Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 447/611
(23-Apr-2008 at 11:07)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Nimon: View Post
If you know anything about science (and I think you do), then you should know how silly that comment looks. There is no particular "crusade" against ID in any other way than it simply not being science. Science lives on people continuously revising and coming up with new theories.

If you checked, I'm sure you'd find a lot of less likely theories which unlike ID had enough scientific merit (or at least the scientific form) to be published in scientific journals.
Im not saying that there is an ongoing crusade against ID. But the rules for discussion are set from the established sciences. Its choosy to attack the rules of science when you have the option to outdraw ID in a way science has to accept it as a serious theory. But once that is done, the question remains if ID will be accepted for a dialogue or if ID proponents will be sanctioned by other norms.

This whole "conflict" if you want to use this word remembers me of the Headscarf ban in Turkey where the ruling AKP went through the process of the established institutions and, if within the secular rule or not (which is discuss able), is enforcing a relaxation of the ban of the head scarf in the state institutions (i.e. University, schools) and is now being threatened with a ban of the whole political party because the apponents of the AKP Party think they want to undermine the secular rule of Turkey. What im saying is that they, AKP and ID proponents, will have to struggle in order to present their views, even if they do that by 100% complying to state/scietific rules.

peace

[Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Furqan; the Criterion]
Blessed is He who sent down the criterion to His servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures (25:1)
But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged [...] (25:4)
#21  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Armitage Add Armitage to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 7522/8194
(23-Apr-2008 at 15:50)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Armitage: View Post
Im not saying that there is an ongoing crusade against ID. But the rules for discussion are set from the established sciences. Its choosy to attack the rules of science when you have the option to outdraw ID in a way science has to accept it as a serious theory.
What rules of science is it you'd like to change?
Quote:
This whole "conflict" if you want to use this word remembers me of the Headscarf ban in Turkey where the ruling AKP went through the process of the established institutions and, if within the secular rule or not (which is discuss able), is enforcing a relaxation of the ban of the head scarf in the state institutions
That's a very odd comparison. There is no law against ID. The problem with ID is that it isn't science. Start by showing that proponents of ID have any scientific results and that they are persecuted. Once you've shown there is a problem it is time to argue what should be done about it.
#22  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 448/611
(23-Apr-2008 at 17:26)


What are you talking about? I told you im not necessarily taking a pro-ID stance. Maybe i used a misunderstanding language. Im saying its not right from the ID proponents to attack the scientific methods if they want to forward their case. They should put their case in a solid theory and then struggle themselves through all stances of scientific debate.

[Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Furqan; the Criterion]
Blessed is He who sent down the criterion to His servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures (25:1)
But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged [...] (25:4)
#23  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Armitage Add Armitage to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4977/5486
Donated $11.20
(24-Apr-2008 at 01:57)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Armitage: View Post
What are you talking about? I told you im not necessarily taking a pro-ID stance. Maybe i used a misunderstanding language. Im saying its not right from the ID proponents to attack the scientific methods if they want to forward their case. They should put their case in a solid theory and then struggle themselves through all stances of scientific debate.
Which just gets me back to why this thread exists in the 'religious discussions' portion of RGD. I suppose if you whine enough about a non-existant threat in respectable discussions, you can hope to weasel your way into a religious discussion forum in order to simply promote yourself and mock others.

What amazes me is how fervent and zealous some can be about a topic the majority agrees with them on. I sympathize with this forums moderators in that the notion of intelligent design isn't science, nor religion, but some radicals insist on discussing it as if it were.

I'm as offended to see ID as a topic in a forum entitled 'Religious Discussions' as I would be to see it in a forum entitled 'Scientific Discussions'.

Either way, it's nothing to be concerned about. Just some people making money off the masses. Just some people intent on polarizing people. It's a despicable trade, IMHO.

Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.-- Mark Twain
#24  
View Public Profile Visit Michael1's homepage Find more posts by Michael1 Add Michael1 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4545/4829
(24-Apr-2008 at 02:50)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
So there has been a lot of buzz lately because of some movie that tries to argue against evolution and in favour of id. I've seen quite a few christians almost bursting with excitment. Anyway what i am interested in is if Intelligent design is an actual scientific theory. And if not what rules must it obey to be actually classified as a scientific theory.
The question of whether it is classified as a scientific theory is moot and quite frankly no more provable than the idea that all life arose from random mutation. Both those views are philosophy and conjecture.

