develop much more effective ways of defeating it's internal programming.

Well, you can unravel how things work whether they are designed or not, and that is exactly what molecular biologist etc do. As such, this is not something ID has anything to offer.

  
KimvdLinde



Posts: 12
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,14:03   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:13)
Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!

That's not to say people don't hijack the theory to extrapolate to some sort of supernatural intelligence. But as I said in the lead up to my question, the nature of the supposed intelligence is beside the point. The question is, do we need to posit some sort of intelligence for the origin of life or not? I've yet to hear anyone attempt a full frontal answer to that question.

Quote
Carlsonjok said, "To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention."

But neither does ID!


Ok, now I am curious, WHAT does ID then require?

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,14:13   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:49)
BTW: You're also shifting your ground. First you said evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life and then you turn around and say the theory of Panspermia is useful. Which is it?

Actually, panspermia subsumes the existence of life.

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,14:14   

Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 26 2008,16:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?

And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?

He wouldn't have killed 6 million of his best workers.

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,14:17   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,16:23)
Oh, Welcome Pharyngulans!

*waves*

PS KRISTINE HARTLEY IS TEH WITCH.  :angry:

Have broom will travel

  
rpenner



Posts: 5
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,14:23   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence;
Does ID propose that one or more creative minds existed before matter? (Christian, Islamic, Classical Greek, etc.) Creationism asserts that, but for a scientific theory to assert that as a postulate, at a minimum it has to be written down. No one, not even Philip E. Johnson has seen it written down.

How many minds are we talking about? (Malaria and ID, parasitic wasps and ID imply the hypothetical mind(s) is/are not at all concerned with human or other suffering.)

Define intelligence. Should we expect to be able to infer anything about the level of this intelligence and its goals from the human eye having a blind spot, and the octopus eye not having a blind spot? Or what about the proximity of esophagus and trachea causing us to be able to choke to death on small things?

Define creative? What is the manner and operation of this creative power of this matterless mind? What signature does it leave behind?

What is the motivation for ID? What empirical basis even suggests that this creative intelligence exists or existed? Gravity, human evolution, and electromagnetism had hundreds of years of empirical evidence whose generalization resulted in the first theories.
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter.
I dispute this. Observation shows that non-human intelligence is associated in certain patterned material systems (rats in mazes, problem-solving crows, signing apes, to a very limited extent computers). In all known cases, allowing what amounts to surgical insertion for the largest cases, 100 grams of Semtex is sufficient to disrupt these patterns in matter such that the intelligence is damaged or rendered unavailable. Therefore the generalization which all science subscribes to is that intelligence requires patterns in matter. Obviously, demonstrating that this generalization is wrong would be world-wide news, but it is a necessary prerequisite to the postulate that such a non-material agent is actually responsible for human evolution.    
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.
According to the paleontological history of Earth, which is distinct from evolution, intelligence on Earth nearly certainly began in or before the Cambrian period. But if you mean ISO committees, KISS engineering rules, Baconian scientific methodology and it's successors, which is to say human-level intelligence, then you are probably correct. Can ID succeed if the hypothetical agent(s) cannot be demonstrated to have super-human intelligence? (For thousands of years, even without a comprehensive theory of heredity, humans have been evolving their livestock and food crops, but being a non-biologist, you probably think 250 gram potatoes and orange carrots are natural.) What are the attributes of the agent(s)?
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
But when confronted with the question of how life began, many evolutionary theorists allow that perhaps Panspermia had something to do with it.
Correct. When there is no evidence, theoreticians invent more hypotheses and experimentalists look for more evidence. Panspermia (life on Earth started off world) can best be refuted by finding life off-planet and demonstrating it has low biochemical similarity to life on Earth.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
This theory is broadly accepted as a scientific possibility
Which is to say a hypothesis in an area where the experimentalists have very little hard data.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
even though it also posits that mind came first and matter—at least the highly organized arrangements of matter we call living things—second.
No it doesn't. It says life arose somewhere else in the first 10 billion years of the universe and spread to Earth. Matter came first.
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not?
Neither is a theory. ID is controversial because it was intelligently designed by humans to replace the unconstitutional creation science which was intelligently designed to replace unconstitutional creationism. Panspermia is a hypothesis in an area where we are ignorant and may be strengthened or weakened if life is ever found on Mars or elsewhere in space.
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID?
It's a little unfair for you to propose this while showing your film around to groups of ministers and excluding the mainstream press. But what if DI would shut up and the makers of ID textbooks would at least wait until there was a testable theory of ID proposed instead of just recycling creationist textbooks?  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Would the theory be more acceptible then?
Philip E. Johnson says there is no scientific theory.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable?
I have already indicated tests which would, depending on outcome, strengthen or weaken the case for Panspermia. Please tell me if the same tests would strengthen or weaken ID? Would any tests weaken the case for ID? What is the theory of ID?  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth.
Panspermia (generic) is not a "best argument" but one hypothesis of many. Panspermia (aliens did it) has far less support. Panspermia (aliens did it on purpose) has far less support. But if any of these were in fact true, they predict that there would be evidence to find to support the theory. If ID (a god did it) is true, would there be any evidence to find? Why did this agent wait 10 billion years? Does that imply the agent's creative powers have strict limits?  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is.
First you have to have a theory of ID. Then you can explore what the agent(s) can and cannot do. Then you can find evidence if the agent(s) actually exists/existed or if the biological evidence is consistent with the idea of even minimal intelligence. But such a theory of ID is not what is represented in the textbooks. The public face of ID is a story about human evolution, so talking about the origins of life and not the origins of species is a canard.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not?
Yikes, you agreed with me.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes.
Panspermia and empirical evidence, does say no about the diversity of life. The most discussed form of Panspermia says no about the origin of life.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Two different answers to the same question.
As I noted above, you asked a complex question and failed to correctly describe Panspermia. Even in the case of Panspermia (aliens did it on purpose) or the very weak version of ID which you propose, human evolution is completely left up to naturalistic processes.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not.
Neither rises to the level of a scientific theory -- they are just proposed patches of guesses to cover a gap in human knowledge. They aren't comprehensive like a theory needs to be, and they make no claims which would potentially prove them wrong, which theories need to have.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists,
Well they do seem to do everything ass-backwards.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
that they’re a bunch of liars, etc.
With respect to the DI, that is given.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
But once again, that’s beside the point.
For me, it is beside the point, since I don't appeal to their goodwill and authority. But you seem quite credulous of people who have said in court that if their ID is science then so is Astrology and Water Dousing.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Never mind their methods or their ethics.
Exclude the contents of the null set from consideration. Gotcha.  
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?
What question are they asking? If you mean "Do we need intelligence to explain the origin of life on Earth?" then science is ignorant of that answer. Opinions vary, but in all cases the scientific opinion would shift on the basis of evidence. If you mean "Do we need intelligence to explain the pattern of diversity of life on Earth?" then the answer is strongly no. All ID completely fails to explain this pattern. If you mean "Do we need intelligence to explain human origins?" Then the answer is even more strongly no.

One of the tactics of the pseudoscientist, and we have a lot of them in this world, is that they thrive on ignorance while actual scientists pursue evidence. Pseudoscientists desire the respect of science and emulate its form, but tend to use garbled logic, obscure or made-up references and try to force their opponents to defend the cutting edge of knowledge. For ID we have seen them retreat from human origins to the Cambrian explosion to the origin of the Metazoans to the origin of life itself. Actual science drove them to the edges of human ignorance just like good money drives out bad currency in economic theory.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4008
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,14:28   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?

Use the farce, Ben!

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,14:38   

Quote (tsig @ Feb. 27 2008,13:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,16:23)
Oh, Welcome Pharyngulans!

*waves*

PS KRISTINE HARTLEY IS TEH WITCH.  :angry:

Have broom will travel

Jealous. Dawkins is a-comin’ to Our Town in March, so “Surrender ID,” it’s not in Kansas anymore.

RichHughes just loves a chick-a-broom, chick-a-broom. ;)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,15:00   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 27 2008,02:20)
Kevin should get hot on the case of why the ID scientists were EXPELLED from their own ID journal. I mean, they must have been expelled, right, no doubt by some horrible Darwinist. Now that's a hell of a conspiracy we're running, infiltrating their own journal and rejecting all their revolutionary research.

We just don't tell everyone about our plans. We are the NWO.

Now that you have went public watch out for cats.

  
Ogee



Posts: 89
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,15:04   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:20)
Apart from that though, I agree that the best Panspermia can ever be is a hypothesis, because it doesn't answer the ultimate question of how life originated in the universe, just how it originated on earth.

I guess we needn't ask whether you understand the distinction between hypothesis and theory.

  
  3600 replies since Aug. 12 2007,07:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (121) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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