  |
Timetheos
Known Associate
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 434
Location: Seattle
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Since you're not bothering to read the links I sent you Corno:
| Quote: | But is ID Science? Should it be taught in a science classroom alongside the Theory of Evolution?
Well, can it be tested? Are there falsifying observations? ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural. But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science. [HINT: THUS IT CAN'T BE TESTED.]
The second part of ID calls for an external Designer. This idea is neither fully supported nor fully falsified by material observation. There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the Designer, as the Designer is defined as unobservable, or at least, only observable by a chosen few.
|
Remember the flower. It was once thought a creation from God, too complex to be explained by science. Science came along and explained it, proving ID wrong. So what do ID supporters do? Try to come up with something more complex, just as explained in paragraph 1.
ID is not science. Maybe you need to go to a real college and take some real science classes so you can finally understand that.
Whole books have been written on the scientific process, and you're trying to bring it down to your simplistic level. Good luck with that.
Try again Corno. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1544
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
A few other reasons ID isn't science, while we're at it (pruned from http://www.ebonmusings.org/evo.....ience.html):
- A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.
Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, "intelligent design" creationism makes no testable predictions at all - it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided - and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them - ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.
- A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic - i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles - cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below). While this one applies more specifically to creationism, the idea there is a designer and who designed everything is just as untestable.
- Well, can it be tested? Are there falsifying observations? ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural. But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science. ( * from http://www.csicop.org/intellig.....ience.html )
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Well, can it be tested? |
Yes. we can run experiments to see if the cell machinery will form in different primordial soups manipulated by natural unguided forces.
| Quote: | | Are there falsifying observations? |
Yes. If someone went to the Grand Canyon and claimed that someone purposely excavated this canyon according to his design, I could look for the marks of a designed structure. In the absence of those marks, this person's claim of ID would be falsified.
Same thing with Mt. Rushmore. If we go there and someone claims that water and wind erosion (i.e. unguided forces) resulted in the four heads being carved into that rock, then we could run tests. does the resulting formation show the marks of ID or not? This person's claim would be falsified by showing that unguided forces could not have resulted in the subsequent formations (Washington, TR, Lincoln, Jefferson).
| Quote: | | ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural. But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science. |
No. ID is falsified by demonstrating with lab experiments that unguided forces do result in structures like mitochondria, ribosomes, DNA, etc.
| Quote: | | The second part of ID calls for an external Designer. This idea is neither fully supported nor fully falsified by material observation. There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the Designer, as the Designer is defined as unobservable, or at least, only observable by a chosen few. |
No again. ID is looking for evidence that things were designed. ID scientists say nothing about the designer. They may believe in God and the Bible or whatever but ID itself is strictly about the presence or absence of design.
| Quote: | | Remember the flower. It was once thought a creation from God, too complex to be explained by science. Science came along and explained it, proving ID wrong. So what do ID supporters do? Try to come up with something more complex, just as explained in paragraph 1. |
excellent. so ID is falsifiable and indeed some suggested instances of ID have been falsified. In other words, scientists have shown that unguided forces could have produced....a snowflake for instance. that is what science does. some hypotheses are shown to be correct; others false.
| Quote: | | ID is not science. Maybe you need to go to a real college and take some real science classes so you can finally understand that. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1544
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
You don't understand what falsifiability means corno. Simply proving that the opposite is true does not falsify something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
| Quote: | | Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. |
Intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. This means that I can't do experiments based on ID's assertions, thus it is not falsifiable.
---------
Also:
| Quote: | | In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. |
You might want to start posting some of the evidence you claim ID has. 
Last edited by Toxic on Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Toxic wrote: | | Intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. This means that I can't do experiments based on ID's assertions, thus it is not falsifiable. |
well how was the flower disproved as an example of ID then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1544
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| cornopean wrote: | | Toxic wrote: | | Intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. This means that I can't do experiments based on ID's assertions, thus it is not falsifiable. |
well how was the flower disproved as an example of ID then? |
One can prove where the flower came about. That doesn't falsify ID, it simply shows evolution to be correct (the two terms are quite different).
Let's look at it this way.
You suggest that water boils at 50ºC. I can falsify that in the following way:
I can attempt to boil water at 50ºC in various conditions.
I can repeatedly attempt to boil water at 50ºC in various conditions.
I can find that your information is not true. It would have also demonstrated your theory as falsifiable, because I showed that it was false using the theories' own observable, repeatable tests.