Opponents of ID often mischaracterize ID as teaching in science classrooms that "some intelligent force guides evolution".

That is not what ID seeks to do.

All ID proponents want is for evolutionists in classrooms to avoid making false claims that evolution fully explains the development of all life on Earth. They want to have science teachers rightly point out the problems with evolution, such as the point about irreducably complex systems like the eye.

Opponents of ID (or more appropriately opponents of religion who see ID as a threat to their atheistic beliefs) feel threatened by such lessons because they want to believe that all things are explained by cold hard facts. Consequently those who call into doubt the premise that all life arose from random mutation are castigated and expelled.
#25  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 976/1971
(24-Apr-2008 at 03:04)


Quote:
The question of whether it is classified as a scientific theory is moot and quite frankly no more provable than the idea that all life arose from random mutation. Both those views are philosophy and conjecture.

Opponents of ID often mischaracterize ID as teaching in science classrooms that "some intelligent force guides evolution".

That is not what ID seeks to do.

All ID proponents want is for evolutionists in classrooms to avoid making false claims that evolution fully explains the development of all life on Earth. They want to have science teachers rightly point out the problems with evolution, such as the point about irreducably complex systems like the eye.

Opponents of ID (or more appropriately opponents of religion who see ID as a threat to their atheistic beliefs) feel threatened by such lessons because they want to believe that all things are explained by cold hard facts. Consequently those who call into doubt the premise that all life arose from random mutation are castigated and expelled.
the only problem with the theory of evolution is that it cant be conclusively proven correct... there is no evidence AGAINST evolution (not even this "irreducibly complex" shit - the evolution of the eye can easily be decribed in several simple stages of mutation)

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#26  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2136/2150
Donated $5.00
(24-Apr-2008 at 09:30)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
the only problem with the theory of evolution is that it cant be conclusively proven correct... there is no evidence AGAINST evolution (not even this "irreducibly complex" shit - the evolution of the eye can easily be decribed in several simple stages of mutation)
There's no evidence against The Flying Spaghetti Monster either.

I think RA3 sums up brilliantly the basic issues (z0mg I agree with RA3! Ladies and Gentlement, Hell has just frozen over...).

May you be touched sometime soon by His Noodly Apendage!

Where has my avatar gone?

The true meaning of silence
#27  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gus Mackay Add Gus Mackay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4939/4986
(24-Apr-2008 at 09:52)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
The question of whether it is classified as a scientific theory is moot and quite frankly no more provable than the idea that all life arose from random mutation. Both those views are philosophy and conjecture.
The question is not moot It's the whole point. If they want ID to be taught in science class, then it must be science. It's not.

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
Opponents of ID often mischaracterize ID as teaching in science classrooms that "some intelligent force guides evolution".

That is not what ID seeks to do.
Yes it is. They want to teach that at some point some intelligent creator intervened. That is what ID wants to teach kids, without offering any evidence for their statement. The whole "pointing out problems with evolution" strategy is just their latest attempt, because Dover struck down the ID option.

Here's a simple overview:

1. Trying to teach Creationism (outcome: utterly failed. Multiple trials resulted in Creationism being classified as religion and unscientific.)
2. "Oh noes! Our crappy "Creation Science" was revealed for the bullshit it is. What can we do now to stop the EVILutionists??? Let's call it Intelligent Design and try again!" (outcome: failed. The scientific community once again showed how ridiculous the fundies are, and that ID isn't science. Dover decided the same thing legally, and ID failed.)
3. " We just can't seem to stop failing, but what are our options now? Oh I know, let's just not try to offer any alternative because that will be unconstitutional. Let's instead just whine about how we feel evolution isn't perfect."

Step 3 is where we are at now. Don't pretend that was their goal all along. If you really think that, you've sure missed out on a lot of history. Read "Of Pandas and People" and you'll see that it's much more than "just criticizing evolution".

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
All ID proponents want is for evolutionists in classrooms to avoid making false claims that evolution fully explains the development of all life on Earth.
Nope. That is not true. That is not all they want to do. They don't merely want to criticize evolution, they want to actually offer an alternative yet unscientific theory: ID.

This is quite clear if you read Of Pandas and People, which is the standard textbook used by the "cdesign proponentsists".

