Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Paul

Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific

Recommended Posts

Specifically:

 

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.†On the Origin of Species (1859), Chapter 6: Difficulties of the Theory

 

Since you are fond of Wikipedia, please look up “Symbiosisâ€ÂÂ. :o

I don't have to since I know what it means. The adaptation suits both the owner and the other organism, so this doesn't fit the criteria for the falsification of evolution I gave above, which had nothing to do with symbiosis.

 

So evolution is not falsified by Symbiosis. Evolution would be falsified by an animal developing an adaptation solely for another organism, which is not what symbiosis is. In Symbiosis, both organisms win, not just one.

 

And when are we going to talk about ID? So far all anyone has done is explain what (they think) the case against evolution is. But negative for evolution does not equal positive for ID. You have to make your case on its own merits.

 

Can you? It's step one of the scientific method, a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and I'm still waiting for it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifically:

 

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.†On the Origin of Species (1859), Chapter 6: Difficulties of the Theory

 

Since you are fond of Wikipedia, please look up “Symbiosisâ€ÂÂ. :)

 

Or, you may view my series here:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/cleanerf.htm

 

Perhaps an even more compelling example is the yucca plant and yucca moth, since the symbiotic relationship is crucial to both their survival.

 

Since you offered this as a test, do you agree evolution is falsified, and are you now prepared to reject evolution, or is your mind made up despite this prediction failure? :o

This is hardly a test since ultimately only historical science can determine this. However, solid science has made it very difficult for evolutionists to cling to billions of years, especially the recent work by the RATE group. Would you not agree that science is supposed to work this way:

 

1) make a prediction

2) gather data, obtain independent confirmation of data

3) compare to original prediction

 

This is what the RATE group did, and confirmed a prediction that grainite is 6K years old, not 1.5 bil. To date evolutionists cannot explain this Helium leak in zircon problem:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...p?showtopic=283

 

I know of no evolution prediction that was made a priori, that passed. I know of quite a few that were made that failed:

 

Darwin and other evolutionists predicted the following:

 

1) structure not created for exclusive good of another – FAILED

2) Lamarckism – FAILED

3) Simple-to-complex in the fossil record – FAILED

4) Gradual lineage in fossil record – FAILED

5) Complex organs formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications – FAILED

 

Need more? :)

 

Fred Williams

5516[/snapback]

You missed something. Specifically:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species

 

A symbotic relationship HAS benefit to the original organism. You would have to find an example where a species had a structure formed for the exclusive good of another (NO self benefit).

 

Symbotic relationships by definition do not exist solely for the good of another, but are mutually beneficial.

 

So you would need to find a part of the structure of one species which exists for the benefit of another species, for which it has absolutely no benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when are we going to talk about ID?  So far all anyone has done is explain what (they think) the case against evolution is.  But negative for evolution does not equal positive for ID.  You have to make your case on its own merits.

That's your opinion. If you can prove evolution false, ID is a logical conclusion, and even staunch evolutionists in the field agree. There are no other viable choices.

I'll give you one of many positive evidences for ID. I've given them before several times on this forum and they've remained unanswered. How can evolution account for identical structures derived by different mechanisms? For example, the pentadactyl forelimb and hindlimb of many vertebrates. They are essentially identical in design, yet derived from different embryologic structures. The forelimb and hindlimb were supposedly derived respectively from pectoral and pelvic fins of a fish. No evolutionist believes that one evolved from the other. There are numerous other similar examples in nature. It is impossible to believe that chance DNA copying errors could produce two essentially identical structures twice. Why would natural selection demand identical structures if random micromutations were in play? Laws of probability would prohibit this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your opinion.  If you can prove evolution false, ID is a logical conclusion, and even staunch evolutionists in the field agree.  There are no other viable choices.

Sorry, but that’s your opinion, and one that runs contrary to the scientific method in which there’s always a third possibility: we don’t know; it's some theory that's hasn't been been discovered yet.

 

Again, negative for evolution does not equal positive for ID. You have to make your case on its own merit. Einstein didn’t displace Newton by proving Newtonian physics was “wrongâ€ÂÂ; he gave us a better, more accurate way to describe gravity, supplanting Newton. But Relativity stands on its own. You can test it, falsify it, and replace it if you’ve got a better solution.

