I'm not sure that we're actually disagreeing here. It seems to me that we're pretty much on the same page except for a few technical points. I'll try to break my argument down for ease of response.
1. Science, as a naturalistic discipline, can not posit supernatural causes as explanations for natural phenomena such as life. 2. Atheism, the lack of belief in a deity, is also naturalistic and can not posit supernatural causes for natural phenomena. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Already off track. Atheism is not "lack of belief in a deity", it is "belief in lack of a deity." Small change in wording, large change in meaning.
Science is not inherently prohibited from positing supernatural causes for phenomena--rather, it is limited to proposing observable causes for phenomena, which often comes out to the same result, but not necessarily. If a supernatural phenomena could be repeatedly observed, Science could eventually accept it, while Atheism could not.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution is a religious belief set, which starts with the basic precept that there cannot be a God. Nothing else is allowed to contradict this, regardless of what any evidence may suggest. Once established that there cannot be a God, it then goes on to attempt to explain all things in such a way that no God is required for their function, and any theory, no matter how valid by other standards, that suggests the existence of a God is immediately dismissed as Untrue. Scientific Evolution is just one theory that happens to be nearly universally held by believers in Atheistic Evolution Philosophy, because there are no alternative origin of life theories that do not call upon a God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering that I am both atheist and evolutionist, I think I would have heard about that somewhere. Perhaps I didn't get the memo. It seems more likely that it's a strawman conjured up to make both atheism and evolution seem intolerant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree. Most likely you have heard about it, but I've confused you because I didn't use the official name for it. But thats because, as far as I know, there IS no official name for it, so I just made up a descriptive title. And its not a Strawman at all. I didn't describe that set of beliefs in order to make them seem less valid. I merely described the set of beliefs that I have actually encountered in the vast majority of Atheists I have come into contact with. Its not substantially different than the descriptions used to describe followers of any other religion when they come into contact with facts difficult to explain via their current world view.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think the difference is this:
Atheism: As there is insufficient evidence for the supernatural, we will not believe in it. Science: The supernatural is outside of the scope of our study.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I propose a slightly different conclusion.
Science: The supernatural is outside of the scope of our study. (Agreed there.) Atheism: Our religious beliefs tell us there can't be anything supernatural, so we won't bother to look at it.
I'm not sure that we're actually disagreeing here. It seems to me that we're pretty much on the same page except for a few technical points. I'll try to break my argument down for ease of response.
1. Science, as a naturalistic discipline, can not posit supernatural causes as explanations for natural phenomena such as life. 2. Atheism, the lack of belief in a deity, is also naturalistic and can not posit supernatural causes for natural phenomena. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Already off track. Atheism is not "lack of belief in a deity", it is "belief in lack of a deity." Small change in wording, large change in meaning.
Science is not inherently prohibited from positing supernatural causes for phenomena--rather, it is limited to proposing observable causes for phenomena, which often comes out to the same result, but not necessarily. If a supernatural phenomena could be repeatedly observed, Science could eventually accept it, while Atheism could not. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If something is repeatedly observed, its no longer supernatural . . .
Well, I guess that really comes down to the definition of "supernatural", doesn't it? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Literally speaking, the word "supernatural" means "not normal", so if something was observed to happen repeatedly it could become normal I suppose, and it wouldn't count as supernatural in that sense.
But the way its normally used, "supernatural" doesn't really refer to whether something is common or uncommon, merely that it is linked to the metaphysical. In this sense, something with a metaphysical origin could occur every day and still be considered supernatural.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 04:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050804/EDIT/508040323/1003' target='_blank'>http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../508040323/1003</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Is this a joke? On that page you linked Bush remains about as neutral as anyone could be. The only moron was whoever wrote that up - they're great at being spin doctors who inject nothing but their own opinions.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-SentrySteve+Aug 5 2005, 11:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SentrySteve @ Aug 5 2005, 11:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 04:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050804/EDIT/508040323/1003' target='_blank'>http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../508040323/1003</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is this a joke? On that page you linked Bush remains about as neutral as anyone could be. The only moron was whoever wrote that up - they're great at being spin doctors who inject nothing but their own opinions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Being neutral does not mean "Well people are talking about stuff so I guess they are both right!"
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Merkaba+Aug 4 2005, 12:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Merkaba @ Aug 4 2005, 12:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe we had to recite the Lords prayer at the end of assembly in Middle School (up to the age of 12/13) but that was all. Something bugs me about repeatedly pledging allegence with my country, sounds more like brainwashing to me. At least the Lords prayer is universally valid and doesn't focus on one country.
Merkaba, the anti-patriot. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Im an atheist, never recited the pledge of allegiance or did many of the other things that are "patriotic" because I thought they were either influenced by religion or plain stupid, yet I'm in the middle of a warzone wearing a US flag on my right shoulder. Don't confuse patriotism with conforming.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 5 2005, 05:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 5 2005, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SentrySteve+Aug 5 2005, 11:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SentrySteve @ Aug 5 2005, 11:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 04:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050804/EDIT/508040323/1003' target='_blank'>http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../508040323/1003</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is this a joke? On that page you linked Bush remains about as neutral as anyone could be. The only moron was whoever wrote that up - they're great at being spin doctors who inject nothing but their own opinions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Being neutral does not mean "Well people are talking about stuff so I guess they are both right!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And he never said they were both right...
As the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world - he is trying to remain neutral on a controvtersial subject -- who would have thought!
He also said how he has no control over what they teach anyway...
You really have little to no argument, other than you personally hate bush so you try to criticize everything he does.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-SentrySteve+Aug 5 2005, 05:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SentrySteve @ Aug 5 2005, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And he never said they were both right...
As the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world - he is trying to remain neutral on a controvtersial subject -- who would have thought!