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
They want to have science teachers rightly point out the problems with evolution, such as the point about irreducably complex systems like the eye.
Unfortunately for them (and you I guess), there are no irreducibly complex systems in the eye. There hasn't been a single irreducibly complex system found ever.

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
Opponents of ID (or more appropriately opponents of religion who see ID as a threat to their atheistic beliefs) feel threatened by such lessons because they want to believe that all things are explained by cold hard facts. Consequently those who call into doubt the premise that all life arose from random mutation are castigated and expelled.
They are "expelled" not because they threaten our Big Evil Atheist Conspiracy but because they offer no evidence for their claims.

It's also quite negligent of you to claim that science maintains that "all life arose from random mutation", you know very well that natural selection is what drives evolution and what makes it very much not-random.
#28  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 980/1971
(24-Apr-2008 at 10:02)


what does irreducibly complez even mean?? is it even possible for something to be "irreducibly" anything??

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#29  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4940/4986
(24-Apr-2008 at 16:27)


Well for example a computer is Irreducibly Complex because there is no way this could come about naturally.

(Clarification for the anti-evolution crowd: this does not go for the indeed much more complex various forms of life because they reproduce and are therefore made increasingly complex in a process of mutation and natural selection.)
#30  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 409/564
(05-May-2008 at 23:09)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gus Mackay: View Post
There's no evidence against The Flying Spaghetti Monster either.
Gus, I know you are smarter than this.

The flying spaghetti monster was made up as an extremely silly example of how you could use that argument.... And you just went and used it as an argument!

The point is that the 'theory' is not falsifiable - and hence there is no evedence to falsify it - which is why it is a terrible theory.

On the other hand, if you do find bunny rabbits in Cambrian rock - let us know and we will eat humble pie

As to RA3 - I am happy for his criticisms of evolution to be taught - if and when he gets them published in a journal with an impact factor greater than 0.0001

Last edited by dantendo, 05-May-2008 at 23:10.
Edit reason: spelling
#31  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 986/1637
(06-May-2008 at 04:06)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Apeiron: View Post
Well for example a computer is Irreducibly Complex because there is no way this could come about naturally.

(Clarification for the anti-evolution crowd: this does not go for the indeed much more complex various forms of life because they reproduce and are therefore made increasingly complex in a process of mutation and natural selection.)
Well actually if you take into account the irreducible relationship that computers have with the human then it makes perfect reducible sense. Nothing is independant in itself and so on and so forth.

Evolution can not be disproven until every single part of the universe is reduced to infinitely reducible parts and falsified as discontinuous: which in practice is impossible. So, as a self-fulfilling prophecy, it exists because it is pragmatic. Intelligent design, however, is not.

That said, the 'Poof! I am here!' seems to always be there because we are ignorant. Quantum Mechanics is so much fun.
#32  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2316/2341
(06-May-2008 at 21:55)


Theres one great big huge frikken reason scientists will not sit down and talk about this.

They, in general, are very busy people. They are trying to time travel, cure cancer, make stuff explode etc etc. They are fans of logic and reason (until they go inevitably mentally unstable in thier 60's) and more then anything.... facts. Evidence. Proof

Until someone can find a real piece of evidence that actually prooves something relevant... they will not waste thier time.

http://thiscrazyworld-flair.blogspot.com/ - Not a lame blog, a comedy outlook on topical issues.
#33  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Flair Add Flair to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1603/2860
(07-May-2008 at 06:06)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
Well actually if you take into account the irreducible relationship that computers have with the human then it makes perfect reducible sense. Nothing is independant in itself and so on and so forth.

Evolution can not be disproven until every single part of the universe is reduced to infinitely reducible parts and falsified as discontinuous: which in practice is impossible. So, as a self-fulfilling prophecy, it exists because it is pragmatic. Intelligent design, however, is not.

That said, the 'Poof! I am here!' seems to always be there because we are ignorant. Quantum Mechanics is so much fun.
You can't prove existence either. You need to find the most probable solution. Saying "god did it" is neither probable nor has any scientific evidence.

Mars II - American Scientist
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#34  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 411/564
(08-May-2008 at 04:47)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
Evolution can not be disproven until every single part of the universe is reduced to infinitely reducible parts and falsified as discontinuous: which in practice is impossible.
Sorry mate - that just doesn't make sense. Evolution could easily be disproven in a multitude of different ways!

and wtf does 'reduced to infinitely reducible parts' mean anyway??

