Interesting report on debate between ID/Evolution

are your arguments so bankrupt that you can't defend them GT?

yes, Gould believed in punctuated equilibrium and it drove Dawkins crazy....Punk Eek is a silly excuse for the fossil record not cooperating.....but at least Gould was honest about it. Dawkins tries to maintain gradualism when the evidence isn't there, while Gould tried to do the best he could with the lack of evidence didn't he?
 
mop- you are a perfect example of not understanding what science is. Can you give me one specific scientific example that supports Intelligent Design? There is simply no scientific basis for I.D. These is basically supposition, and inference that is not supported by any basis of scientific research.

Please cite the science you specifically believe is evidence of ID?
 
summer, you are the one who doesn't understand ID, there are many examples, but i will point to one of the standby principles of irreducible complexity. this is the notion that there are countless systems (blood clotting, eye's focusing, the cell etc) which are not reducible to simpler systems that provide a reproductive advantage. the notion of irreducible complexity recognizes that the complexity seen in these systems is such that they could not have arisen from lesser systems without intelligent orchestration.

can you propose a workable model with adequate tests (not merely vain speculation) which reproduces how the simplest cells might have arisen over time with modification? keep in mind that the simplest living cell is far more complex than a super computer but we are supposed to believe this came about by random mutation? yet after 50 years of understanding a good deal of this complexity we still don't have a working model (with testing confirmed) which illustrates how this might have arisen gradualistically.
 
So mop you cannot provide any actual scientific data except supposition to support ID?

Are you aware they used to draw large sea serpents on the outer edges of maps for unexplored areas to explain why ships did not return from these areas?

I can substitute the phrase "unintelligent design" for your antedotal and suppositional inferences and have exactly the same scientific value relating to the theory of "U.I.D." The supposition is that complexity cannot be explained by ANY other explanation than a higher being designed them. There is simply no scientific data to support this suppositon.
 
GT, design is not magic...it isn't even necessarily creation, it is just design. that just means that someone would be orchestrating it. this is perfectly within the bounds of using naturalistic means.

once again, you don't understand ID.
 
The main problem is that science is a process and ID in specific and creationism in general is an ideology.

The words on the beach argument says that higher complexity must be the result of manipulation. In this metaphor, the answer is clear... there is a wide and empty beach with no other examples of organized complexity therefore the one instance of organization MUST be manufactured. The problem is this is not what we observe in nature, complex organization is everywhere in abundance. Walking on an empty beach and seeing writing is a clear indicator manipulation... but replace the empty sand with an infinite amount of random letters, and all of a sudden what once was clearly the result of intelligence, seems the result of iteration not design. The problem is there has been, to this point, no clear discovery or observance of "writing on the beach". That we "feel" special is hardly the point. The pervasive appearance of complex organization may be directly because of the hand of God (or The Designer if you prefer the paper thin dodge), or it may occur simply because things in this universe arrange themselves naturally... but this really isn't the argument on the table.

The argument, to put it succinctly, is that there IS no Intelligent Design science. There are no experiments you can run nor is there naturalistic observation that you can make. It is an ideology built entirely on the assumption that there are/were unseen forces at work. It may in fact be correct, but it is not science. If it is not science, then it shouldn't be treated as such. If Intelligent Design could offer a single experiment, observation or have any predictive value whatsoever, then it WOULD be discussed in the classroom. ID can't accomplish this, its proponents will verify this statement as fact... so I'm not entirely sure what there is left to talk about.

ID starts with the presumption of a conclusion, and in so doing, it is not the result of a process but rather of an ideology. It is not a science in search of an audience, it is an philosophy in search of a disguise.
 
GT, you are clearly not informed on ID beyond reading from those who hate it or see it as young earth creationism with make-up on. i am not lying, i have read half a dozen books on the subject and i keep up with Dembski's blog (www.uncommondescent.com) as well as reading countless articles over the years. if you know anything about these guys, most are anything BUT young earth creationists and some make no statements about the designer beyond that there is one.....many do believe in a Judeo-Christian concept of God and assume that is the designer. ID is a big tent and there is room for all types who believe in a designer...accusing me of lying for God because you happen to have a very narrow-minded view of me and ID is once again showing your true colors and says nothing about me.
 
well heck, let me follow that up with saying my rhetoric with you, of all people (ah, maybe johnny too sometimes) is the harshest. in my insecurities i am harsh with you out of some sort of need to protect myself by puffing out my chest. it is wrong and i do apologize. i want to be a better man in this area. i hope to be one from here forward towards you.
 
again mop - I give you the opportunity to give one piece of scientific evidence that supports ID?



remember the basis of the argument is that I.D. is science.... however the inabilty for you to put forth any scientific data supporting I.D. after being asked 3 separate times seems to reinforce the argument against I.D. as scientific.

So again (for a 3rd time) you have the opportunity to provide some scientific evidence that supports the underlying premises of I.D.
 
mia, you actually entirely missed my point here. i was saying that ID is only saying that there is design in nature, not that the designer is God. now, many happen to believe that the designer is God, but the theory of ID doesn't try to claim that because all that can be shown by ID is that there is a designer, not who that designer is per se.

so your critique fails to land a blow against my analogy. try again if i am missing something please. i am only saying that intelligence behind design in the universe should be allowed at the table (not given equal time in classrooms lest you misunderstand me again), not rejected a priori based upon some false understanding of science.
 
If there is a misunderstanding on that point, it is because ID proponents offer it as an alternative to evolution. Since evolution is a theory of speciation, I'm not sure what logic allows you to disagree with it in principal but still accept its mechanisms as fact. Evolution is the theory of common decent, if ID does not challenge that, then it is not an alternative to evolution by any definition.

I am a creationist, mop, so your assumptions that I'm hostile to IDers in principal is laughable. I attack ID because I appreciate science, and I have yet to hear a description of ID that doesn't totally undermine the pursuit. Skepticism is the heart of science. IF the theory can't bare scrutiny it should not be tolerated.

Your assertion that science is protecting its "orthodoxy" is just plain backwards. You ignore the fact that evolution has been more singularly vetted than any other offering of science in the last two hundred years, and instead suggest that science is just protecting it because it is accepted. It is accepted because it is robust and bears intense scrutiny. Evolution stands on its own merits, not because the establishment holds it up.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Mop, rereading what I wrote last night I may have been out of line a little in my rejection of the filter. This is something central to your belief system, and I dismissed it out of hand, and that was wrong... I'm sorry.

That said, you offer the filter as a tool of discovery, and as its name suggests it is not that. The filter is a method of categorizing observation, but it is not a method of data collection. It is a filter which marks anything which is not readily explainable as creation. My problem with this is it attaches a conclusion to phenomena which inherently discourages further investigation... this is not scientific. This is my objection to the filter, and I should have stated it as such last night.
 
mia, i am running out the door and will try to answer later, but i am curious if you have read on the explanatory filter? Dembski does a fairly robust job of describing it in several of his books.....

do you know what it is or are you extrapolating only based upon my $.02 description of it?

i look forward to continuing this discussion later though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top