 

The title of this thread is “Intelligent Design – Is It Scientific?†and that’s what I wanted to discuss, but you’ve got to make your case on it’s own merit and stop thinking that if you trash evolution then somehow ID is automatically correct. That’s not how science works. We need a testable, falsifiable hypothesis and then we can proceed.

 

So what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that’s your opinion, and one that runs contrary to the scientific method in which there’s always a third possibility: we don’t know; it's some theory that's hasn't been been discovered yet.

 

Again, negative for evolution does not equal positive for ID.  You have to make your case on its own merit.  Einstein didn’t displace Newton by proving Newtonian physics was “wrongâ€ÂÂ; he gave us a better, more accurate way to describe gravity, supplanting Newton.  But Relativity stands on its own.  You can test it, falsify it, and replace it if you’ve got a better solution.

 

The title of this thread is “Intelligent Design – Is It Scientific?†and that’s what I wanted to discuss, but you’ve got to make your case on it’s own merit and stop thinking that if you trash evolution then somehow ID is automatically correct.  That’s not how science works.  We need a testable, falsifiable hypothesis and then we can proceed.

 

So what is it?

5530[/snapback]

I see you'd rather haggle over what you think the definition of science is than engage in real debate. Evolutionists attempt to exclude a hypothesis on the pretext that it's unscientific, when all that's being done is an attempt to disprove evolution, not prove creation. A legitimate scientist will welcome sketicism, but evolutionists attempt to supress it because the theory cannot withstand serious scrutiny.

 

There might be some merit to what you're saying about ID being non-falsifiable. I suppose it cannot be proven by the scientific method. We're dealing with an historical event, and as such evolution cannot be proven either. However, that does not mean that ID cannot be subject to scientific analysis. One can site observations in nature and see if they fit better with the model of ToE or of ID. To say ID is "unscientific" is very misleading and suggests that theological arguments are used to support ID. This is not the case.

 

You did ask for positive evident of ID. I gave you but one example... the pentadactyl forelimb and hindlimb. I can give you others, but I would be curious as to what kind of an explanation you can give from the perspective of ToE. Now, you can brush off the argument and say I'm not "scientific", or you can face the problem squarely and give a plausible explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you'd rather haggle over what you think the definition of science is than engage in real debate.

Well, since the debate is "is ID scientific?" it would make sense to define "what is science?" first, no?

 

Thankfully, we have several definitions of science to choose from, but what they all have in common is experimentation to falsify or confirm a hypothesis.

 

This isn't what I think the definition of science it, it's what it is. I gave you two different sources above and you've simply ignored them, calling this "my" version of science. It isn't. It's just science.

 

Evolutionists attempt to exclude a hypothesis on the pretext that it's unscientific, when all that's being done is an attempt to disprove evolution, not prove creation.

How can I exlude a hypothesis you haven't given me yet?

 

What is the testable hypothesis for ID and how would we test (falsify) it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since the debate is "is ID scientific?" it would make sense to define "what is science?" first, no?

 

Thankfully, we have several definitions of science to choose from, but what they all have in common is experimentation to falsify or confirm a hypothesis.

 

This isn't what I think the definition of science it, it's what it is.  I gave you two different sources above and you've simply ignored them, calling this "my" version of science.  It isn't.  It's just science.

How can I exlude a hypothesis you haven't given me yet?

 

What is the testable hypothesis for ID and how would we test (falsify) it?

5539[/snapback]

I'm not trying to prove ID... so your requirement that it be falsifiable is invalid. The question is whether or not we can debate ID from a scientic perspective. We can discuss observations that point toward ID vs evolution. We can look at data objectively and evaluate whether or not the facts fit the model of ID. Do you not agree that if I could prove the earth was no more than 10,000 years old, that such a fact would fit the model of ID? The whole thing about ID not being scientific is nothing but a smokescreen because evolutionists want to portray ID as theology rather than objective science. There are many evidences of ID in nature, and simply brushing them off as unscientific begs the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to prove ID... so your requirement that it be falsifiable is invalid.

There you go again. It's not my requirement, it's a requirement of the scientific method.