He also said how he has no control over what they teach anyway...
You really have little to no argument, other than you personally hate bush so you try to criticize everything he does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks for the ad hominem.
You are missing the point of this. The leader of the free world publically advocated teaching pseudoscience in science classes. That's pretty gosh darn scary.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 4 2005, 12:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 4 2005, 12:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aegeri! I choose you!
<a href='http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=191383&highlight=' target='_blank'>http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtop...1383&highlight=</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A fellow PAer? Nice.
Reposted for why ID is wrong.
Around the net I’ve seen this expression come up called ‘turtles all the way down’, usually referenced to intelligent design. The term comes from a story, of unknown source as it seems to come up often from different people, where essentially a famous lecturer was giving a talk on astronomy. After he was finished a little old lady came down and told him he had it all wrong.
“The world is really on the back of a giant tortoise” the woman said to which the scientist asked, in an attempt to stump her most likely, “Well then, what is the tortoise standing on?” To this the lady triumphantly replied “You’re very clever young man, but it’s of no use – it’s turtles all the way down”.
In many respects this is the problem that intelligent design faces when it proposes a ‘designer’ is natural. For example, when we take Dembski mathematics, fancy as they are and apply it to the designer we find, unsurprisingly, that the designer must himself be designed. If we do the same thing again, we find that each designer in turn requires another designer. Eventually, we have an infinite regress of designers, each one designing the previous one; turtles all the way down in other words.
The solution to this problem from ID, but the one they refuse to admit, is that inevitably they must admit somewhere down the line that there is a supernatural designer. Essentially a designer that according to their own ideas doesn’t require being designed first by something else and can do the ‘initial’ designer. Now this doesn’t invalidate immediately that we may have been designed as some assert. We could be the product of design from an alien race that was really created by a supernatural entity to begin with for whatever purpose- it is just that we have a perfectly good explanation in evolution already.
Unfortunately, when we meet that race and share tea we suddenly end up at square one anyway: What designed our designers? It’s not surprising to me that those who want to masquerade ID as some form of ‘valid’ science suddenly become completely allergic to this concept and try to explain it away as fast as possible. Essentially, they want to have their pet concept that things were ‘designed’ yet they don’t want to deal with explaining how it was designed.
For example, let us just say that there is some biological structure we want to know is designed. As scientists, natural questions arise such as how did the designer produce the structure in question, what method did the designer use and why did the designer make the particular structure in that matter. More importantly, they need to make a hypothesis that competes with the evolutionary hypothesis and provides a better explanation not just a explanation. The explanation of a designer must account for the methods, reasons and motivations for making that structure to be conclusive.
For example, let’s say there is a new terrible disease that has struck the world and is beginning to kill hundreds of people world wide. How could we tell if this is an organism that has evolved by chance or that it has been designed by terrorists wanting to use it as a biological weapon (say it escaped). We would have two competing hypotheses immediately for the origin of this disease, but not because of the ideas of the ‘intelligent design’ movement, but rather because of something we do know:
We know about human designers.
Firstly, I would try to isolate the organism that is responsible, most likely a virus of some sort and then isolate its DNA to sequence it. Once sequenced, in other words we have the ‘code’ of nucleotides (Adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine) that make up this organisms DNA. We could infer it to be designed by humans or that it evolved by looking at this organisms genome.
In the case of a human designer, we could look at the series of genes and how they are linked together in the organisms DNA. Commonly used in the laboratory are enzymes called ‘restriction enzymes’ that cut DNA at specific locations. Importantly in genetic engineering, they leave little overhangs of the DNA strand they cut allowing you to ‘stitch’ the DNA fragments they produce together. This is important in making transgenic animals and producing novel gene clusters (for example to insert a gene into an expression system like a plasmid).
If we saw a series of genes along the organisms genome that look to have restriction enzymes placed exactly between each one, that would almost be ‘smoking’ gun evidence that this may have been an organism designed by human beings. If we look further and we find genes that would have been difficult, if not impossible to have been captured through horizontal gene transfer, such as entire genes of the human immune system like IL-4 (which when inserted into mousepox virus made it much more lethal) then that would be even better evidence for this organism being designed.
On the other hand, this hypothesis still has to compete with the current scientific understanding of evolution. We already know that viruses can exchange segments of DNA if they co-infect the same cell as another virus, and that bacteriophages can capture pieces of DNA from bacteria and transfer them togother species. Additionally, retroviruses can insert themselves into the genomes of their host, being a potential explanation for the origin of a human gene.
But again, I want to emphasise something we’re talking about an organism being detected by design yes, but because we know of the methods of the potential designer. As ID proponents often point out while they sneeze half to death, ID isn’t about trying to work out what the designer is or the methods that it used, just that somehow life is designed.
But let’s review that more carefully:
1) Life is designed 2) The mechanism of this design is not something we want to talk about 3) Ergo, if we don’t want to talk about a mechanism then by default we are admitting we can’t talk about the designer 4) With no mechanism or designer, how do you infer design at all to begin with?
Let’s go back over my potential bioweapon example
1) A new organism is discovered and it may have been a designed weapon 2) We know 1 could be possible, because human beings have the ability to manipulate the genetics of living organisms, using restriction enzymes, plasmids we’ve ‘domesticated’ and other techniques. 3) We know that humans would have the motivations to make such a deadly organism because biological weapons have been used in the past. 4) As we know 2 and we know 3, we can directly test 1 to establish if it was designed or not because we have suitable grounds to determine this by the methodology and knowledge of a potential designer (human beings).
Additionally, unlike claims of ‘design’ from most ID members, this is also inherently falsifiable logic because we can rule that another mechanism (evolution) may be a much better explanation. In fact, it may be it was simply an example of a newly evolved pathogen but it would at least in both cases be testable as to the origin of the newly derived organism.