The opposite would also work. If you had said that water boils at 100ºC (which is true) and I verified that repeatedly, your assertion would be true. At the same time, the theory is falsifiable because, had I found that water instead boils at 101ºC,
The same does not apply with Intelligent Design. As your tests are not observable and repeatable, I have no way to falsify your assertion without the use of other theories (read the Argument from Ignorance section in my last post).
In essence: A scientific theory proposes tests which are observable and repeatable. If the tests, after having been observed numerous times, are shown to come to a conclusion differing from the hypothesis, the theory is shown to be false. The theory was shown to be false using its own observable, repeatable test., thus falsifiable.
The same cannot be done with ID, as ID does not provide concrete, observable, repeatable tests. It cannot be falsified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timetheos
Known Associate
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 434
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
You're nailing this Toxic. Very good posts.
The point I was trying convey (and I'm afraid that I'm still being very awkward about it), is that ID a moving target. Everytime an ID "theory" is busted (something that was thought to be irreducible is shown not to be), it simply picks a new target for as its evidence.
"ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural."
Flower was thought to be too complex to be explained by science, it was a gift from God. Then, someone learned the plant mechanics and demonstrated it was nothing "special".
"But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer."
Flowers didn't work, but surely eyes are too complex...
Toxic, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Too off course? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1544
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Toxic, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Too off course? |
Nope. It's entirely on course. ID is a reverse god of the gaps (minus, supposedly, god) theory. Instead of looking at things science hasn't yet explained and attributing it to design (god of the gaps), they assume that everything is de facto designed unless otherwise shown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Toxic wrote: | You don't understand what falsifiability means corno. Simply proving that the opposite is true does not falsify something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
| Quote: | | Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. |
Intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. This means that I can't do experiments based on ID's assertions, thus it is not falsifiable. |
ok good. I got the defn down now. So let's go back to the example of the cell. ID would be falsified if we could construct mitochondria or ribosomes by manipulating different environments. let's just say that one day I mix sugar and bleach together, jolt it with electricity, and.....the structure and machinery of a cell begins to form. After some time, a full fledged cell is visible. I repeat the test many times. Same results.
Now some people assert that there is no way a cell could form by blind forces. It could only exist if it was intelligently designed. This theory would have been effectively falsified by the above experiment.....yes?
| Quote: | | In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. |
ok...fine. This might be a fair critique of ID, but it doesn't rebut the claim that ID is science. It is perfectly scientific to note the absence (or weakness) of evidence for one given theory and to suggest an alternative explanation. In this case, if the evidence for an evolutionary explanation of a cell's origin is perceived to be weak, then there is nothing unscientific about running tests to see if perhaps the cell was designed.
an argument from ignorance doesn't prove one thing false and another true.....but neither does it necessarily preclude something from being scientific.
| Quote: |
You might want to start posting some of the evidence you claim ID has. |
do you understand the difference between claiming ID is science and claiming ID is true? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Toxic wrote: |
Let's look at it this way.
You suggest that water boils at 50ºC. I can falsify that in the following way:
I can attempt to boil water at 50ºC in various conditions.
I can repeatedly attempt to boil water at 50ºC in various conditions.
I can find that your information is not true. It would have also demonstrated your theory as falsifiable, because I showed that it was false using the theories' own observable, repeatable tests. |
I don't see how this is any different than me trying to produce a cell by unguided forces. Using different solutions, temperatures, environments...etc. these are observable and repeatable tests.
| Quote: | | The same does not apply with Intelligent Design. As your tests are not observable and repeatable, I have no way to falsify your assertion without the use of other theories (read the Argument from Ignorance section in my last post). |
the way to falsify my assertion is to show me a cell forming by purely unguided forces.
| Quote: | | In essence: A scientific theory proposes tests which are observable and repeatable. If the tests, after having been observed numerous times, are shown to come to a conclusion differing from the hypothesis, the theory is shown to be false. The theory was shown to be false using its own observable, repeatable test., thus falsifiable. |
well it seems to me that, so far, no scientist has shown how a cell could form without intelligence. hence, the evolutionary thesis is falsified. one does have to ask....what would it take to falsify the evolutionary explanation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Toxic wrote: | | Quote: | | Toxic, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Too off course? |
Nope. It's entirely on course. ID is a reverse god of the gaps (minus, supposedly, god) theory. Instead of looking at things science hasn't yet explained and attributing it to design (god of the gaps), they assume that everything is de facto designed unless otherwise shown. |
well this really isn't that crazy. I don't know to many people that look at Mt. Rushmore and assume erosion or some other unguided explanation for its origin.
most people look at a human eye and think design. I think that is pretty reasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timetheos
Known Associate
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 434
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You just don't get it Corno. You don't understand science at all.
