Jump to content


Photo

Should Id Be Included In Science?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
143 replies to this topic

#81 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2005 - 12:29 AM

There is a process of logical inquiry already in place which is not limited to the empirically testable. It's called: Philosophy.

View Post


So now you have decided to catagorize creation I.D. into philosophy? You'd first have to prove it would fit into that catagory.

#82 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2005 - 12:37 AM

I'd be more inclined to accept your conclusion if he were a world leading abiogenesist, chemist or biologist, rather than an old philosopher who has come to accept Deism.

View Post


LOL, always looking for an explaination out. So now like every other person who accepted creation, his education and his age come into question. If I were to project the same attitude, and attack people personally. I could start making comments about Richard Dawkins, and his physical problems, and why he should not be listened to because of them. But, I don't go to such extremes to attack people personally just because I disagree with them. Because reputation among people is not an element for truth. Because anyone can lie and totally destroy an honest peron's reputation.

Because in the end. Even if he was all that you say you'd want him to be. You'd find something wrong just because you disagree with his decision. If not for his education, or his age. You'd say he was a flake. So all this really makes no matter now does it?

#83 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 23 May 2005 - 12:39 AM

So now you have decided to catagorize creation I.D. into philosophy? You'd first have to prove it would fit into that catagory.

View Post


I'm fairly sure that teleology has always been accepted as part of philosophy.

#84 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 23 May 2005 - 12:53 AM

LOL, always looking for an explaination out. So now like every other person who accepted creation, his education and his age come into question.

View Post


Nothing of the sort, his age and education aren't in question. He is an intelligent man, with an outstanding academic background. The background is in philosophy, so I take his change in opinion as a great philosophical support for teleology/Deism. I don't consider that it is evidence against abiogenesis because he wasn't within that field. Had he been, I would take the change of heart as more of a scientific interest.


If I were to project the same attitude, and attack people personally. I could start making comments about Richard Dawkins, and his physical problems, and why he should not be listened to because of them. But, I don't go to such extremes to attack people personally just because I disagree with them. Because reputation among people is not an element for truth. Because anyone can lie and totally destroy an honest peron's reputation.


Trust me, I've never attacked Flew, nor do I intend to. He seems like a respectable fellow to me.

Because in the end. Even if he was all that you say you'd want him to be. You'd find something wrong just because you disagree with his decision. If not for his education, or his age. You'd say he was a flake. So all this really makes no matter now does it?


Naturally, if he was biochemist, I wouldn't suddenly agree with him since it would still leave a lot of biochemists on the other side of the fence. However, I would keenly read op on his reasons behind the change of heart. Flew's reasons are more philosophical in nature, and revolve around the 'DNA is too complex, we haven't been able to create life' type argument.

#85 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2005 - 01:12 PM

Modolous said:

Nothing of the sort, his age and education aren't in question. He is an intelligent man, with an outstanding academic background. The background is in philosophy, so I take his change in opinion as a great philosophical support for teleology/Deism. I don't consider that it is evidence against abiogenesis because he wasn't within that field. Had he been, I would take the change of heart as more of a scientific interest.


Then why was it brought up, as if these were in question? I find this a common tactic when trying to descredit an action, or evidence found by an individual. Attack him. It's very easy to do from behind a computer when a person, who's doing it, is not being examined as well. It's safe to throw words out there when you know words can't be thrown back.

#86 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 23 May 2005 - 01:52 PM

Modolous said:
Then why was it brought up, as if these were in question? I find this a common tactic when trying to descredit an action, or evidence found by an individual. Attack him. It's very easy to do from behind a computer when a person, who's doing it, is not being examined as well. It's safe to throw words out there when you know words can't be thrown back.

View Post


I never questioned his credentials. I am not attempting to discredit or attack. I have said it before, Flew seems like an intelligent, academically achieved, cogent philosopher. I brought up that he was a philosopher with good reason. Terry said that Flew becoming a Deist

...means that evidence is mounting against abiogenisis


I said that if Flew was an abiogenesist then Terry might have a point. However, a philosopher changing his philosophy is not evidence that there is evidence against abiogenesis. Its evidence that people change their minds. It is evidence that there isn't a grand athiest conspiracy (surely he would have told us of it?). What would be evidence that there was some evidence mounting against abiogenesis would be a growing number of biochemists writing papers or opinion pieces on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Chemists leaking news to the papers of a conspiracy of scientists who know that abiogenesis is impossible, but whose purpose is to the fool the world, lead them from Christ and into the arms of Satan and of course the faith that is ontological naturalism, which all scientists have pledged their familys' lives to.

