Jump to content


Photo

Wikipedia's "intelligent Design" Page


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#41 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 August 2017 - 11:41 AM

Popoi,

Mike Summers, on 24 Aug 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Any theory an intelligent being formulates is scientific (reasonable).

popoi said: Science and reason aren't the same thing. A conclusion can be reasonable without being scientifically valid.


You mean like eevolution?
Do not humans practice science? Isn't it something humans do excusively?

Kindly define what science is if it is not a human endeavor to answer the qustion, What caused this effect?!


  • Schera Do likes this

#42 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 August 2017 - 12:44 PM

I think in all my years of reading and taking part in this kind of debate of, "what is design", largely I have witnessed that the power of the term, "science" as an epithet, is probably the most abused term in recent history, especially by those using it to try and win a rhetorical propagandist type easy victory.

 

They have to appeal to the term, "science". Why do they do it? Because they know that as an epithet, when we hear the term, "science", most people associate the word as being synonymous with;

 

Proven, factual, studied and approved by experts, the stamp of educative approval, tested, etc...

 

So then the easiest victory (but not the intelligent one) is to simply get people to agree that it is a simple matter of it being either, "science" or, "pseudo-science".

 

Have you noticed both categories in this limited choice fallacy, contain the word, "science"? That is because they must use the power of the word, because it holds such sway over the public's imagination. So then if we think all of those things when we hear the word, "science" what do we think of something which is false science;

 

We automatically think of that thing as;

 

Not valid, fake, false, crackpottery, not tested, not valid not proven by experts, etc...

 

Do we think, "potentially reasonable or sound argument"? Of course not.

 

THAT is why they use these tactics, of making the issue so that you can have those two categories, and then argue that ID is in the "pseudo-science" category.

 

Think about it - would any evolutionist be happy to call ID "a sound logical argument about the factual nature of design features in anatomy"? Or creationism, "apologetics"? hahaha! Creation apologetics and design, anatomy? Are you kidding me - that would conjure the image in peoples' minds of something potentially legitimate!

 

Hell no - they are going to go with, "pseudo-science" every single time, which gets them a nice little victory in propaganda. Now Sally Brown when she hears, "pseudo science" will flippantly dismiss ID as crackpottery, now Sally won't have to hear, "apologetics" and think instead, "that sounds sophisticated, I wonder if I should read about creationism?"



#43 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 August 2017 - 12:55 PM

Kindly define what science is if it is not a human endeavor to answer the qustion, What caused this effect?![/b][/size]

Since this thread is about wikipedia:

"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

Reason doesn't necessarily need to be systematic, or produce testable explanations or predictions. Trying to present them as the same thing doesn't seem to do anything but confuse the issue.

#44 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 24 August 2017 - 02:45 PM

Modern ID is the brainchild of YEC lawyer Philip Johnson.  He saw ID as a "wedge" to ultimately get YEC into the classroom.  Hence the "wedge strategy."  This has much to do with ID being considered a creationist argument.  The fact that the leading ID organization is much more about political action than scientific research doesn't help much either.


Science should be judged strictly on content and merit, not motive.
 

After all, we all know Who the Designer is, don't we?


I find this to be a very common objection. If someone finds that ID's claims are true, the natural next step is to go beyond science and ask who the creator is. But if the answer is objectionable, then he doubles back and rejects the science that made him consider it.
 

For example when you say "we all know who the designer is don't we?" But agnostics are also IDists. That is the point, whatever design we find in the body is factual, the claims about Who or what put the design there, aren't the intelligent design argument. We obviously as Christians, proclaim it to be God, but that proclamation is one of faith, not science. But the ID argument itself, just argues that ID is present in life.


Yeah!

#45 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 August 2017 - 04:14 PM

Popoi,

Posted 24 August 2017 - 01:55 PM
Mike Summers, on 24 Aug 2017 - 1:41 PM, said:

Kindly define what science is if it is not a human endeavor to answer the qustion, "What caused (edit) a particular effect?!"

"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."


And since evo is not observable testable and repeatable it is not science.

You seem to infer that science is a concious entity. What are scientists but human beings? They and we all practice science at vaeying levels of intensity.

Reason doesn't necessarily need to be systematic, or produce testable explanations or predictions. Trying to present them as the same thing doesn't seem to do anything but confuse the issue.


Maybe you are confused about it. I am noot!
Science is a philosphical concepts that originate in our mind. It is our ability to reason. Given a cause what its most likely effect will be and given an effect what its most likely cause was? We can reason and do experimen to test out our hypothesis.

Reason doesn't necessarily need to be systematic, or produce testable explanations or predictions?
Say that next time you use reasoning (practice science and make a theory if it's safe to cross the street?)