 

Do you not agree that if I could prove the earth was no more than 10,000 years old, that such a fact would fit the model of ID?

Yes, I agree, that would speak strongly of ID (though it wouldn't be unequivocal). Now all you have to do is the work (proving the Earth is 100,000 years old).

 

The whole thing about ID not being scientific is nothing but a smokescreen because evolutionists want to portray ID as theology rather than objective science.

 

No. We reject ID because it doesn't meet the criteria of science, for starters, a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

 

You can claim we're being irrational or religious and that you're objective and scientific, but you've yet to meet a single criterion of science and can't even get past the first criterion, a hypothesis.

 

Once again, what is the testable, falsifiable hypothesis for ID? Until you have one, this isn't science and that's not my "opinion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go again.  It's not my requirement, it's a requirement of the scientific method.

Yes, I agree, that would speak strongly of ID (though it wouldn't be unequivocal).  Now all you have to do is the work (proving the Earth is 100,000 years old).

No.  We reject ID because it doesn't meet the criteria of science, for starters, a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

 

You can claim we're being irrational or religious and that you're objective and scientific, but you've yet to meet a single criterion of science and can't even get past the first criterion, a hypothesis.

 

Once again, what is the testable, falsifiable hypothesis for ID?  Until you have one, this isn't science and that's not my "opinion."

5545[/snapback]

To quote Einstein, "The more I study science, the more I believe it God." He believed in God not because of religious upbringing, but because of scientific observation. Evolutionary reasoning: ID is not scientific, therefore we can't discuss it, therefore ToE is the only hypothesis on the table, therefore it must be true, since there are no "scientific" alternatives available. I'm sorry, but it's not going to be that easy. ToE must withstand scientific scrutiny, and simply calling it "unscientific" because it's not falsifiable as a hypothesis is lucicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Einstein, "The more I study science, the more I believe it God."  He believed in God not because of religious upbringing, but because of scientific observation.  Evolutionary reasoning:  ID is not scientific, therefore we can't discuss it, therefore ToE is the only hypothesis on the table, therefore it must be true, since there are no "scientific" alternatives available. I'm sorry, but it's not going to be that easy.  ToE must withstand scientific scrutiny, and simply calling it "unscientific" because it's not falsifiable as a hypothesis is lucicrous.

5547[/snapback]

Einstein's beliefs (whatever they were, which is often debatable) doesn't matter. Just as it doesn't matter if another scientist made the same statement but from an atheistic point of view. Neither opinion is scientific. Science speaks only to the evidence.

 

It's not "evolutionary reasoning" that ID is not scientific. It's that ID cannot stand up to scientific requirements. As JustTed pointed out, one example is that it's not falsifiable (and he pointed out where evolution can be falsifiable). If Intelligent Design is falsifiable, and you can present such, I'd also like to see it.

 

Instead I see the argument turned back around to attacking evolution, but again as JustTed pointed out previously in a post, that's not what this thread is about. It's about whether Intelligent Design on it's own can stand up to scientific merit. And now more specifically, is Intelligent Design falsifiable?

 

So far I have yet to see information which demonstrates it can stand on it's own as science. Does anyone have that information? Can anyone even demonstrate that it's falsifiable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Einstein, "The more I study science, the more I believe it God."  He believed in God not because of religious upbringing, but because of scientific observation.  Evolutionary reasoning:  ID is not scientific, therefore we can't discuss it, therefore ToE is the only hypothesis on the table, therefore it must be true, since there are no "scientific" alternatives available. I'm sorry, but it's not going to be that easy.  ToE must withstand scientific scrutiny, and simply calling it "unscientific" because it's not falsifiable as a hypothesis is lucicrous.

5547[/snapback]

You keep posting, but you keep evading the absence of a hypothesis in your "science". Sorry, but no hypothesis, no science.

 

Oh, and Einstein was wrong on a number of occasions. You seem to love arguments from authority, but science rejects these. Science doesn't recognize celebrity or authority, only evidence, experimentation and replication.

 

Let me know when you've worked out that hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep posting, but you keep evading the absence of a hypothesis in your "science".  Sorry, but no hypothesis, no science.

 

Oh, and Einstein was wrong on a number of occasions.  You seem to love arguments from authority, but science rejects these.  Science doesn't recognize celebrity or authority, only evidence, experimentation and replication.