Inherently ID has the problem where it is incapable and indeed unwilling to talk about their ‘designer’. They know, just as well as their opponent’s, that ultimately ID rests on no true empirical or testable ground without having an actual verified designer. There is no way for them to ever rule out evolution, which itself, has numerous testable and falsifiable claims about the organisms and structures we see. Without a way of providing the mechanism of design or the designer, they provide no logical reason to infer any sort of design in human beings or anything else for that matter.
ID is, without a designer and refusing to talk about anything to do with said designer isn’t “God-of-the-gaps”. ID is “No-designer-at-all-to-put-into-the-gaps” which is even worse, because at least with “God-of-the-gaps” you at least have named the designer. Even when you have you then end up at square one if that designer was natural, who designed them? Then it's back to turtles all the way down.
This is a fair enough and short enough summary:
ID is inherently not science and this is well demonstrated with one dilemma.
ID is the religion in scientific clothing, being at once in defiance of a supernatural God yet ultimately requiring a supernatural being. This is because the same 'methods' they use for proving a designer made aspects of life now indicates this natural designer was itself designed, which was designed, which is then designed etc: essentially turtles all the way down. To solve this problem, ID proponents must inherently rely on invoking an unnatural ‘designer’ in order to end the regress of turtles but in doing so render their theory impossible to disprove and no longer science.
This isn't new. Its already been posted a couple pages back, and I already gave an answer to it. But if you insist I'll repost.
ID Theory, when taken to its logical conclusion, does indeed imply a supernatural creator. THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE THEORY! But it seems to be that whenever this implication is brought up, logical discussion comes to a screeching halt, so ID proponents are understandably reluctant to mention it.
"ID Theory, taken to its logical conclusion" only means something because ID theory is based on logic. This logic can be scientifically expressed and debated just as well as the logic of any other theory. It is irrational to dismiss the logic simply because, if it was true, it would imply the existence of a Creator.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 5 2005, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 5 2005, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This isn't new. Its already been posted a couple pages back. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My mistake. I saw ID in the title and though "Wow, Aegeri already debunked it as far as I'm concerned. I think I'll post his little shpiel."
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 6 2005, 01:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 6 2005, 01:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ID Theory, when taken to its logical conclusion, does indeed imply a supernatural creator. THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE THEORY! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> While that's true it does tend to discount it as a <i>scientific theory</i>, as the existence of a supernatural creator, as Aegeri says, is not falsifiable.
Hence, Science class is the wrong place to be teaching this.
That would only be true if a Supernatural Creator was a <i>basis</i> for ID. But its not a basis, its a conclusion, which is very different. You can have a perfectly scientific theory using nothing but naturalistic processes, and still reach a supernatural conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 5 2005, 10:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 5 2005, 10:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That would only be true if a Supernatural Creator was a <i>basis</i> for ID. But its not a basis, its a conclusion, which is very different. You can have a perfectly scientific theory using nothing but naturalistic processes, and still reach a supernatural conclusion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you can't reach a supernatural conclusion with natural processes. 1+1 equals 2. 1+1 does not equal <i>i.</i>
I don't know why you persist in your defense of ID. Aegeri's destroyed it multiple times and not just in that link I posted. He's trashed it several times in our very own discussion forum. ID answers and predicts nothing. The components of ID like irreducible complexity have been dismantled. ID posits a creator but has no information of this being or beings. The creator is the central pillar of ID so how you can say it's not a basis is beyond me. Without a designer, there is no design.
At this point, I give up. I'm clearly not going to convince you of anything and you're intent on seeing ID as not only reasonable, but entirely scientific. I suspect that no amount of evidence or logical argument is going to convince you otherwise. Opening the door to "theories" that can't be falsified is folly.
I leave with the fear that in the near future, President Bush will get way on this and sink American science classes even further down the totem pole. No Child Left Behind indeed.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 6 2005, 01:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 6 2005, 01:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, you can't reach a supernatural conclusion with natural processes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Only because you have already dismissed all supernatural conclusions as impossible, based on your religious beliefs. You are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, but you should at least recognize them for what they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know why you persist in your defense of ID. Aegeri's destroyed it multiple times and not just in that link I posted. He's trashed it several times in our very own discussion forum. ID answers and predicts nothing. The components of ID like irreducible complexity have been dismantled.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Trashed--certainly. He has launched copious amounts of fury and venom at it, I'm sure. That doesn't necessarily mean its been disproved. Specifically, the ID thread in this form was finished up, abandoned (and locked? I can't remember) before I became active here, so I had no chance to comment on the debate at the time. If Aegeri was arguing against the likes of AvengerX, then its really no surprise he came out on top in the debate, since his opponents had no grasp of logic. You can not simply refer back to an Aegeri vs AvengerX debate as the end-all proof of a concept.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ID posits a creator but has no information of this being or beings. The creator is the central pillar of ID so how you can say it's not a basis is beyond me. Without a designer, there is no design.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your flaw is in overlooking the causality. There is a substantial difference between "we know there is a designer, therefore X must have been designed by him", and "we know X was designed, therefore there must be a designer." The causality of the ID logic places the designer as the conclusion, not the assumption.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At this point, I give up. I'm clearly not going to convince you of anything and you're intent on seeing ID as not only reasonable, but entirely scientific. I suspect that no amount of evidence or logical argument is going to convince you otherwise. Opening the door to "theories" that can't be falsified is folly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have seen ID repeatedly dismissed here as being either scientifically rediculous or outside the realm of science altogether, but no actual evidence has been shown for the first, and the logic presented for the second is not sound. I am willing to fairly judge evidence. I am even willing to entertain multiple viewpoints as possible. I am not the one dismissing a widely held view out of hand without reason.