So there you go, a famous philosopher changing the philosophy he has been a spokesperson for is an interesting story, but it is not evidence either way regarding mounting evidnce against abiogenesis.

#87 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 24 May 2005 - 10:10 AM

There is a process of logical inquiry already in place which is not limited to the empirically testable. It's called: Philosophy.

View Post


If ID is philosophy based on scientific fact, what's wrong with it?

#88 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2005 - 11:17 AM

If ID is philosophy based on scientific fact, what's wrong with it?

View Post

In the strictest sense, science does not deal in facts.

Science originated as a branch of philosophy, one dealing with measurable observations and empirically testable (i.e., falsifiable) concepts. If it were true that ID had a firm basis in the measurable and falsifiable, there would be nothing wrong with teaching it as science. It isn't. That's the whole issue. It has been and continues to be addressed under philosophy, which is not limited to the empirically testable -- and as philosophy, it is a perfectly valid postulate.

ID happens to be a postulate with which I do not agree, but it is not my intent to disparage it by declaring it to be philosophy. I think a lot of people get the wrong idea about philosophy, dismissing it as so much useless hand-waving (to be fair, many philosophers do appear to be especially prone to a peculiar form of syntactic incontinence which tends to render their observations unintelligible to the layman). But it is precisely because his ideas are not empirically testable that the philosopher's methods must be so logically impeccable. It would not be surprising if the philosopher considered the scientist to have the easy work, perhaps holding him in much the same regard as that which the scientist holds for the 'mere technician'.

#89 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 24 May 2005 - 11:46 AM

Thus, even though a proper scientific investigation (such as using mathematics, chemistry, and the above scientific method) can essentially falsify abiogenesis, proponets of the "philosophical tenet" of "methodological naturalism" will still refuse accept such a falsification, but instead cling to abiogenesis due to a "naturalistic" philosophy of origins.


This is the boat that ID is in right now. They have been incapable of showing how math, chemistry, and the above scientific method have ruled out abiogenesis. All they do is construct a ludicrous scenario and then go on to beat up their self made strawman. For example, one of the more infamous straw men was the claim that a simple bacteria represented a life form made wholly through abiogenesis. What they failed to realize is that bacteria have been evolving for billions of years.

Abiogenesis is a fledgling science that is just starting to make strides. For mathematical models to be applied we need to know the following things:

1. What is the simplest replicator possible?
2. What conditions are required for abiogenesis, no matter the size of the first replicator?
3. What are all of the possible genetic materials? Could silicon based life occur?

Until these answers are known no one can attach any probabilities to abiogenesis. ID supporters claim that abiogenesis is impossible, but their claim is based entirely on misunderstandings, or so it would seem.

In fact I have had evolutionists state that even if evolution were somehow falsifified that they still will not accept special creation as scientifically valid(due to their belief that science requires in "methodological naturalism").


Yes, because special creation does not have any positive evidence in its favor. From what I have seen, special creation requires the falsification of every possible naturalistic explanation, both known explanations and ones that could be discovered in the future. Science continues to use MN for one reason, it's track record. Time after time, phenomena attributed to deities have been found to be due to naturalistic mechanisms. When someone asks "Is this due to a god or to an unknown natural mechanism" the answer has almost always been "a previously unknown natural mechanism".

One evolutionist here even seriously proposed basically a "naturalistic" version of "Last Tuesdayism" as a prefered alternative to creation in the event of falsification of evolution!

View Post


You have my permission to ridicule him.:D

#90 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 24 May 2005 - 02:42 PM

In the strictest sense, science does not deal in facts.

Science originated as a branch of philosophy, one dealing with measurable observations and empirically testable (i.e., falsifiable) concepts. If it were true that ID had a firm basis in the measurable and falsifiable, there would be nothing wrong with teaching it as science. It isn't. That's the whole issue. It has been and continues to be addressed under philosophy, which is not limited to the empirically testable—and as philosophy, it is a perfectly valid postulate.

View Post


But if the universe began with the Big Bang, it would need a Creator to create it. And if there was a Creator, He must have been immeasurably intelligent to be able to design this earth and life.

What's wrong with that reasoning?

#91 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 May 2005 - 03:00 PM

But if the universe began with the Big Bang, it would need a Creator to create it. And if there was a Creator, He must have been immeasurably intelligent to be able to design this earth and life.

What's wrong with that reasoning?

View Post



1: Why would it need a Creator?
2: Why would any Creator need to be sentient?