Quote:
It's also quite negligent of you to claim that science maintains that "all life arose from random mutation", you know very well that natural selection is what drives evolution and what makes it very much not-random.
Nice, succinct explanation there - I might use those words in the future...
Richard Dawkins dedicated a book to this topic 'The Blind Watchmaker', if anyone is interested.
#35  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 987/1637
(08-May-2008 at 07:58)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Mars II: View Post
You can't prove existence either.
That all depends on what and why you want to prove existance and what role this definition you determine for it. Proving that the process of proving is provable, i.e. valid, is just circle work. I think that logic works within a framework, i.e. you cant logic your way out of logic. At one point or another we have to take our contention for granted and put a little bit of sugar on it so it tastes good. Depends on your ideals really.

That said, you could spend your time trying to prove existence in the hope that it might reveal something philosophically enlightening, or you could just get on with things, like trying to connect your inner drives with the worlds drives, i.e. sacrificing yourself for something greater, and not get so anal-retentive about it.

Quote:
You need to find the most probable solution. Saying "god did it" is neither probable nor has any scientific evidence.
Well, again, depending on my contention on life, I use probabily to play my pieces right. First we have to know that we want to win. Which also kind of gets messy when God struts onto the scene. I dont see how trying to realise the unity of the universe equates to non-science or non-probability. For instance, probabities will only reflect meaning to use in cases where you are trying to preserve or win something. Would that be your own ego, your tribe, the species, the cosmos...what? If your perspective is large enough (or small enough), look at probability is like, "yeah, whatever". Granted, I dont think this way, but it is possible without too much delusion, i.e. you can kill your ego and have a universe-consciousness without sacrificing yourself for a greater good. Of course, I'd say you should.

All hail idealism.

Originally Posted by dantendo: View Post
Sorry mate - that just doesn't make sense. Evolution could easily be disproven in a multitude of different ways!
Must I beg? Go on...

Quote:
and wtf does 'reduced to infinitely reducible parts' mean anyway??
I mean that once you think you can the universe sorted, you can always be missing details because you have not looked at things on a small or large enough way. Therefore in this way you would not be able to disprove evolution unless you knew all the parts of the universe and could rule them out as not having the role which evolution proposes. This is the way I meant that is was impossible to disprove. However, evolution is more than a theory, it is practicable, which I think gives it more merit.

Cha-ching.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 08-May-2008 at 08:05.
#36  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 413/564
(08-May-2008 at 09:59)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
Must I beg? Go on...
well, I think I and many others have given many examples before - I think in this thread I made the comment about bunny rabbits in cambrian rock being more than enough proof that our current theory of evolution had problems.

Quote:
I mean that once you think you can the universe sorted, you can always be missing details because you have not looked at things on a small or large enough way. Therefore in this way you would not be able to disprove evolution unless you knew all the parts of the universe and could rule them out as not having the role which evolution proposes. This is the way I meant that is was impossible to disprove. However, evolution is more than a theory, it is practicable, which I think gives it more merit.
You don't need to know everything to disprove a theory - you only need hard evidence of one disproof! This is what is known in formal logic as 'disproof by contradiction' - if you can find one example where a theory is wrong, then the theory needs to be either amended or discarded as it has been disproven in its current form.

Complete knowledge is unnecessary in the formulation and testing of scientific theories - rather, relevant and targeted acquisition of knowledge is far more important!
#37  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 217/293
(08-May-2008 at 23:26)


Quote:
Complete knowledge is unnecessary in the formulation and testing of scientific theories
at last sombody understand science....science is base on lies not truths.
science are ideas held together with the sticky tape of fact in the wind tunnel of lies.
ID has no sticky tape, so you cant even put it in the wind tunnel.

and on the occasionans that the "insist this has happens the sticky tape of fact turns out to be the fudge of....well fudge(which seems to attact the wind of lies)

eveolution isnt truth its a not-lie,

science is like panning gold, you look for the gold be targeting the dirt,
ok so "the theory of evolution" is "dirty" but ID just cant get it to float, and scientest keep washing of more dirt and finding more goldeness.
hey may be its a really heavy piece of dirt. but until the ID guys stop picking up shiny chewing gum foil and going "ITS GOLD" and ignoring that it floats, i'll stick with the status quo.