 

Let me know when you've worked out that hypothesis.

5553[/snapback]

So, let me see if I've got this right. In your opinion (Einstein and other eminent scientists are wrong), ID should be excluded from scientific discussion. O.K.... I guess that proves evolution is true. After all, there's only one scientific hypothesis out there... ToE. ToE wins by default. Is that your rationale?

 

I repeat... the belief that ID is non-falsifiable is irrelevantunless you're trying to proveID. I'm not trying to prove ID... I'm introducing is as a topic for scientific investigation as a viable alternative to ToE. You have arbitrarily excluded a hypothesis as invalid just because you think it doesn't fit criteria for science.

 

As far as me appealing to authority, proponents of ToE are always doing that... they're always spouting off about how all biologists accept evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me see if I've got this right.  In your opinion (Einstein and other eminent scientists are wrong), ID should be excluded from scientific discussion.  O.K.... I guess that proves evolution is true.  After all, there's only one scientific hypothesis out there... ToE.  ToE wins by default.  Is that your rationale?

I've never said anything even vaguely resembling this, so I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

Again, why are you talking about evolution? Why? The topic is whether ID is science or not. Please focus.

 

I repeat...  the belief that ID is non-falsifiable is irrelevantunless you're trying to proveID.

Great! Then it's not science, it's theology or philosophy.

 

I'm introducing is as a topic for scientific investigation as a viable alternative to ToE.

Whoops! Now we're back in science. Got that hypothesis yet?

 

You have arbitrarily excluded a hypothesis as invalid just because you think it doesn't fit criteria for science.

I honestly don't know where I'm losing you. Let me summarize.

 

Science requires a testable hypothesis. This is not my opinion; it's the method of science.

 

I haven't arbitrarily excluded your hypothesis because you haven't provided one yet.

 

Where is the hypothesis for ID? You don't have one. As soon as you do, we can proceed. Again, your hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, not because I say so, but because that is the method of science which you can look up anywhere (I did it for you twice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the hypothesis for ID?  You don't have one.  As soon as you do, we can proceed.  Again, your hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, not because I say so, but because that is the method of science which you can look up anywhere (I did it for you twice).

Hypothesis: The origin and diversification of life required intelligent input.

How is it testible?: Observations in nature and correlating those observations with ID model vs evolution model.

How is it falsifiable?: By proving that natural selection and chance mutations are all that were required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothesis:  The origin and diversification of life required intelligent input. 

How is it testible?:  Observations in nature and correlating those observations with ID model vs evolution model.

An observation isn't a test though, it's an observation. We need to test our observations, which is yet another reason why ID isn't science (no one's testing anything in ID according to Dr. Behe's testimony in the Dover Pennsylvania trial).

 

When we see something complex, maybe even so much so that we have no idea how it could have arisen, this is where science begins, not where it ends. Unfortunately, you want to make "observations" and call that the conclusion.

 

Summarizing: I think it was designed, therefore it's designed. This is completely subjective and not at all testable. It was a nice attempt, but it fails utterly to provide unambiguous criteria for testing.

 

How is it falsifiable?:  By proving that natural selection and chance mutations are all that were required.

Once again!

 

The falsification of evolution does not make ID true. The conformation of evolution doesn't make ID false. Why do you insist on coupling two things that don't belong together?

 

Again, think of the Relativity example: You need to prove Relativity alone. You don't need to disprove Newtonian physics to prove Relativity, and even if you did disprove Newtonian physics that wouldn't make Relativity any more correct.

 

You have to make your case on its own merits. Proving that chance mutations are all that's required for the complexity of life around us would not mean there is no designer. There still might be, so I fail to see how your test demonstrates anything. Once again, it's non-science. Subjective observations ("I think it was designed, therefore it is") aren't science, they're opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An observation isn't a test though, it's an observation. 

Goo-to-you evolution is nothing but observation and extrapolations. There is not a single test which has shown macroevolution to be biologically possible.

 

When we see something complex, maybe even so much so that we have no idea how it could have arisen, this is where science begins, not where it ends.  Unfortunately, you want to make "observations" and call that the conclusion.