 



#46 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 August 2017 - 05:44 PM

I see no rational reason to ever suppose it would be possible because it simply wouldn't follow that it would create what we have. Instead they look at the facts of life now, and with hindsight claim that "therefore evolution must have done it", as circular reasoning.

as much as you might not like to hear it, evolution is a reality.
OTOH, the cell is probably 3 times more complex than you imagined it to be.
i believe this complexity of which you speak arises from the cell itself.

combine tagged transposons, epigenetics, and the sandbox concept, and you have the rudimentary tools for AI.

#47 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 24 August 2017 - 06:58 PM

The main claim is that evolution is impossible, but this is WELL SUPPORTED by the accepted facts drawn from published journals and books in several science disciplines.

i haven't read anything in a peer reviewed paper or science journal that says evolution is impossible.
i've read plenty that says the mainstream theory of the modern synthesis is outright false, but nothing that says evolution is impossible.
there is a definite difference between "extremely small odds" and "impossible".

i would like to see the peer reviewed source that states evolution is impossible.


I worded that poorly. Mainstream science tells us the human body is constructed of tens of thousands of proteins that are very long, unique sequences of amino acids precisely folded to perform particular functions that are necessary components of larger components, which are necessary parts of larger components, etc.

How did any of those proteins evolve? They don't work until they're complete and Darwin's rule of natural selection removes non-working stuff. Worse, a component won't work without all of it's sub-components working, so like a domino effect rippling up the functional ladder, natural selection removes everthing before a protein can complete it's evolution. That's functional coherence interfering with evolution.

Even without considering the probability angle, the rules of evolution plus the information that mainstream science gives us makes evolution impossible.

Now consider the "extremely small odds". I just googled "mathematically impossible odds" and five of the ten results dealt with the odds of life evolving. Interesting. I was actually looking for Borel's Law and the 10^-50 estimate of the probability which makes "unlikely" become "impossible". But various estimated probabilities of protein evolution (ignoring natural selection) are astronomically smaller than that.

That's much more verbose, but worded a little better.
 

as a matter of fact, all of the major transitions of evolution have "ready made" results, there is no "gradual buildup". the most striking and well known example is the arrival of animal phyla.


It sounds like you're defending ID, which allows all the animal phyla to arrive at once. If the rules of evolution allow anything quick, then clearly I've missed something.
 

also, the picture you have in your mind about how evolution works is probably wrong.


I believe you're right.

But it's difficult to get an accurate picture of evolution. ID authors tend to give very specific molecular biology examples, naming proteins and specifying their functions, as agreed by mainstream science. Evolutionists tend to give loose heuristic arguments based on biology and detailed arguments based on fossils. The problem with that is that no fossil has ever ruled out individual acts of design and creation.
 

i've asked this question before but never got an answer, what standards apply both to god/ID and science?
you are going to need common ground between these 2 if you are to compare them.
as far as i can tell, there simply isn't any.


What is "god/ID"? ID is science. God is the creator of all that science studies, but is not part of what science studies.

I'm not sure what "standards" and which "these 2" you mean. AFAICT, the science of ID draws very heavily on accepted knowledge of molecular biology and other sciences. When Behe wrote "Darwin's Black Box", no one challenged his description of how the eye or the blood-clot cascade work. That's accepted. The contention came when he drew reasonable conclusions.

#48 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:10 PM

.....  who coined the term "intelligent design". In a discussion I was having, someone claimed Darwin himself used the term in a letter he wrote. I was sure the guy made that up. I thought I remembered that it was William A. Dembski in his book "The Design Inference", which I don't have.

My memory was wrong. The page says, "'Of Pandas and People' was published in 1989, ..., was the first book to make systematic use of the terms 'intelligent design'". Maybe I should verify that, but it also listed occasional use earlier. As a result of seeing the various usage, I decided that it was plausible enough to not challenge the claim. (Though obviously Darwin wasn't talking about DNA, protein folding, information theory or kinesin motor proteins walking on microtubules.)

Interestingly enough, this was the book that triggered the Dover trial.

 

The record shows the book was written as a creationist book.  IIRC, it was intended to be a textbook.  In 1987, the SCOTUS ruled the Louisiana "Balanced Treatment" law unconstitutional.  Pandas was then converted to an ID book by substituting "creation" references to "design."  For example, "creationists" was changed to "design proponents."  In one case, the replacement was messed up a bit with the result being a new kind of classification.  Google "cdesign proponentists."

 

The fact that a creationist book was changed to an ID book by simply substituting terms was a significant factor in the final ruling.



#49 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:18 PM

 

 

I hope others don't boycott me....

FYI, I don't put anyone on ignore.  It makes no sense to join a debate forum then refuse to debate.
If you don't believe that we teach people how to treat us, then you haven't understood anything I've been doing and you haven't learned the most basic fact of human interaction.

