Intelligent Design?

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 09:30 PM

Link to a real good long article:

Not by chance

I don't post this to defend the standard Judeo/Christian view of things. Only to point out that our thinking about evolution and bible stories may both be wrong and it is very hard to admit what we don't yet undertsand.

Scrum · 11-29-2006, 01:00 AM

Intelligent Design is just a wedge to try and get religion involved in science.

It has no empirical evidence to back it up.

Scrum · 11-29-2006, 01:05 AM

And this is the guy who wrote that article.

Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought the name looked familiar.

Kytro · 11-29-2006, 04:45 PM

ID isn't valid science as it's not falsifiable

RMNIXON · 11-29-2006, 08:27 PM

So the content of the article is invalid because of the theological backround of the author who wrote it? And because a number of people involved in the creationist movement (which I do not support) push ID then it is also invalid for discussion? I see I wasted my time here.

RMNIXON · 11-29-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

ID isn't valid science as it's not falsifiable

That is a good point. That is a major problem for the creationists. You can't just debunk evolutionary interpretations. That does not prove their "faith based" creation notions as valid ones. They need to come up with some testable hypothesis.

Scrum · 11-29-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

So the content of the article is invalid because of the theological backround of the author who wrote it? And because a number of people involved in the creationist movement (which I do not support) push ID then it is also invalid for discussion? I see I wasted my time here.

It's because the guy has tried to pull idiotic stunts to get ID included in scientific discussions, not because of his background.

I would say he's an unethical quack.

RMNIXON · 11-29-2006, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

It's because the guy has tried to pull idiotic stunts to get ID included in scientific discussions, not because of his background.

I would say he's an unethical quack.

I think it should be part of scientific discussions. And if that is supressed then it may be a real issue. However, I don't agree with the actvism to get this in the public schools. As I posted, just being critical of accidental evolution does not give equal weight to creationist notions. So I give the kids a break. But scientists are big boys and should be able to talk about such things without automatic ridicule. Many crazy ideas took a long time to gain scientific consensus. Like continental drift and Asteroid extinctions. Sorry but some scientist are indeed arrogant dogmatists!

I suspect this new popular author is one of those from the interview quotes I have read, although I must confess I have not read the best selling book yet.

Scrum · 11-30-2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think it should be part of scientific discussions. And if that is supressed then it may be a real issue. However, I don't agree with the actvism to get this in the public schools. As I posted, just being critical of accidental evolution does not give equal weight to creationist notions. So I give the kids a break. But scientists are big boys and should be able to talk about such things without automatic ridicule. Many crazy ideas took a long time to gain scientific consensus. Like continental drift and Asteroid extinctions. Sorry but some scientist are indeed arrogant dogmatists!

I suspect this new popular author is one of those from the interview quotes I have read, although I must confess I have not read the best selling book yet.

Why should it be in scientific discussion? There is no scientific basis for ID.

Dumpy Dooby · 12-01-2006, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think it should be part of scientific discussions. And if that is supressed then it may be a real issue. However, I don't agree with the actvism to get this in the public schools. As I posted, just being critical of accidental evolution does not give equal weight to creationist notions. So I give the kids a break. But scientists are big boys and should be able to talk about such things without automatic ridicule. Many crazy ideas took a long time to gain scientific consensus. Like continental drift and Asteroid extinctions. Sorry but some scientist are indeed arrogant dogmatists!

If you think that CREATIONISTS are the ones that exposed the very few hoaxes that had something to do with evolutionary discoveries, you're off your fuckin' rocker. It's these "dogmatic" scientists that are critical of one another, and they prove each other wrong. Science is a self-correcting field. The arguments with Creationists is purely for entertainment purposes and nothing more. The Creationists are a bunch of nonsensical idiots.

avsp · 12-02-2006, 11:55 AM

The desire for christian creationists to engage in 'scientific' debate just shows the poverty of their position IMO.

For them to even to consider doing so is for them to admit defeat. OTOH there is nothing 'wrong' with having 'belief' or 'faith'.

Right, I'm off to insert ice cream cornets into my CD player so I can hear the sound of cold

imind · 12-04-2006, 11:50 PM

from your article...

Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

possible evolutionary development of bacterial flagella
meyer's article was written in 2005, and he claims bacterial flagella problematic for evolution, yet all of the data collected from this essay is pre-2004. is meyer lying?
'irreducible complexity' can evolve naturally

and i'll be damned if he doesn't introduce paley's watchmaker analogy, again.

as has been said, ID provides nothing to test and can make no predictions. it is not being suppressed, just kept out of science classes.

up|dn · 12-06-2006, 02:06 AM

ID belongs in philosophy classes. It has merits, and should be discussed, but it has nothing to do with science. Those that want it in science classes want it there for only one reason: because their religion is threatened by evolution. Starting with a premise is contrary to the scientific method, especially if that premise is one that by its very nature, cannot be tested.

RMNIXON · 12-06-2006, 02:20 PM

This does not read like Creationist Clap Trap to me:

"In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed."

Did anyone of you actually read the article?

RMNIXON · 12-06-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by up|dn

ID belongs in philosophy classes. It has merits, and should be discussed, but it has nothing to do with science. Those that want it in science classes want it there for only one reason: because their religion is threatened by evolution. Starting with a premise is contrary to the scientific method, especially if that premise is one that by its very nature, cannot be tested.

More:

"Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads."

How can you make the claim that something can't be tested when you refuse to even duscuss the subject? I challenge these ideas to be testable. I don't dismiss them lightly because of anti-religious prejudice. You seem to cofuse ID with notions of an invisible Christian God. They are not one and the same. Unless you wish to deny that intelligent life exists you cannot refute the possiblity of intelligent design in biological systems.

RMNIXON · 12-06-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by imind

as has been said, ID provides nothing to test and can make no predictions. it is not being suppressed, just kept out of science classes.

I don't want it in the science classes. But if it is so easy to refute upon peer review then it should be an easy subject for scientists. Instead I see knee Jerk non-discussion and ridicule. These are forms of argument you will find on this board, but they are not the practice of science.

Scrum · 12-06-2006, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't want it in the science classes. But if it is so easy to refute upon peer review then it should be an easy subject for scientists. Instead I see knee Jerk non-discussion and ridicule. These are forms of argument you will find on this board, but they are not the practice of science.

It was. The discussion went like this...

ID: We believe that life has an intelligent designer. Life is too complex to have spawned randomly.

Science: Do you have any empirical evidence to support this claim?

ID: No

Science: Come back when you do.

Scrum · 12-06-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

This does not read like Creationist Clap Trap to me:

"In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed."

Did anyone of you actually read the article?

Someone should give these guys a warshack test and see if they answer god everytime.

imind · 12-07-2006, 01:58 AM

But if it is so easy to refute upon peer review then it should be an easy subject for scientists. Instead I see knee Jerk non-discussion and ridicule.

re-read my post. science has addressed irreducible complexity.

what else would you like addressed? be specific.

Dumpy Dooby · 12-07-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't want it in the science classes. But if it is so easy to refute upon peer review then it should be an easy subject for scientists. Instead I see knee Jerk non-discussion and ridicule. These are forms of argument you will find on this board, but they are not the practice of science.

Why should science dignify ID with a response at all? Should science also hold serious discussions with the Flat Earth Society?