ToE has jumped to those conclusions. Example: evolutionists see homology and conclude that it means common descent. They study peppered moths and conclude that minute changes over short periods of time equals huge changes over long periods of time.... again, where's the testing?

 

You have to make your case on its own merits.  Proving that chance mutations are all that's required for the complexity of life around us would not mean there is no designer.

My hypothesis does not say that ToE is false. It's states that ID was necessary. You can prove that false, ie., that ID was not necessary, by showing that models of macroevolutionary transformation conform to laws of probability, that gene sequences in related organisms conform to the ToE model, etc. This, as you say, doesn't prove the nonexistence of ID, but it proves that ID isn't necessary... and that's the basis of my hypothesis.

There still might be, so I fail to see how your test demonstrates anything.  Once again, it's non-science.  Subjective observations ("I think it was designed, therefore it is") aren't science, they're opinions.

JusTed, I'm afraid at this point you're only spouting off your opinions. I've given you a rational hypothesis. You say it can't be tested because interpretations are subjective. Of course, all analysis of data is subjective. There is no field of "science" laced with more bias and reckless conjecture and extrapolation than evolutionary theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goo-to-you evolution is nothing but observation and extrapolations.  There is not a single test which has shown macroevolution to be biologically possible.

 

  ToE has jumped to those conclusions. Example:  evolutionists see homology and conclude that it means common descent. They study peppered moths and conclude that minute changes over short periods of time equals huge changes over long periods of time.... again, where's the testing?

My hypothesis does not say that ToE is false.  It's states that ID was necessary.  You can prove that false, ie., that ID was not necessary, by showing that models of macroevolutionary transformation conform to laws of probability, that gene sequences in related organisms conform to the ToE model, etc.  This, as you say, doesn't prove the nonexistence of ID, but it proves that ID isn't necessary... and that's the basis of my hypothesis.

 

JusTed, I'm afraid at this point you're only spouting off your opinions.  I've given you a rational hypothesis.  You say it can't be tested because interpretations are subjective.  Of course, all analysis of data is subjective.  There is no field of "science" laced with more bias and reckless conjecture and extrapolation than evolutionary theory.

5565[/snapback]

 

Title of this thread: "Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific"

 

You keep wanting to attack evolution, that's not what this thread is about. I've been lurking here on and off for months, there are lots of threads which pretty much do just that. :D

 

This thread is asking if Intelligent Design is scientific. Seems pretty straightforward, or so I would think. Here's an example:

 

There is no field of "science" laced with more bias and reckless conjecture and extrapolation than evolutionary theory.

So? Assuming that's true (only for the sake of discussion) what does that have to do with intelligent design, and whether or not it's scientific?

 

I could go on and on and on pulling out things and asking what exactly it has to do with this topic, but I think that should suffice.

 

I'm just hoping someone (um anyone?) can address the questions that have been raised about Intelligent Design. I'm extremely interested in seeing answers to some questions that have been posed, including the ones I've asked. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 92g

So? Assuming that's true (only for the sake of discussion) what does that have to do with intelligent design, and whether or not it's scientific?

 

I could go on and on and on pulling out things and asking what exactly it has to do with this topic, but I think that should suffice.

The question is asked in the context of the evolution vs. creation debate. Its natural then to compare the scientific merrits of ID vs evolution, which means that the comparitive merrits of evolution as a scientific theory are implicit in the question.

 

The flip side of this question is "Goo-to-you Evolution- Is it religion?".

 

I hope that helps,

 

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goo-to-you evolution is nothing but observation and extrapolations.  There is not a single test which has shown macroevolution to be biologically possible.

 

  ToE has jumped to those conclusions. Example:  evolutionists see homology and conclude that it means common descent. They study peppered moths and conclude that minute changes over short periods of time equals huge changes over long periods of time.... again, where's the testing?

My hypothesis does not say that ToE is false.  It's states that ID was necessary.  You can prove that false, ie., that ID was not necessary, by showing that models of macroevolutionary transformation conform to laws of probability, that gene sequences in related organisms conform to the ToE model, etc.  This, as you say, doesn't prove the nonexistence of ID, but it proves that ID isn't necessary... and that's the basis of my hypothesis.

