DescentBB

Kilarin wrote:...Take the Von Daniken or Authur C Clark theories that Aliens meddled with the formation of life here on this earth. IF this were true, they would have probably left evidence of design behind. The search for that evidence would certainly be legitimate science. ....

ID only claims to be able to recognize design in certain very restricted cases, not in every case, or even in the majority of cases.

Kilarin, like many others, I believe earth may have been seeded with life that came from somewhere else and that I may have hitched a ride on one of the countless comets that slammed into a very young earth at the opportune time when it was able to support that life. I also believe in those aliens because no one can convince me that we are the only lifeforms in this universe.

Some stars explode and spread their seeds. Ours will too someday so Clark and all the other visionaries are correct...IMO. However no matter what anyone says the words Intelligent Design mean only one thing. Creationism. Period. Not comet seeding, or aliens that may have landed on our earth to shape the basis of humanity, but Creationism hiding under the cloak of ID which in itself hides under the cloak of God.

In this case, the glove does fit very well.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:However no matter what anyone says the words Intelligent Design mean only one thing. Creationism. Period. Not comet seeding, or aliens that may have landed on our earth to shape the basis of humanity, but Creationism hiding under the cloak of ID which in itself hides under the cloak of God.

Care to justify that claim without in the same moment committing all of evolution to naturalism? Your argument stands on emotion, not on logic.

Jeff250 wrote:Detecting human (or human-like) design has potential to be a legitimate science. (Of course, of what use would ID then be to the theists...)

I'm going to have to ask the same question I asked Bettina. Have you actually read Dembski or Behe? I find this position... baffling. If the design is so alien to our intelligence that we don't recognize it as design, then ID can't detect it. It wouldn't be SPECIFIED complexity. I understand making attacks on ID because you don't feel that it's methods are an adequate filter for determining design, but I don't understand this bit about it only being a problem because God might be the designer. If humans modified a virus in a detectable way, ID would find that design indistinguishable from any other design it claims to identify. If aliens made modifications to the structure of life, again, ID would filter the results out in exactly the same manner.

While many proponents of ID are passionately interested in the identity of the designer, ID has nothing to say about it. This is the same as Evolution. Many of the proponents of Evolution through Natural Selection are passionate proponents of Naturalism, but Evolution no more proves Naturalism than ID proves creationisim.

Either a structure can be produced through the natural evolutionary process, or it can't. If the structure can NOT be produced through natural selection, then we know an intelligent agent has interfered. WHO that intelligent agent is, EVERYONE has an opinion on, but ID does NOTHING to prove one way or another.

Bettina wrote:no matter what anyone says the words Intelligent Design mean only one thing. Creationism. Period.

Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe. Nothing more for us to discuss if you've made up your mind. And thats ok!

[Off-topic]

Bet51987 wrote:...no matter what anyone says the words Intelligent Design mean only one thing. Creationism. Period. Not comet seeding, or aliens that may have landed on our earth to shape the basis of humanity, but Creationism hiding under the cloak of ID which in itself hides under the cloak of God.

I see *some* truth in that, B. The majority of the time I've heard about ID, it's been by Christians wanting to cite something scientific to "prove" the existence of God. So I understand where you're coming from.

However, I don't believe that ID is fundamentally a "Creationist conspiracy". Despite those who want to use the ideas of ID for their own agenda, I'm not so sure that it's a disguised religious group. After all, some of the core ID folk don't even profess any religious leanings.

[For me personally, ID has yet to fully convince me that its claims can be scientifically/statistically validated, but it's still a very, very young area of study, and I don't know as much about it as I could. ]

[/Off-topic]

Too many people overlook or forget that the only reason that

My personal favorite are the leaf insects that look uncannily like dead leaves - complete with tattered edges and rotten holes. Eh, I'm sure someone can muster an evolutionary reason for it, but there are times when I think it all comes together too perfectly.

Is because 99.x% of the species that ever lived are gone. Extinct. They didn't fit perfectly, so they didn't make it. Twenty-five species a DAY go extinct now.

Consider a billion years. Can you? I doubt it. Most people can't concieve a hundred years. \"Wow, the pyramids were soooo long ago!\" BS, it was 10 minutes ago compared to what else has happened on this planet.

We haven't been around long enough to discern any change in species of anything, so saying that refutes evolution is simply naive.

My personal favorite are the leaf insects that look uncannily like dead leaves - complete with tattered edges and rotten holes. Eh, I'm sure someone can muster an evolutionary reason for it,

And thats why ID doesn't do much work with large scale structures like a leaf insect's basic shape. ESPECIALLY with structures like the leaf insect's basic shape. There are many possible gradual paths to such a structure. Any insect that looks a little bit more like a leaf than the previous one survives better, produces a few more offspring, and so becomes a larger percentage of the gene pool. Natural Selection at work.