I need to go to bed

if our labourers party is called Labour, the most conserivtive party are called Conserivitives, and the liberal party called the Liberal Domocrats why aren't the BNP called the English Racist Party.
#38  
View Public Profile Visit marli's homepage Find more posts by marli Add marli to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 988/1637
(09-May-2008 at 00:11)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by dantendo: View Post
well, I think I and many others have given many examples before - I think in this thread I made the comment about bunny rabbits in cambrian rock being more than enough proof that our current theory of evolution had problems.



You don't need to know everything to disprove a theory - you only need hard evidence of one disproof! This is what is known in formal logic as 'disproof by contradiction' - if you can find one example where a theory is wrong, then the theory needs to be either amended or discarded as it has been disproven in its current form.

Complete knowledge is unnecessary in the formulation and testing of scientific theories - rather, relevant and targeted acquisition of knowledge is far more important!
So you and your mate refer to the battle of likelihoods and updating our theories according to our perspective.

Hmmm, what perspective? If we want to be rational then its worth not discrediting theories just because they are unlikely. Our perspective with the evolution of science has moved the likely into the unlikely, but in the future might also move this same unlikely into the likely again. It's one giant game of chase the tail.

Like i was saying before, no one has disproven ID as of yet. New concepts about the universe are always coming forth, eg. Dimensionless physics / Cosmos expressed as ratios and relations, or the Holographic Universe theory which relies on Interconnectedness per quantum nonlocality. As we "zoom in" into the normally unseen, we start to realise the fractality and self-recurrence of the universe, that everything is information; i.e. a piece of the whole retains the whole design with it. The almighty unification property of the universe in general.

If you favour open-mindedness, do you understand that all progressive theories relate to a unification of things rather than disunification? There is no point in slandering one theory because your perspective tells you it is unlikely. Just construct your own reason, because ultimately you will be wrong about criticism. There is nothing great about being critical.

So evolution has problems, so does ID, but in both cases it is still an issue of lack of definitive evidence. So far no one has been able to disprove either. Because of this, i tended to favour evolution because on the face of it, it seems more true. That said, ID is also true if you are in the correct state of awareness. Perhaps in the future, I suspect, both will be proven correct, but from different yet equality valid perspectives, i.e. world as representation favours evolution, world as transcendental idealism favours ID. On some level of human existance they are both correct, and both therefore have difference applications.

Your notion of disproving goes like this:
You wait for me at the candy store.
"Nope, his not here"
"Therefore he must not be on his way either, his existence is disproven"
Don't you have a problem with that reasoning?
#39  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 415/564
(09-May-2008 at 08:25)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
*a whole lot of babble which completely misunderstood my point, and thus is irrelevant*
Your notion of disproving goes like this:
You wait for me at the candy store.
"Nope, his not here"
"Therefore he must not be on his way either, his existence is disproven"
Don't you have a problem with that reasoning?
You have used a fairly ridiculous analogy. There is no logical basis for statement 1 meaning that statement 2 is correct.

I made the point that finding fossilised bunny rabbits in cambrian rock would throw the theory of evolution into disarray. There is a fairly simple logic for this - evolutionary theory as it stands would have you think that the only things alive in the cambrian were invertebrate. Therefore, bunny rabbit fossils within cambrian rock would throw the entire timeline out to a point that current microbiology and genetics could not explain. Thus, the theory would have major problems. Get it yet?

anyway, just noticed another thing:
Quote:
Like i was saying before, no one has disproven ID as of yet.
Oh. My. God. I think we are going in circles here.

All right, put it this way. I have given you a perfect example of something you could look for to disprove evolution. Can you do the same for ID?

The point is that you can't - which is why ID is a crap theory - NOT because there is 'a lack of definitive evidence.'
#40  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teaching Intelligent Design Unconstitutional: Courts Reichstag Respectable General Discussions 27 23-Dec-2005 11:27
Bush wades into evolution debate Reichstag Respectable General Discussions 179 07-Nov-2005 14:00
Intelligent Design: "DUH" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. tlhInganHom Respectable General Discussions 112 03-Oct-2005 03:05
'Intelligent Design' Grashnak Religious Discussions 12 05-Aug-2005 17:26
The logic of a supreme being MAPS Religious Discussions 12 07-Aug-2004 05:08


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 04:29.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.