Your hypothesis cannot include evolution. Your new theory must stand on its own.

 

Seriously, what part of this can't you understand?

 

JusTed, I'm afraid at this point you're only spouting off your opinions.

No I'm not. I'm informing you of what the scientific method demands. It's not an opinion, it's a fact you can look up almost anywhere. I did it for you twice. You're simply ignoring me, the facts around you, and a definition of science you can find anywhere.

 

You say it can't be tested because interpretations are subjective.

 

It's worse. Your "hypothesis" (which isn't) didn't contain a test at all or any conditions for falsification or conformation. Let's review:

 

How is it testible?:  Observations in nature and correlating those observations with ID model vs evolution model.

 

Translation: we'll go out and nature and look.

 

How is this a test? Where is the test exactly? Describe the test in detail and the conditions for falsification or conformation of your theory. Keeping in mind if you can't do this, then it's no hypothesis at all.

 

Oh, and since you missed it the first few dozen times:

 

Evolution is not involved. Your theory must stand on its own.

 

These are not opinions, it's science and you can look it up anywhere. But you won't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your hypothesis cannot include evolution.  Your new theory must stand on its own.

 

Seriously, what part of this can't you understand?

No I'm not.  I'm informing you of what the scientific method demands.  It's not an opinion, it's a fact you can look up almost anywhere.  I did it for you twice.  You're simply ignoring me, the facts around you, and a definition of science you can find anywhere.

It's worse.  Your "hypothesis" (which isn't) didn't contain a test at all or any conditions for falsification or conformation.  Let's review:

Translation: we'll go out and nature and look.

 

How is this a test?  Where is the test exactly?  Describe the test in detail and the conditions for falsification or conformation of your theory.  Keeping in mind if you can't do this, then it's no hypothesis at all.

 

Oh, and since you missed it the first few dozen times:

 

Evolution is not involved.  Your theory must stand on its own.

 

These are not opinions, it's science and you can look it up anywhere.  But you won't...

5577[/snapback]

This is a pointless discussion because, according to your definition of "science", any theory regarding the origin of life is disqualified. You cannot set up an experiment to prove a historical event. Therefore, if you want to throw ID out of the realm of scientific discussion then goo-to-you evolution goes with it.

The fact that evolutionists attempt to suppress evidence against their theory only underscores the evolution is religion, not science. If an evolutionist wants to be truly objective which, as you say, is essential in scientific analysis, then they're going to look at all possibilities and not dogmatically exclude one under the pretext that it's not "science".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a pointless discussion because, according to your definition of "science", any theory regarding the origin of life is disqualified.

Okay, seriously, what thread are you reading?

 

It's not my definition of science; it's the definition of science. I'm just going to stop right here while we somehow get you to understand that science has an actual definition beyond what you and I think.

 

Science has a definition. Hypothesis has a definition.

 

You don't know either even though I've explained them both to you.

 

You can't claim ID is science or your hypothesis is valid since you have absolutely, unequivocally no idea what you're taking about. Again, not my opinion, go look it up. Go on...

 

You cannot set up an experiment to prove a historical event.  Therefore, if you want to throw ID out of the realm of scientific discussion then goo-to-you evolution goes with it.

 

You're talking about evolution again. I'm forced to conclude you just can't read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science has a definition.  Hypothesis has a definition.

Here's another from the University of Indiana:

 

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.s.is.html

 

Science must follow certain rules, such as:

--a. Scientific explanations must be based on careful observations and the testing of hypotheses.

--b. It must be possible to disprove a hypothesis.

--c. Scientific solutions cannot be based merely upon personal opinion, belief, or judgment.

--d. Scientific explanations cannot include supernatural forces (these can never be disproved).

--e. The "best" hypothesis, out of the choices, must be one which best fits several explicit criteria.

Let me know how many more of these you need to see before you accept that this is not my "version" of "science" and "hypothesis", but the ones that science actually uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, seriously, what thread are you reading?

 

It's not my definition of science; it's the definition of science.  I'm just going to stop right here while we somehow get you to understand that science has an actual definition beyond what you and I think.

 

Science has a definition.  Hypothesis has a definition.

 

You don't know either even though I've explained them both to you.