We lay it out there as basic as we can, and you still just don't get it.
| Quote: | | I think that is pretty reasonable. |
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe in a creator BUT IT'S NOT SCIENCE.
| Quote: | | the way to falsify my assertion is to show me a cell forming by purely unguided forces. |
Because of the moving target that we've already discussed, this is not a falsification of ID because of the nature ID. If we showed a cell "forming by purely unguided forces", ID practitioners would merely try and find a more complex structure that couldn't be explained.
Again:
| Quote: | | Well, can it be tested? Are there falsifying observations? ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural. But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1544
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | ok good. I got the defn down now |
No, you apparently still don't get it. In order for your theory to be falsifiable, the most basic step is that you have to make a clear assertion. Like the case of the boiling water, where it was clearly identified that one believed that water boiled at 50ºC, you have to identify exactly what it is your theory is setting out to show. Like most of the thread, the example you provide in this post is hypothetical; it's not an actual test that you have any idea that you could do.
| Quote: | | ok...fine. This might be a fair critique of ID, but it doesn't rebut the claim that ID is science. |
Yes it does. I'm about finished with this thread. You're just parroting now. I've rebutted every single point you've made in this entire thread and yet you keep concluding that it's science. No, it's not.
| Quote: | | It is perfectly scientific to note the absence (or weakness) of evidence for one given theory |
That has nothing to do with science, you haven't even bothered to do this, ID hasn't done this, so I have no idea why it's relevant.
| Quote: | | and to suggest an alternative explanation. |
Not scientific if the alternative explanation isn't scientific.
| Quote: | | In this case, if the evidence for an evolutionary explanation of a cell's origin is perceived to be weak |
It's a weakness you've created. That's why it's perceived, not actual.
| Quote: | | then there is nothing unscientific about running tests to see if perhaps the cell was designed. |
What tests? The one where you talk a little bit about a made up term ("primordial soup") and then ponder about the possibility that if you jolt water or whatever with electricity and cats spontaneously pop out?
| Quote: | | an argument from ignorance doesn't prove one thing false and another true.....but neither does it necessarily preclude something from being scientific. |
ROFL. Do you not get the concept that basing something on a logical fallacy would not be accepted as science?
| Quote: | | do you understand the difference between claiming ID is science and claiming ID is true? |
I AM NOT EXPLAINING THIS TO YOU ANYMORE. You are a grown adult. You can take the time to read my posts and be responsible about this subject. You cannot prove something as scientific by just making a bunch of shit up without providing evidence. If it was, the following things would be scientific without evidence (which they most definitely, absolutely are not, in case your mind was wandering):
Water turns into algae at 329ºC.
Men turn into unicorns when on the surface of Uranus.
Cats could fly if running constantly at 10 mph.
Dogs mutate into flies when radiated to a certain degree.
(And those are things that make clear-cut, observable, repeatable, testable assertions, but very clearly aren't science without evidence that it's true.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1544
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't see how this is any different than me trying to produce a cell by unguided forces. Using different solutions, temperatures, environments...etc. these are observable and repeatable tests. |
What are you testing?
What are the different solutions you're using?
What are the temperatures you are testing them at?
Which environments are you using?
| Quote: | | the way to falsify my assertion is to show me a cell forming by purely unguided forces. |
What is your assertion? That's the problem, and it has been stated before by the other websites detailing all the problems with ID (most of which you haven't acknowledged, and I'm going to go back and re-focus on if you want to keep trying to make your point): you aren't actually asserting anything except a very vague idea.
| Quote: | | one does have to ask....what would it take to falsify the evolutionary explanation? |
No. I don't give a damn about evolution right now. We're talking about ID. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1544
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| cornopean wrote: | | Toxic wrote: | | Quote: | | Toxic, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Too off course? |
Nope. It's entirely on course. ID is a reverse god of the gaps (minus, supposedly, god) theory. Instead of looking at things science hasn't yet explained and attributing it to design (god of the gaps), they assume that everything is de facto designed unless otherwise shown. |
well this really isn't that crazy. I don't know to many people that look at Mt. Rushmore and assume erosion or some other unguided explanation for its origin.
most people look at a human eye and think design. I think that is pretty reasonable. |
Your point about Mount Rushmore has been irrelevant for three pages, since I addressed it the first time. You can feel free to stop bringing it up at any point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