Just curious. What part of the "turtle analogy" don't you get? Sure, if we just pretend ID only goes <b>ONE</b> step to the Aliens who created life here, or threw the souls into the volcano to blow up (go go Scientology!), or whatever and we already all agree that aliens wander around altering things and programming life, then it's viable.
Evolution attempts to explain everything with what we have available to us (fossil records, speciation or whatever you all call it, and so forth), ID attempts to explain it with a "well what if ..." using NOTHING (read: <b>NOTHING</b>) as a basis for this assumption. What aren't you getting?
Sure life is complex, so is NS. Humans designed NS. Therefore humans must have been designed? I really don't get where you come from.
Now, to shriek at you for a bit... <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Only because you have already dismissed all supernatural conclusions as impossible, based on your religious beliefs. You are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, but you should at least recognize them for what they are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, what? Science doesn't like explaining things off as "the monkeys did it." Why is the earth not flat? "the monkeys did it" What keeps the earth in orbit around the sun? "the monkeys did it" Why are people so stupid? "the monkeys did it." We'd never get anything done if "supernatural causes" were allowed to explain things. It's the ultimate in cop-outs. If we had a constant supernatural cause to cite for unexplainable events, this would be different. However, as we advance in technology we're able to observe things more closely; for example, energy that used to just disappear (impossible according to our current theories) was discovered to have not disappeared, etc. We never assumed the energy we couldn't find was "taken back by God for a while" (aka "the monkeys did it"), we just assumed our analyzing tools weren't good enough (which was the correct assumption.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ID posits a creator but has no information of this being or beings. The creator is the central pillar of ID so how you can say it's not a basis is beyond me. Without a designer, there is no design.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your flaw is in overlooking the causality. There is a substantial difference between "we know there is a designer, therefore X must have been designed by him", and "we know X was designed, therefore there must be a designer." The causality of the ID logic places the designer as the conclusion, not the assumption.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like I said earlier. We're supposed to assume this "Designer" theory only goes one step? The aliens/God/whatever were formed how, then?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have seen ID repeatedly dismissed here as being either scientifically ridiculous or outside the realm of science altogether, but no actual evidence has been shown for the first, and the logic presented for the second is not sound.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are we even talking about the same ID? And if there's evidence <b>supporting ID in any <u>form fashion or manner</u></b> we'd probably give it more than a hearty chuckle. Scientific theories don't get to vote themselves into existence. I can't really touch the second one as you seem to think supernatural (read: "the monkey did it!") solutions ought to be considered.
Sorry, I just plain old don't get what you're trying to say. Use smaller words? (note-I've removed some personal attacks on my first edit, I may re-edit a few more times if I find myself being too offensive)
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 6 2005, 06:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 6 2005, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Only because you have already dismissed all supernatural conclusions as impossible, based on your religious beliefs. You are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, but you should at least recognize them for what they are. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that <i>you can't scientifically research the existence of a god</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin-Insane+Aug 6 2005, 08:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane @ Aug 6 2005, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 6 2005, 06:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 6 2005, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Only because you have already dismissed all supernatural conclusions as impossible, based on your religious beliefs. You are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, but you should at least recognize them for what they are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that <i>you can't scientifically research the existence of a god</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There are in fact many researchers doing exactly that. But its clear that what seem to me to be scientific reasons to believe in god are perceived entirely differently by you (plural), so I'll give up here. It seems pretty clear I'm not changing anyones mind on this one most-important question that Insane has highlighted for us.
Could you give examples? I don't see how you can hope to prove God with the scientific method, so showing us some examples of it would be handy. Just saying "well, you can" doesn't really get us anywhere.
And who would care? Everyone here has already made clear they consider the whole concept an excercise in futility. They don't believe there could possibly be ANY sort of physical proof of the supernatural, so what in particular I mention won't make any difference.
I'm just curious. I.D. sites I've seen focus on disproving evolution rather than laying down the case for I.D. properly. It would be interesting to see one that doesn't (and it sounds like you know a few).
I would be curious to see these "sites" and "proof" as well, considering all other I.D./creationist sites state "god did this, evolution is the wrongzor".
Unfortunately its true that most ID sites spend most of their time arguing <i>against</i> evolution instead of <i>for</i> ID, but I'll see if I can hunt one up for you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 6 2005, 01:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 6 2005, 01:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 6 2005, 01:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 6 2005, 01:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, you can't reach a supernatural conclusion with natural processes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Only because you have already dismissed all supernatural conclusions as impossible, based on your religious beliefs. You are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, but you should at least recognize them for what they are.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> See my sig for my opinion on that one.
Also, CXWF writes: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, I'd say you just proved my point. Your argument for dismissing the theory of ID + Supernatural Creator seems to be "I can't prove it wrong". Now THATS some twisted logic. It can't be proved wrong, therefore it can't possibly be true?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You may or may not know this: I am the Creator. By your logic, you should at the very least be willing to accept that it might be true. Are you?
ID has no place in schools. Period. The evidence is abundant in this thread, on both sides of the fence but for different reasons.
As you might gather, I am an Atheist but I am fully prepared to accept the existance of God/Jehova/Santa Claus as soon as I have hard evidence that I can grasp.
Until that day I am the guy in the corner snickering and having a beer while those who saw the light are communicating with their invisible friends. Most people who hear voices are locked up. Unless, naturally, it is the voice of God. I never saw the distinction.
<!--QuoteBegin-Silverwing+Aug 6 2005, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Silverwing @ Aug 6 2005, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, I'd say you just proved my point. Your argument for dismissing the theory of ID + Supernatural Creator seems to be "I can't prove it wrong". Now THATS some twisted logic. It can't be proved wrong, therefore it can't possibly be true?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You may or may not know this: I am the Creator. By your logic, you should at the very least be willing to accept that it might be true. Are you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Theres two answers to that.
Scientific answer: You have a birth certificate. Your birth certificate shows the date you showed up on this planet. Since the planet was here before you were, you can't possibly have created it. Therefore it can be disproven, and the logic I was using doesn't apply here.
Religious answer: There is only one creator, and he has already made clear the conditions under which he will return to the earth in physical form. Since those conditions are not yet here, your claim is disproven. Again, the logic you refer to doesn't apply here.
On a semi-completely unrelated note, Cxwf, technically god (referring to YHWH) never SAID he was the only one. Just that you're only to worship him.
<!--QuoteBegin-Exodus 20+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Exodus 20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 20:1God spoke all these words, saying: 20:2 I am God <b>your</b> Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, from the place of slavery. 20:3 Do not have any other gods <b>before</b> Me. 20:4 Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. 20:5 Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who <b>demands exclusive worship</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note there, I didn't say there was only one deity, or only one supernatural being, or anything like that. I said there was only one <i>creator</i>. And if YHWH created everything, then there could be half a dozen other deities sitting around in heaven somewhere, and hed still be the only creator.
we're getting all freaky-deaky and religious and stuff.
ID suggests we were designed, but it doesn't specify that we were designed by just one "being." unless "being" is allowed to mean "Group of people, corporation, that crazy guy nobody ever talks to." All the evidence I've seen so far suggest that ID is just creationism with a new cover story. That's all the evidence I have seen so far.
I'll be honest, though. I have <b>yet</b> to see an "unbiased" opinion on ID. They're either by pro-Evolution or Pro-ID people. I haven't seen someone who is capable of taking a neutral stance on this subject. I think it's mainly because ID is based on "hokey science." I back what Cyndane said, however. If you can find somewhere that has some sort of revelation on ID that is actually valid or useful, you'll sway me. I don't think you can, because politics have taken this idea and ran with it (so that needle is in a giant manure pile, instead of a haystack.)
[edit]I missed an end quote, and I fixed a sentence[/edit]
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 6 2005, 01:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 6 2005, 01:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have seen ID repeatedly dismissed here as being either scientifically rediculous or outside the realm of science altogether, but no actual evidence has been shown for the first, and the logic presented for the second is not sound. I am willing to fairly judge evidence. I am even willing to entertain multiple viewpoints as possible. I am not the one dismissing a widely held view out of hand without reason. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It does not stand up to <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability' target='_blank'>falsifiability</a> which means it cannot be science.
Comments
I'm not sure that we're actually disagreeing here. It seems to me that we're pretty much on the same page except for a few technical points. I'll try to break my argument down for ease of response.
1. Science, as a naturalistic discipline, can not posit supernatural causes as explanations for natural phenomena such as life.
2. Atheism, the lack of belief in a deity, is also naturalistic and can not posit supernatural causes for natural phenomena.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Already off track. Atheism is not "lack of belief in a deity", it is "belief in lack of a deity." Small change in wording, large change in meaning.
Science is not inherently prohibited from positing supernatural causes for phenomena--rather, it is limited to proposing observable causes for phenomena, which often comes out to the same result, but not necessarily. If a supernatural phenomena could be repeatedly observed, Science could eventually accept it, while Atheism could not.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution is a religious belief set, which starts with the basic precept that there cannot be a God. Nothing else is allowed to contradict this, regardless of what any evidence may suggest. Once established that there cannot be a God, it then goes on to attempt to explain all things in such a way that no God is required for their function, and any theory, no matter how valid by other standards, that suggests the existence of a God is immediately dismissed as Untrue. Scientific Evolution is just one theory that happens to be nearly universally held by believers in Atheistic Evolution Philosophy, because there are no alternative origin of life theories that do not call upon a God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering that I am both atheist and evolutionist, I think I would have heard about that somewhere. Perhaps I didn't get the memo. It seems more likely that it's a strawman conjured up to make both atheism and evolution seem intolerant.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree. Most likely you have heard about it, but I've confused you because I didn't use the official name for it. But thats because, as far as I know, there IS no official name for it, so I just made up a descriptive title. And its not a Strawman at all. I didn't describe that set of beliefs in order to make them seem less valid. I merely described the set of beliefs that I have actually encountered in the vast majority of Atheists I have come into contact with. Its not substantially different than the descriptions used to describe followers of any other religion when they come into contact with facts difficult to explain via their current world view.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think the difference is this:
Atheism: As there is insufficient evidence for the supernatural, we will not believe in it.
Science: The supernatural is outside of the scope of our study.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I propose a slightly different conclusion.
Science: The supernatural is outside of the scope of our study. (Agreed there.)
Atheism: Our religious beliefs tell us there can't be anything supernatural, so we won't bother to look at it.
I'm not sure that we're actually disagreeing here. It seems to me that we're pretty much on the same page except for a few technical points. I'll try to break my argument down for ease of response.
1. Science, as a naturalistic discipline, can not posit supernatural causes as explanations for natural phenomena such as life.
2. Atheism, the lack of belief in a deity, is also naturalistic and can not posit supernatural causes for natural phenomena.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Already off track. Atheism is not "lack of belief in a deity", it is "belief in lack of a deity." Small change in wording, large change in meaning.
Science is not inherently prohibited from positing supernatural causes for phenomena--rather, it is limited to proposing observable causes for phenomena, which often comes out to the same result, but not necessarily. If a supernatural phenomena could be repeatedly observed, Science could eventually accept it, while Atheism could not. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If something is repeatedly observed, its no longer supernatural . . .
Literally speaking, the word "supernatural" means "not normal", so if something was observed to happen repeatedly it could become normal I suppose, and it wouldn't count as supernatural in that sense.
But the way its normally used, "supernatural" doesn't really refer to whether something is common or uncommon, merely that it is linked to the metaphysical. In this sense, something with a metaphysical origin could occur every day and still be considered supernatural.
Is this a joke? On that page you linked Bush remains about as neutral as anyone could be. The only moron was whoever wrote that up - they're great at being spin doctors who inject nothing but their own opinions.
Is this a joke? On that page you linked Bush remains about as neutral as anyone could be. The only moron was whoever wrote that up - they're great at being spin doctors who inject nothing but their own opinions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being neutral does not mean "Well people are talking about stuff so I guess they are both right!"
Merkaba, the anti-patriot. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im an atheist, never recited the pledge of allegiance or did many of the other things that are "patriotic" because I thought they were either influenced by religion or plain stupid, yet I'm in the middle of a warzone wearing a US flag on my right shoulder. Don't confuse patriotism with conforming.
Is this a joke? On that page you linked Bush remains about as neutral as anyone could be. The only moron was whoever wrote that up - they're great at being spin doctors who inject nothing but their own opinions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being neutral does not mean "Well people are talking about stuff so I guess they are both right!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And he never said they were both right...
As the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world - he is trying to remain neutral on a controvtersial subject -- who would have thought!
He also said how he has no control over what they teach anyway...
You really have little to no argument, other than you personally hate bush so you try to criticize everything he does.
As the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world - he is trying to remain neutral on a controvtersial subject -- who would have thought!
He also said how he has no control over what they teach anyway...
You really have little to no argument, other than you personally hate bush so you try to criticize everything he does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the ad hominem.
You are missing the point of this. The leader of the free world publically advocated teaching pseudoscience in science classes. That's pretty gosh darn scary.
<a href='http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=191383&highlight=' target='_blank'>http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtop...1383&highlight=</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A fellow PAer? Nice.
Reposted for why ID is wrong.
Around the net I’ve seen this expression come up called ‘turtles all the way down’, usually referenced to intelligent design. The term comes from a story, of unknown source as it seems to come up often from different people, where essentially a famous lecturer was giving a talk on astronomy. After he was finished a little old lady came down and told him he had it all wrong.
“The world is really on the back of a giant tortoise” the woman said to which the scientist asked, in an attempt to stump her most likely, “Well then, what is the tortoise standing on?” To this the lady triumphantly replied “You’re very clever young man, but it’s of no use – it’s turtles all the way down”.
In many respects this is the problem that intelligent design faces when it proposes a ‘designer’ is natural. For example, when we take Dembski mathematics, fancy as they are and apply it to the designer we find, unsurprisingly, that the designer must himself be designed. If we do the same thing again, we find that each designer in turn requires another designer. Eventually, we have an infinite regress of designers, each one designing the previous one; turtles all the way down in other words.
The solution to this problem from ID, but the one they refuse to admit, is that inevitably they must admit somewhere down the line that there is a supernatural designer. Essentially a designer that according to their own ideas doesn’t require being designed first by something else and can do the ‘initial’ designer. Now this doesn’t invalidate immediately that we may have been designed as some assert. We could be the product of design from an alien race that was really created by a supernatural entity to begin with for whatever purpose- it is just that we have a perfectly good explanation in evolution already.
Unfortunately, when we meet that race and share tea we suddenly end up at square one anyway: What designed our designers? It’s not surprising to me that those who want to masquerade ID as some form of ‘valid’ science suddenly become completely allergic to this concept and try to explain it away as fast as possible. Essentially, they want to have their pet concept that things were ‘designed’ yet they don’t want to deal with explaining how it was designed.
For example, let us just say that there is some biological structure we want to know is designed. As scientists, natural questions arise such as how did the designer produce the structure in question, what method did the designer use and why did the designer make the particular structure in that matter. More importantly, they need to make a hypothesis that competes with the evolutionary hypothesis and provides a better explanation not just a explanation. The explanation of a designer must account for the methods, reasons and motivations for making that structure to be conclusive.
For example, let’s say there is a new terrible disease that has struck the world and is beginning to kill hundreds of people world wide. How could we tell if this is an organism that has evolved by chance or that it has been designed by terrorists wanting to use it as a biological weapon (say it escaped). We would have two competing hypotheses immediately for the origin of this disease, but not because of the ideas of the ‘intelligent design’ movement, but rather because of something we do know:
We know about human designers.
Firstly, I would try to isolate the organism that is responsible, most likely a virus of some sort and then isolate its DNA to sequence it. Once sequenced, in other words we have the ‘code’ of nucleotides (Adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine) that make up this organisms DNA. We could infer it to be designed by humans or that it evolved by looking at this organisms genome.
In the case of a human designer, we could look at the series of genes and how they are linked together in the organisms DNA. Commonly used in the laboratory are enzymes called ‘restriction enzymes’ that cut DNA at specific locations. Importantly in genetic engineering, they leave little overhangs of the DNA strand they cut allowing you to ‘stitch’ the DNA fragments they produce together. This is important in making transgenic animals and producing novel gene clusters (for example to insert a gene into an expression system like a plasmid).
If we saw a series of genes along the organisms genome that look to have restriction enzymes placed exactly between each one, that would almost be ‘smoking’ gun evidence that this may have been an organism designed by human beings. If we look further and we find genes that would have been difficult, if not impossible to have been captured through horizontal gene transfer, such as entire genes of the human immune system like IL-4 (which when inserted into mousepox virus made it much more lethal) then that would be even better evidence for this organism being designed.
On the other hand, this hypothesis still has to compete with the current scientific understanding of evolution. We already know that viruses can exchange segments of DNA if they co-infect the same cell as another virus, and that bacteriophages can capture pieces of DNA from bacteria and transfer them togother species. Additionally, retroviruses can insert themselves into the genomes of their host, being a potential explanation for the origin of a human gene.