COULD a leaf insects excellent camouflage have been designed? Certainly, but ID can't prove it and has nothing to say about it because it also could have evolved.

Evolution; a strange argument about change.

not that the following is proof for evolution at all, but coloquially:

in my observations, all things are constantly in flux, with no solidified \"thing\" existing. it would be laughable to me that species would break the only universal rule (change) and remain somehow solidified, while the rest of the universe constantly changes.

A few almost do. Alligators for one, I cna't think of another right now...

Talk about \"baffling\"...Kilarin why is it so hard to believe that one would be leery of ID when it's proponents have not produced any notable science and have instead publicly and covertly attempted to undermine the scientific process.

Since we're auditing the reading material...have you read the Wedge document? Have you read the Republican War on Science?

ID is a con. It's a scam. I think that the position that ID is disinterested in proving that GOD (and none other) is the designer is naive. ID proponents have made three things clear in the Wedge document. First, they want to legitimize their beliefs by degrading the very definition of science. Second, once lowering the standard for what can be called science, they want their \"theory\" taught in public schools as a controvery to evolution (when it is clearly no such thing - not even close). Third, ID's main thrust to accomplish the first two is to be a media campaign, not a scientific endeavor! It is a scam - plain and simple.

Palzon wrote:have you read the Wedge document?

Yep, and I don't see how it invalidates ID. The Naturalists were trying to use Evolution as a wedge in 1920. And it worked (eventually). Which has NOTHING to do with the scientific validity of Evolution.

I don't approve of the political wrangling thats going on on BOTH sides of the ID/Evolution debate. But it doesn't have anything to do with the basic validity of a design filter.

Which is why, as I said before, I think the scientists behind the ID movement would be well served to back off on Biology. Prove the science in less politically hot fields. And after they get all the kinks worked out, THEN would be a time to approach Biology again.

As I see it, there are two great boxes of evidence. Naturalists refuse to see, admit, or even consider the fact that more than one exists. Hard-core creationists see the second, and ignore or try to explain away much of the first.

The problem is that the only way to see inside the second box is to accept that it's there in the first place. There's lots of historical and traditional factors that support its existence, but there will NEVER be direct incontrovertible evidence. That is, until you spend enough time in the second box. That's how it was intended.

It would be impossible for me to prove to anyone else that any of the direct evidence I've personally encountered was real. But for myself, all past doubts are gone. If what I've experienced isn't real, then neither am I.

snoopy wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:However no matter what anyone says the words Intelligent Design mean only one thing. Creationism. Period. Not comet seeding, or aliens that may have landed on our earth to shape the basis of humanity, but Creationism hiding under the cloak of ID which in itself hides under the cloak of God.

Care to justify that claim without in the same moment committing all of evolution to naturalism? Your argument stands on emotion, not on logic.

No, it stands on the lack of evidence because like the traditional version of God, the hidden version (ID) has no proof. I know there is no place I can go to justify my claims that would satisfy you but try this one from Wiki... It will tell you who is pushing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen ... proponents

Herculosis wrote:As I see it, there are two great boxes of evidence. Naturalists refuse to see, admit, or even consider the fact that more than one exists. Hard-core creationists see the second, and ignore or try to explain away much of the first.

The problem is that the only way to see inside the second box is to accept that it's there in the first place. There's lots of historical and traditional factors that support its existence, but there will NEVER be direct incontrovertible evidence. That is, until you spend enough time in the second box. That's how it was intended.

It would be impossible for me to prove to anyone else that any of the direct evidence I've personally encountered was real. But for myself, all past doubts are gone. If what I've experienced isn't real, then neither am I.

Your real, but the entire "second box" is a ruse solely invented in order to slip past the 1982 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling that found creationism to be religion and therefore should not be taught in science class. So, take the same mannequin, give it a new coat, dark glasses, smarter writers, push out some books and what do you have.... The second box. Intelligent Design, an invasive tool that is being used without any evidence to support it.

Bettina

Herculosis wrote:The problem is that the only way to see inside the second box is to accept that it's there in the first place. There's lots of historical and traditional factors that support its existence, but there will NEVER be direct incontrovertible evidence. That is, until you spend enough time in the second box. That's how it was intended.

Oh, so now ID requires God's existence again, because I keep getting it mixed up. In any event, like I told Snoopy, before we can even talk about whether or not something like theology can be a science, we first need a theology that at least has the purport of a science. Bring me some plausible, falsifiable, reliable, and enlightening theories about what God is or what he will consistently do, and then I think we can discuss whether or not that can be a part of science. Otherwise, this whole "God is defined out of science" excuse is just a red herring.