As a high school teacher dealing mostly with 9th graders, it's part of my job to teach people how to treat others.  I see no reason I should "teach" mature adults in this forum how to treat each other .... nor is it my place here to do so.

 

Here's the most basic fact of human interaction.  When one ignores another, interaction stops.



#50 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 August 2017 - 06:07 AM

I worded that poorly.

don't worry about it, we all do the same thing every once in a while.

Mainstream science tells us the human body is constructed of tens of thousands of proteins that are very long, unique sequences of amino acids precisely folded to perform particular functions that are necessary components of larger components, which are necessary parts of larger components, etc.

i'm not sure about the exact number of proteins, but the above premise is essentially correct.
 

How did any of those proteins evolve? They don't work until they're complete and Darwin's rule of natural selection removes non-working stuff.

there are 2 different scenarios here.
first is a matter of abiogenesis.
science has no plausible scenario for how all of this came together.
it won't be solved anytime in the near future, and it's likely it will never be solved.

the second deals with life proper (after the arrival of the first life)
the cell contains a large repository of "ready made" genetic sequences called transposons that it can use.
by using a sandbox concept, the cell can "mix and match" these sequences to effect the changes that are needed.
the cell applies these sequences upon the next cell division (if they work).
epigenetics allows the cell to switch on or off sequences.

Worse, a component won't work without all of it's sub-components working, so like a domino effect rippling up the functional ladder, natural selection removes everthing before a protein can complete it's evolution. That's functional coherence interfering with evolution.

again, this is a matter of abiogenesis.
the cell was complete upon the arrival of life, epigenetics, transposons (or HGT in the case of bacteria) and the sandbox concept. everything was already there.
IOW, the cell has undergone very little "evolution" (i'm using evolution here to denote the acquisition of new information)
IMO, sight would be such evolution.

Even without considering the probability angle, the rules of evolution plus the information that mainstream science gives us makes evolution impossible.

correct.
the modern synthesis is worthless as a evolutionary theory.
there is no evidence that natural selection encourages complexity.
 

Now consider the "extremely small odds". I just googled "mathematically impossible odds" and five of the ten results dealt with the odds of life evolving. Interesting. I was actually looking for Borel's Law and the 10^-50 estimate of the probability which makes "unlikely" become "impossible". But various estimated probabilities of protein evolution (ignoring natural selection) are astronomically smaller than that.

That's much more verbose, but worded a little better.

i'll agree, abiogenesis may very well be an unsolvable problem.
another problem is how does a diverse metabolism arise from a homogenized group of cells.

 

It sounds like you're defending ID, . . .

nope.
but i don't get foaming at the mouth stupid when i hear the term though.
 

. . . which allows all the animal phyla to arrive at once. If the rules of evolution allow anything quick, then clearly I've missed something.

that's only half of it.
it's becoming apparent that each phyla had it's own abiogenesis event, they did not descend from one another.
the above leads me to the following conclusion:
evolution is driven by catalytic events, not by any kind of gradualism.
a significant number of my sources can be interpreted that way.
 

"also, the picture you have in your mind about how evolution works is probably wrong."


I believe you're right.

But it's difficult to get an accurate picture of evolution. ID authors tend to give very specific molecular biology examples, naming proteins and specifying their functions, as agreed by mainstream science. Evolutionists tend to give loose heuristic arguments based on biology and detailed arguments based on fossils. The problem with that is that no fossil has ever ruled out individual acts of design and creation.

the problem with ID/god is that no one has been able to identify what or where this intelligence is.
what is the nature of this "intelligence"?
 

What is "god/ID"? ID is science.

oh my.
you have now put yourself in the unenviable position of proving your "ID is science" claim.
good luck, humanity has been trying to do that since time began.

#51 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 August 2017 - 06:13 AM

The fact that a creationist book was changed to an ID book by simply substituting terms was a significant factor in the final ruling.

what do you call it when scientists start replacing phrases because their original phrase gave "allusions to ID"?

kinda makes you want to stroke your chin saying hmmmm . . .

#52 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:01 AM

what do you call it when scientists start replacing phrases because their original phrase gave "allusions to ID"?

kinda makes you want to stroke your chin saying hmmmm . . .

A bid to avoid internet randos quote mining their work for the rest of their lives, for one.

#53 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:10 AM

I hope others don't boycott me....

FYI, I don't put anyone on ignore. It makes no sense to join a debate forum then refuse to debate.

If you don't believe that we teach people how to treat us, then you haven't understood anything I've been doing and you haven't learned the most basic fact of human interaction.

As a high school teacher dealing mostly with 9th graders, it's part of my job to teach people how to treat others. I see no reason I should "teach" mature adults in this forum how to treat each other .... nor is it my place here to do so.
...

.
You've showed zero comprehension of the most basic fact of human interaction. I do fear for your pupils and their parents: "We teach people how to treat us," has nothing to do with teaching other people how to treat each other. You, "piasan" teach other people how to treat you; I, "Schera Do", treat other peope how to treat me; Joe Smith, treats other people how to treat Joe Smith.

#54 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:17 AM

I hope others don't boycott me....

FYI, I don't put anyone on ignore. It makes no sense to join a debate forum then refuse to debate.

If you don't believe that we teach people how to treat us, then you haven't understood anything I've been doing and you haven't learned the most basic fact of human interaction.

As a high school teacher dealing mostly with 9th graders, it's part of my job to teach people how to treat others. I see no reason I should "teach" mature adults in this forum how to treat each other .... nor is it my place here to do so.
...

.
You've showed zero comprehension of the most basic fact of human interaction. I do fear for your pupils and their parents: "We teach people how to treat us," has nothing to do with teaching other people how to treat each other. You, "piasan" teach other people how to treat you; I, "Schera Do", treat other peope how to treat me; Joe Smith, treats other people how to treat Joe Smith.
.

...

For example when you say "we all know who the designer is don't we?" But agnostics are also IDists. ...


Yeah!

.
I added the bold to the quote to highlight was is preposterous; and it is beyond comprehension that someone here could believe such a thing.

#55 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:31 AM

...

For example when you say "we all know who the designer is don't we?" But agnostics are also IDists. ...


Yeah!

.
I added the bold to the quote to highlight was is preposterous; and it is beyond comprehension that someone here could believe such a thing.

OK, I'll bite.
An agnostic is one who isn't sure if God exists or not. So why would it be beyond comprehension that such a person could look at the extremely complex interconnectedness of living systems and conclude that it was all designed? He can remain agnostic on the "who" question.

#56 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:46 AM

...

For example when you say "we all know who the designer is don't we?" But agnostics are also IDists. ...


Yeah!

.
I added the bold to the quote to highlight was is preposterous; and it is beyond comprehension that someone here could believe such a thing.

OK, I'll bite.
An agnostic is one who isn't sure if God exists or not. So why would it be beyond comprehension that such a person could look at the extremely complex interconnectedness of living systems and conclude that it was all designed? He can remain agnostic on the "who" question.

.
Please don't bite yourself.

You've demonstrated that you didn't comprehend the sentence, "But agnostics are also IDists." I'm not going to bite anything while you don't understand the sentence at issue. The fact that you didn't comprehend the simple sentence is further support of my assertion that one can never be sure when another reader understands anything on this forum.

#57 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 August 2017 - 08:14 AM

I think in all my years of reading and taking part in this kind of debate of, "what is design", largely I have witnessed that the power of the term, "science" as an epithet, is probably the most abused term in recent history, especially by those using it to try and win a rhetorical propagandist type easy victory.

the best definition i can come up with is:
if it isn't naturally produced but yet exists, then it's designed.
this is probably why you see science trying to imply we are close to recreating life.
we aren't even close to being close, science has no plausible scenario for how life got here.

#58 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 25 August 2017 - 08:25 AM

You've demonstrated that you didn't comprehend the sentence, "But agnostics are also IDists."


Maybe mike the wiz will be kind enough to clarify, but I understood him to mean some agnostics are IDists. That's a legitimate possible meaning of that sentence and I'm quite certain it's plausible.

But if he meant that all agnostics are IDists, then yeah, I really don't comprehend.

#59 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 August 2017 - 08:42 AM

what do you call it when scientists start replacing phrases because their original phrase gave "allusions to ID"?

kinda makes you want to stroke your chin saying hmmmm . . .

A bid to avoid internet randos quote mining their work for the rest of their lives, for one.

that doesn't sound very sciency does it?

science uncovers evidence that "alludes to ID".
but, but, but, WE CAN'T SAY THAT ! !
hey, i know, we can change some words and alter the meaning of a few phrases, and viola!
next question, how much can you trust peer review to give you the straight dope?
in this particular case it didn't do the reviewers any good,because he (koonin) SPECIFICALLY says this is a very real part of evolution and the mainstream explanation for it is unreliable.

so, we'll essentially lie to the people just so creationist don't have any ammo.

that's kind of like chopping off your feet to get rid of athletes foot isn't it?

#60 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:14 AM

An agnostic is one who isn't sure if God exists or not.

that's pretty well where i sit.
my consciousness must come from somewhere, and it sure didn't come from the fundamental laws of nature.
you will never explain tagged transposons by any kind of "natural origin".
it certainly appears that there was an intelligence tinkering around with the earliest stages of life.
how else can you explain how life went from a preponderance of HGT to a preponderance of tagged transposons?

no, i don't advocate god/ID but i'm not afraid to look at the facts squarely in the face.

all i can do is shake my head muttering i don't man, i just don't know.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users