Its a valid line of reasoning though, but this is not the line of reasoning many IDers use (for some reason...). If it was a the line of reasoning the IDers chose and wanted taught in schools, that's fine. It's not a science though, but a philosophy.

#92 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 25 May 2005 - 12:14 PM

1:  Why would it need a Creator?
2:  Why would any Creator need to be sentient?

View Post


1. Well, could the tiny pinpoint of energy that the Big Bang came from suddenly spring into existence out of nothing?
2. It seems to me that beings like us with consciousness couldn't come from an entirely impersonal world.

#93 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 May 2005 - 01:53 PM

1. Well, could the tiny pinpoint of energy that the Big Bang came from suddenly spring into existence out of nothing?
2. It seems to me that beings like us with consciousness couldn't come from an entirely impersonal world.

View Post


Appearances can be deceiving,

Re Big Bang - At this point in time the Big Bang has more questions than answers, what is known however is evidence that a Big Bang happened, (expanding universe and background microwave radiation). How exactly it happened is not known.

Re consciousness – like any aspect of evolution, it appears to be incredulous, that because we live relatively short lives in an apparently unchanging universe, and evolution works in much longer time frames. It is the application of science that has discovered the mechanism. Consider the long history of man, at what point did or could evolution be discovered? Only after geology had gathered enough data to make sense of the observations, in addition to animal husbandry. Before that time we could not read the clues.

#94 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 26 May 2005 - 04:20 AM

1. Well, could the tiny pinpoint of energy that the Big Bang came from suddenly spring into existence out of nothing?
2. It seems to me that beings like us with consciousness couldn't come from an entirely impersonal world.

View Post



1. I don't know, I've never witnessed a beginning of a universe. Since plenty of seeminly contra-reasonable things happen at the quantum level, I'm sure some pretty crazy things happen at the extremes of the Big Bang.

2. That's fair enough, but its just an opinion. It could be the case that we did come from totally impersonal beginnings.

#95 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 26 May 2005 - 08:22 AM

Re consciousness – like any aspect of evolution, it appears to be incredulous, that because we live relatively short lives in an apparently unchanging universe, and evolution works in much longer time frames.  It is the application of science that has discovered the mechanism.  Consider the long history of man, at what point did or could evolution be discovered? Only after geology had gathered enough data to make sense of the observations, in addition to animal husbandry. Before that time we could not read the clues.

View Post


But there are problems with evolution. The biggest one is that there are not as many transitional forms in the fossil record as there would be if evolution had happened.

#96 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2005 - 09:37 AM

But there are problems with evolution. The biggest one is that there are not as many transitional forms in the fossil record as there would be if evolution had happened.

View Post

This is yet another negative argument, one to which I would be happy to respond in a thread about transitional forms in the fossil record. What we're addressing in this thread is whether ID should be taught as science, and I still have yet to see any positive evidence supporting ID.

A prosecutor might present evidence showing that the crime could not have been committed by a specific person other than the defendant, but to obtain a conviction, he would also need to present evidence indicating that the defendant did commit the crime.

#97 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 26 May 2005 - 10:22 AM

But the fact that there aren't transitional forms can be explained by ID. Unless there is another theory similar to ID, this both proves evolution wrong and proves ID right.

#98 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 26 May 2005 - 10:59 AM

But the fact that there aren't transitional forms can be explained by ID. Unless there is another theory similar to ID, this both proves evolution wrong and proves ID right.

View Post


Actually, evolutionary theory does not hinge on a number of transitionary fossils. There could only be one fossil ever, and evolution could still be a possibility. What evolution can do, that ID cannot (assuming that the ID we are discussing is the one which rejects evolution) , is explain why the fossils are in the order that they are in.

#99 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2005 - 11:42 AM

But the fact that there aren't transitional forms can be explained by ID. Unless there is another theory similar to ID, this both proves evolution wrong and proves ID right.

View Post

I will ask again: what positive evidence is there for ID? For the purpose of answering this question, you may pretend that Dawin was never born, and the theory of evolution never put forward.

#100 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 May 2005 - 01:39 PM

But there are problems with evolution. The biggest one is that there are not as many transitional forms in the fossil record as there would be if evolution had happened.

View Post


Even if one were to concede that, a lack of transitional fossils is an insurmountable problem, this would not lend any weight to including ID in school. ID must pass the same rigour that evolution has, for it to be accepted sound enough to be taught in school, there can be no free ride for ID. ID must earn it’s spurs, not win them by default.

I suggest that you start a topic on just how many transitional forms there should be and we can discuss this in detail.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users