 

You can't claim ID is science or your hypothesis is valid since you have absolutely, unequivocally no idea what you're taking about.  Again, not my opinion, go look it up.  Go on...

You're talking about evolution again.  I'm forced to conclude you just can't read.

5580[/snapback]

If every field of science were as pure as you’d like, there would be no scientific debate. However, there are lots of areas under scientific investigation that do not fit your definition. The existence of black holes, for example, cannot be verified through experimentation. Electron clouds have been deduced based on observations.

 

You say my hypothesis is empty. You say that I can’t test it. What is “unscientific†about the hypothesis that macroevolution cannot proceed without intelligent input? Evolutionary theory has made that claim, so why is it unreasonable to prove it false? It is not unreasonable to deduce that if something cannot proceed through naturalistic explanations that ID is necessary. You think that is illogical to conclude that is x is false, y is true. Scientists make deductions of this type all the time. They draw conclusions based on observations. They make judgments. Is this entirely objective? No. Science is not always completely objective. If it were, there would be no debate. Geologists conclude that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Are there not other explanations for Uranium Lead ratios in the earth’s strata? Yes. They’ve made deductions based on observations. They think that their explanation makes more sense than some other interpretation. They can’t test their hypothesis in the same way that a mathematician can test a theorem.

 

In the context of this discussion, it is the height of absurdity for you to suppose that ID must conform to some rigid definition of science while at the same time ignoring the relevancy that evolution should be held to a similar standard. You are engaging in a fruitless intellectual game and are avoiding the real issue… Are proponents of evolution ready to withstand serious scientific scrutiny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Springer If you read the first post, it was established that this thread was for discussing the merits of ID.

 

First post, from the thread initiatorJohn Paul

This is a thread in which the current posted debate on ID - Is it scientific?- can be discussed. If requested I will clarify anything in my opening post (at least attempt to).

 

The point will be to either just expose the weaknesses in one or both arguments or strenghten/ refute the argument for the design inference.

 

All comments welcome.

 

 

Intelligent Design- Is it Scientific?

In the second post Joshua quickly agreed with (with an interesting point on the status of ID)

Scientific merits of ID

Scientific status of ID

 

The merits are plain and simple. ID is science because it pushes us to newer boundaries and beyond what we know. Above all, ID can be studied by means of observing the physical world. Anyone who argues otherwise is just not worth the effort.

 

The scientific status is of concern. To be fair ID requires an abundance of scientific research and documented experimentations if it is to succeed as an alternate theory. At the moment there isn’t quite enough and too many ID guns are pointing towards the Evolution camp when they should be pointing towards the future.

So I think the precedent is established, this topic is to discuss the merits (or not) of ID alone, there are after all numerous established criticisms of evolution and old earth currently running.

 

So, is ID scientific?

 

If yes, it must conform to the status quo of the current rules (obviously),

If no, it’s not scientific (under the current definition).

 

If you agree the answer is no, but feel cheated somehow because the rules are biased, then I suggest that the ID or YEC movement abandon ID as science, and form a new branch of investigation using different rules of investigation to prove mainstream science has got it wrong. If that line of investigation provides results then there should be no problem in persuading the scientific community of their error. Can’t really argue with a good result it stands on it’s merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say my hypothesis is empty.  You say that I can’t test it.

No, I'm not actually "saying" that; that's the case, or would you care to explain to me, in detail, how we test your hypothesis. Tell me...

 

Go on...

 

It is not unreasonable to deduce that if something cannot proceed through naturalistic explanations that ID is necessary.

Science only deals in the nautralistic. If a naturalistic explination doesn't cut it, then it's no longer science. Science doesn't deal in magic.

 

In the context of this discussion, it is the height of absurdity for you to suppose that ID must conform to some rigid definition of science while at the same time ignoring the relevancy that evolution should be held to a similar standard.  You are engaging in a fruitless intellectual game and are avoiding the real issue… Are proponents of evolution ready to withstand serious scientific scrutiny

I'll summarize this whole issue for you since you just don't get it.

 

You have no testable hypothesis.

 

You're incapable of presenting a case for ID; you can only trash evolution, and poorly at that.

 

ID is not science. It meets none (none) of the criteria you can look up anyhwere.

 

It's magic. Magic is not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms