|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: Intelligent design IS science. |
 |
|
|
I want to argue that intelligent design is science. I know the first thing libs do is go off about how intelligent design is not science. Many cons do the same thing. It is science and here is why.
Its called pattern recognition. When you walk thru a woods and see a strange shaped rock, you stop, pick it up, turn it over and you conclude that this rock, albeit strange, was the product of random forces such as erosion, wind, sun, water, whatever. Or you might decide that this rock was actually hewed into its present shape by some intelligent agent.
Now the process that you perform to determine whether the rock is intelligently designed or not is PURE science. It is observation, testing, and analysis. That is what science is.
This is exactly what intelligent design scientists are doing. They are looking at the natural world and asking.....was this the product of intelligent design or was it the product of random chance forces. There is NOTHING unscientific about this.
Intelligent design is science. but since intelligent design, if it was shown to be true, would be BIG evidence for the existence of some kind of higher Being, the whole scientific establishment rises up against it. That is UNSCIENTIFIC!! the true scientist goes wherever the evidence leads. if it leads to intelligent design, then he goes there. if it leads away from intelligent design, then he goes there. but the point is, he takes all data and considers it and makes conclusions based on that data. He doesn't reject data simply b/c it might lead to conclusions he dislikes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Nope ...
If and when you come up with verifiable evidence that it's a possibility
then the Scientific world will take notice.
Until then it will not and does not have to take you seriously
Science is based on facts to support hypothetical thought...not the other way round
Because someone SAYS it's true......doesn't mean it IS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| joeyjock wrote: | Nope ...
If and when you come up with verifiable evidence that it's a possibility
then the Scientific world will take notice. |
 well how scientific is this? how much science would get done if scientists only investigated things they thot possible?! we never would have made it to the moon. we prolly would never have invented the wheel with your "science".
| Quote: | Until then it will not and does not have to take you seriously
Science is based on facts to support hypothetical thought...not the other way round |
ok....well I gave you the facts now what right do you have to tell me that ID is not science? oh that's right...cuz its not possible.
| Quote: | | Because someone SAYS it's true......doesn't mean it IS |
wow that was brilliant. thanks for sharing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chevydriver1123
Veteran
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 975
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Until the Scientific community reconizes ID as science its just religious dogma. The Evolution theory belongs in public tax payer funded schools and ID belongs in private schools if they choose to teach it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| chevydriver1123 wrote: | | Until the Scientific community recognizes ID as science its just religious dogma. The Evolution theory belongs in public tax payer funded schools and ID belongs in private schools if they choose to teach it. |
let's leave the school question out of this. I want to focus on whether ID is science or not. Now it appears you are saying that in order for something to be science, it must be recognized as such by the scientific community. Is that your position? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Corno...
I'll wait for the facts.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| joeyjock wrote: | | Corno...I'll wait for the facts.... |
I am not here to argue for intelligent design. I am here arguing that intelligent design is science. Focus.
I will argue ID with anyone but I just want to get past this thing about whether it is scientific or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| joeyjock wrote: | Corno...
I'll wait for the facts.... |
ok here goes.
Take the human eye. It is hard to study the human eye without thinking that some sort of intelligence was responsible.
Take the human skull. a great big hunk of bone around the most important organ in the body. that has at least the appearance of design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The main thing that I do not like about this topic is that it has become politicized when it doesn't need to be. This isn't about conservatives or liberals as cornopean originally introduced the subject.
First of all, I am not aware if cornopean has done any reading on the subject beyond creationist websites, but his characterizations of the problem are wildly inaccurate. One cannot come out and arbitrarily define science; this is the first time I've heard of this "pattern recognition" label being applied as a definitional aspect of science, which is absolutely ridiculous. Some of the rudimentary aspects that cornopean identified really are a part of science, but those were analyzed incorrectly or left out other key factors. Let's use one of the examples that cornopean gave: testing. Well, one of the main problems with intelligent design, as admitted by some of its own followers, is that it's impossible to test for the intelligent designer. What is this intelligent designer? Where is it? How does it work? If you're being scientific, these are all relevant questions, but they're also hopeless. And to add insult to injury, it's become very clear that ID proponents in the US overwhelmingly think that the intelligent designer is god, which essentially means the (confused) characteristics of the Bible take over, absolving everyone of any scientific responsibility to explain how the designer works.
Going on....I don't really like the way cornopean framed the problem: "was this the product of intelligent design or was it the product of random chance forces." This reveals misunderstanding of the science, which in no way claims that everything that came about was because of "random chance forces." That's a completely dumb and false claim. The laws of physics, and in the Earth's later evolutionary stages those of natural selection, help to bring some determinism into the process. So scientists don't believe that all this just came randomly.
The arguments against creationism, which is all ID essentially is, are strong and all but fatal. This shouldn't be a political issue at all; there's simply one truth: the modern evolutionary synthesis is largely correct. All species on this Earth came from one common ancestor some 3 or so billion years ago. The evidence is beyond voluminous and there's no reason to worry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| cornopean wrote: | | Take the human eye. It is hard to study the human eye without thinking that some sort of intelligence was responsible. |
No it's not. That's patently absurd. The irreducible complexity argument has been defeated a million times, in courts (with Behe sitting right there) or elsewhere. We can look at the human eye, and the eye of any other species, and explain it in terms of evolutionary processes. Nothing hard about it at all. Don't create issues where none exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JesusLopezViejo
Veteran
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 581
Location: Tri-State
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
ID is just a smoke screen thrown up by religious groups who fear science will destroy their religion.
The only people who don't realize this is the religious folk who find it inconceivable and disgusting that they have evolved from a simpler life form and that humans weren't here first, created in the image of their god.
Sad that this even has to be a topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JesusLopezViejo
Veteran
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 581
Location: Tri-State
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CryxicKiller wrote: | | cornopean wrote: | | Take the human eye. It is hard to study the human eye without thinking that some sort of intelligence was responsible. |
No it's not. That's patently absurd. The irreducible complexity argument has been defeated a million times, in courts (with Behe sitting right there) or elsewhere. We can look at the human eye, and the eye of any other species, and explain it in terms of evolutionary processes. Nothing hard about it at all. Don't create issues where none exist. |
I bet you if years from now if irrefutable evidence came out that alien intelligence was behind the creation of everything, the same people denying evolution will deny the alien "intelligence".
"No green monster gonna be creatin' me, aye Cleatus? Let's smoke em out!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| cornopean wrote: | | well how scientific is this? how much science would get done if scientists only investigated things they thot possible?! we never would have made it to the moon. we prolly would never have invented the wheel with your "science". |
It's not about what's possible or not; scientists couldn't investigate this even if they thought it was possible. At least we can actually get to the Moon. How do you get to something like an "intelligent designer"? A bit vague and hard to do, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| cornopean wrote: | | joeyjock wrote: | Corno...
I'll wait for the facts.... |
ok here goes.
Take the human eye. It is hard to study the human eye without thinking that some sort of intelligence was responsible.
Take the human skull. a great big hunk of bone around the most important organ in the body. that has at least the appearance of design. |
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one. If WE were made in God's image wouldn't WE have the best vision?
Also because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate and/or leak and then impair vision. So the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it's something of a botched design.
The skull is something that was first seen with the evolution of the vertebrates. The Chordates first showed up on earth during the cambian era and are determined by having a hollow "notochord" and the beginning of an internal skeletal system and skull
during the march of time and through the evolutionary record there has been a steady progression in complexity of the collection of bones we call the skull
The "God" you're thinkin' did all this is called Natural Selection |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RandyGyllenhaal
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 111
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| JesusLopezViejo wrote: | ID is just a smoke screen thrown up by religious groups who fear science will destroy their religion.
The only people who don't realize this is the religious folk who find it inconceivable and disgusting that they have evolved from a simpler life form and that humans weren't here first, created in the image of their god.
Sad that this even has to be a topic. |
I personally believe creationism is a load of crap, and I'm very religious. The concept that earth was created 6000 years ago, and man and dino lived together is absurd.
I see the issue as such (and the man who figured out the genetic map of humans--human genome?--agrees with me) that the earth and human body is such a complex and beautiful thing, that it can't have been "random". I believe God intended humans to evolve "randomly" into such perfectly created systems. I believe God was behind it all. And I believe many Christians take the bible far too literally, assuming 6000 years ago was...well...six thousand years ago, among other issues.
But I can't prove that I'm right, and it's just as absurd to claim it as "wrong". No one will ever know, no matter how scientific or religious we get.
But even those who completely disagree with creationism can perhaps see that an "intelligent designer" may have been responsible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