But again, I want to emphasise something we’re talking about an organism being detected by design yes, but because we know of the methods of the potential designer. As ID proponents often point out while they sneeze half to death, ID isn’t about trying to work out what the designer is or the methods that it used, just that somehow life is designed.
But let’s review that more carefully:
1) Life is designed
2) The mechanism of this design is not something we want to talk about
3) Ergo, if we don’t want to talk about a mechanism then by default we are admitting we can’t talk about the designer
4) With no mechanism or designer, how do you infer design at all to begin with?
Let’s go back over my potential bioweapon example
1) A new organism is discovered and it may have been a designed weapon
2) We know 1 could be possible, because human beings have the ability to manipulate the genetics of living organisms, using restriction enzymes, plasmids we’ve ‘domesticated’ and other techniques.
3) We know that humans would have the motivations to make such a deadly organism because biological weapons have been used in the past.
4) As we know 2 and we know 3, we can directly test 1 to establish if it was designed or not because we have suitable grounds to determine this by the methodology and knowledge of a potential designer (human beings).
Additionally, unlike claims of ‘design’ from most ID members, this is also inherently falsifiable logic because we can rule that another mechanism (evolution) may be a much better explanation. In fact, it may be it was simply an example of a newly evolved pathogen but it would at least in both cases be testable as to the origin of the newly derived organism.
Inherently ID has the problem where it is incapable and indeed unwilling to talk about their ‘designer’. They know, just as well as their opponent’s, that ultimately ID rests on no true empirical or testable ground without having an actual verified designer. There is no way for them to ever rule out evolution, which itself, has numerous testable and falsifiable claims about the organisms and structures we see. Without a way of providing the mechanism of design or the designer, they provide no logical reason to infer any sort of design in human beings or anything else for that matter.
ID is, without a designer and refusing to talk about anything to do with said designer isn’t “God-of-the-gaps”. ID is “No-designer-at-all-to-put-into-the-gaps” which is even worse, because at least with “God-of-the-gaps” you at least have named the designer. Even when you have you then end up at square one if that designer was natural, who designed them? Then it's back to turtles all the way down.
This is a fair enough and short enough summary:
ID is inherently not science and this is well demonstrated with one dilemma.
ID is the religion in scientific clothing, being at once in defiance of a supernatural God yet ultimately requiring a supernatural being. This is because the same 'methods' they use for proving a designer made aspects of life now indicates this natural designer was itself designed, which was designed, which is then designed etc: essentially turtles all the way down. To solve this problem, ID proponents must inherently rely on invoking an unnatural ‘designer’ in order to end the regress of turtles but in doing so render their theory impossible to disprove and no longer science.
ID Theory, when taken to its logical conclusion, does indeed imply a supernatural creator. THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE THEORY! But it seems to be that whenever this implication is brought up, logical discussion comes to a screeching halt, so ID proponents are understandably reluctant to mention it.
"ID Theory, taken to its logical conclusion" only means something because ID theory is based on logic. This logic can be scientifically expressed and debated just as well as the logic of any other theory. It is irrational to dismiss the logic simply because, if it was true, it would imply the existence of a Creator.
My mistake. I saw ID in the title and though "Wow, Aegeri already debunked it as far as I'm concerned. I think I'll post his little shpiel."
While that's true it does tend to discount it as a <i>scientific theory</i>, as the existence of a supernatural creator, as Aegeri says, is not falsifiable.
Hence, Science class is the wrong place to be teaching this.
yeah im shaking in my boots here.
No, you can't reach a supernatural conclusion with natural processes. 1+1 equals 2. 1+1 does not equal <i>i.</i>
I don't know why you persist in your defense of ID. Aegeri's destroyed it multiple times and not just in that link I posted. He's trashed it several times in our very own discussion forum. ID answers and predicts nothing. The components of ID like irreducible complexity have been dismantled. ID posits a creator but has no information of this being or beings. The creator is the central pillar of ID so how you can say it's not a basis is beyond me. Without a designer, there is no design.
At this point, I give up. I'm clearly not going to convince you of anything and you're intent on seeing ID as not only reasonable, but entirely scientific. I suspect that no amount of evidence or logical argument is going to convince you otherwise. Opening the door to "theories" that can't be falsified is folly.
I leave with the fear that in the near future, President Bush will get way on this and sink American science classes even further down the totem pole. No Child Left Behind indeed.
Only because you have already dismissed all supernatural conclusions as impossible, based on your religious beliefs. You are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, but you should at least recognize them for what they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know why you persist in your defense of ID. Aegeri's destroyed it multiple times and not just in that link I posted. He's trashed it several times in our very own discussion forum. ID answers and predicts nothing. The components of ID like irreducible complexity have been dismantled.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trashed--certainly. He has launched copious amounts of fury and venom at it, I'm sure. That doesn't necessarily mean its been disproved. Specifically, the ID thread in this form was finished up, abandoned (and locked? I can't remember) before I became active here, so I had no chance to comment on the debate at the time. If Aegeri was arguing against the likes of AvengerX, then its really no surprise he came out on top in the debate, since his opponents had no grasp of logic. You can not simply refer back to an Aegeri vs AvengerX debate as the end-all proof of a concept.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ID posits a creator but has no information of this being or beings. The creator is the central pillar of ID so how you can say it's not a basis is beyond me. Without a designer, there is no design.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your flaw is in overlooking the causality. There is a substantial difference between "we know there is a designer, therefore X must have been designed by him", and "we know X was designed, therefore there must be a designer." The causality of the ID logic places the designer as the conclusion, not the assumption.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At this point, I give up. I'm clearly not going to convince you of anything and you're intent on seeing ID as not only reasonable, but entirely scientific. I suspect that no amount of evidence or logical argument is going to convince you otherwise. Opening the door to "theories" that can't be falsified is folly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have seen ID repeatedly dismissed here as being either scientifically rediculous or outside the realm of science altogether, but no actual evidence has been shown for the first, and the logic presented for the second is not sound. I am willing to fairly judge evidence. I am even willing to entertain multiple viewpoints as possible. I am not the one dismissing a widely held view out of hand without reason.
Evolution attempts to explain everything with what we have available to us (fossil records, speciation or whatever you all call it, and so forth), ID attempts to explain it with a "well what if ..." using NOTHING (read: <b>NOTHING</b>) as a basis for this assumption. What aren't you getting?
Sure life is complex, so is NS. Humans designed NS. Therefore humans must have been designed? I really don't get where you come from.
Now, to shriek at you for a bit...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Only because you have already dismissed all supernatural conclusions as impossible, based on your religious beliefs. You are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, but you should at least recognize them for what they are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, what? Science doesn't like explaining things off as "the monkeys did it." Why is the earth not flat? "the monkeys did it" What keeps the earth in orbit around the sun? "the monkeys did it" Why are people so stupid? "the monkeys did it." We'd never get anything done if "supernatural causes" were allowed to explain things. It's the ultimate in cop-outs. If we had a constant supernatural cause to cite for unexplainable events, this would be different. However, as we advance in technology we're able to observe things more closely; for example, energy that used to just disappear (impossible according to our current theories) was discovered to have not disappeared, etc. We never assumed the energy we couldn't find was "taken back by God for a while" (aka "the monkeys did it"), we just assumed our analyzing tools weren't good enough (which was the correct assumption.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ID posits a creator but has no information of this being or beings. The creator is the central pillar of ID so how you can say it's not a basis is beyond me. Without a designer, there is no design.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your flaw is in overlooking the causality. There is a substantial difference between "we know there is a designer, therefore X must have been designed by him", and "we know X was designed, therefore there must be a designer." The causality of the ID logic places the designer as the conclusion, not the assumption.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said earlier. We're supposed to assume this "Designer" theory only goes one step? The aliens/God/whatever were formed how, then?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have seen ID repeatedly dismissed here as being either scientifically ridiculous or outside the realm of science altogether, but no actual evidence has been shown for the first, and the logic presented for the second is not sound.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are we even talking about the same ID? And if there's evidence <b>supporting ID in any <u>form fashion or manner</u></b> we'd probably give it more than a hearty chuckle. Scientific theories don't get to vote themselves into existence. I can't really touch the second one as you seem to think supernatural (read: "the monkey did it!") solutions ought to be considered.
Sorry, I just plain old don't get what you're trying to say. Use smaller words? (note-I've removed some personal attacks on my first edit, I may re-edit a few more times if I find myself being too offensive)
It's got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that <i>you can't scientifically research the existence of a god</i>.
It's got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that <i>you can't scientifically research the existence of a god</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are in fact many researchers doing exactly that. But its clear that what seem to me to be scientific reasons to believe in god are perceived entirely differently by you (plural), so I'll give up here. It seems pretty clear I'm not changing anyones mind on this one most-important question that Insane has highlighted for us.
Only because you have already dismissed all supernatural conclusions as impossible, based on your religious beliefs. You are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, but you should at least recognize them for what they are.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See my sig for my opinion on that one.
Also, CXWF writes:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, I'd say you just proved my point. Your argument for dismissing the theory of ID + Supernatural Creator seems to be "I can't prove it wrong". Now THATS some twisted logic. It can't be proved wrong, therefore it can't possibly be true?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You may or may not know this: I am the Creator. By your logic, you should at the very least be willing to accept that it might be true. Are you?
ID has no place in schools. Period. The evidence is abundant in this thread, on both sides of the fence but for different reasons.
As you might gather, I am an Atheist but I am fully prepared to accept the existance of God/Jehova/Santa Claus as soon as I have hard evidence that I can grasp.
Until that day I am the guy in the corner snickering and having a beer while those who saw the light are communicating with their invisible friends. Most people who hear voices are locked up. Unless, naturally, it is the voice of God. I never saw the distinction.
You may or may not know this: I am the Creator. By your logic, you should at the very least be willing to accept that it might be true. Are you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres two answers to that.
Scientific answer: You have a birth certificate. Your birth certificate shows the date you showed up on this planet. Since the planet was here before you were, you can't possibly have created it. Therefore it can be disproven, and the logic I was using doesn't apply here.
Religious answer: There is only one creator, and he has already made clear the conditions under which he will return to the earth in physical form. Since those conditions are not yet here, your claim is disproven. Again, the logic you refer to doesn't apply here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Exodus 20+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Exodus 20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
20:1God spoke all these words, saying:
20:2 I am God <b>your</b> Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, from the place of slavery.
20:3 Do not have any other gods <b>before</b> Me.
20:4 Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land.
20:5 Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who <b>demands exclusive worship</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just a fun fact.
ID suggests we were designed, but it doesn't specify that we were designed by just one "being." unless "being" is allowed to mean "Group of people, corporation, that crazy guy nobody ever talks to." All the evidence I've seen so far suggest that ID is just creationism with a new cover story. That's all the evidence I have seen so far.
I'll be honest, though. I have <b>yet</b> to see an "unbiased" opinion on ID. They're either by pro-Evolution or Pro-ID people. I haven't seen someone who is capable of taking a neutral stance on this subject. I think it's mainly because ID is based on "hokey science." I back what Cyndane said, however. If you can find somewhere that has some sort of revelation on ID that is actually valid or useful, you'll sway me. I don't think you can, because politics have taken this idea and ran with it (so that needle is in a giant manure pile, instead of a haystack.)
[edit]I missed an end quote, and I fixed a sentence[/edit]
It does not stand up to <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability' target='_blank'>falsifiability</a> which means it cannot be science.