Kilarin wrote:I'm going to have to ask the same question I asked Bettina. Have you actually read Dembski or Behe?

I read most of Dembski's "Intelligent Design" book.

Kilarin wrote:If the design is so alien to our intelligence that we don't recognize it as design, then ID can't detect it. It wouldn't be SPECIFIED complexity. I understand making attacks on ID because you don't feel that it's methods are an adequate filter for determining design, but I don't understand this bit about it only being a problem because God might be the designer.

Instead of appealing to the following argument: "We don't currently understand how this complex and aptly suited X came to be, thus it was designed," which is both an appeal to ignorance and a false dichotomy, why not study human psychology to figure out what the trademarks are for human design. That way you could learn the distinguishing features of at least a subset of the things that are designed. And it could even be a legitimate science to boot. Besides, aren't you theists always ascribing to God human-like psychological features anyways? I'm sure you could find a way to assimilate the science to your likings.

Kilarin wrote:If humans modified a virus in a detectable way, ID would find that design indistinguishable from any other design it claims to identify.

I don't see how you can make that guarantee, since you've already granted that ID will have false negatives.

Jeff250 wrote:"We don't currently understand how this complex and aptly suited X came to be, thus it was designed," which is both an appeal to ignorance and a false dichotomy

Do you believe that there are any POSSIBLE biological structures that could not evolve through natural selection? Not necessarily EXISTING structures, just possible structures. And if so, how would you propose identifying such structures? What filter would you use to separate them from structures that natural selection CAN select for?

Kilarin wrote:If humans modified a virus in a detectable way, ID would find that design indistinguishable from any other design it claims to identify.

Jeff250 wrote:I don't see how you can make that guarantee, since you've already granted that ID will have false negatives.

That's why I specified "detectable". A positive for design is a positive for design, same as any other positive for design. It doesn't tell you who the designer was, other than that they were intelligent. There may be other evidence to point out the designer, but that wouldn't be ID.

Kilarin wrote:Do you believe that there are any POSSIBLE biological structures that could not evolve through natural selection? Not necessarily EXISTING structures, just possible structures. And if so, how would you propose identifying such structures? What filter would you use to separate them from structures that natural selection CAN select for?

1) Sure, but I wouldn't be too quick to propose any filter, because it's still unclear what evolution and natural selection are capable of.

2) These aren't the right questions to be asking. The evolution vs. ID dichotomy is a myth. If scientists were truly convinced that something couldn't have arisen through evolution and natural selection, I'd personally be interested in exploring theories involving life arriving here through space (where it may have developed via different processes or similar ones in a different environment) and other neat theories.

Kilarin wrote:

Palzon wrote:have you read the Wedge document?

Yep, and I don't see how it invalidates ID. The Naturalists were trying to use Evolution as a wedge in 1920. And it worked (eventually). Which has NOTHING to do with the scientific validity of Evolution.

I don't approve of the political wrangling thats going on on BOTH sides of the ID/Evolution debate. But it doesn't have anything to do with the basic validity of a design filter.

Which is why, as I said before, I think the scientists behind the ID movement would be well served to back off on Biology. Prove the science in less politically hot fields. And after they get all the kinks worked out, THEN would be a time to approach Biology again.

By that token, ID has about as much philosophical bearing on astronomy as it does biology, or topography, meteorology, or many other ologies. but it has no scientific bearing on any subject whatsoever. and it has weak philosophical bearing from the get go. If it's not creationsim repackaged - it's nothing less than William Paley repackaged and it's argumentation has as many holes.

Well, for my opinion:
Evolution should be thought in schools, but as a distinct and highly plausable theory, not definite fact. Creationism can be thought in schools, but again, it should not be thought as definite fact.

I say this as both evolution and creationism are still only theories, and neither have been proven to be definitely true!
For example, an explanation for all the fossils and such could be that a supreme being put them there. It may sound rather stupid, but there's absolutely no proof that it's false, and thus shouldn't be completely ignored.

And the maths comparison is absolutely bogus! Formulas and such in maths are distictly provable!

TIGERassault wrote:For example, an explanation for all the fossils and such could be that a supreme being put them there. It may sound rather stupid, but there's absolutely no proof that it's false, and thus shouldn't be completely ignored.

Yes it should... because when your in school, time is valuable so you go with the theory that has the most promise of producing evidence and its the same theory that is supported by the majority of scientists. Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidence.... and to me the absence of evidence is not evidence....

Like I said, teach it in church, not in schools.

Bettina

Tiger, there's a big difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word. Special and general relativity are scientific theories that you use every day, whether you know it or not; the GPS display in your car depends on them to work properly. Are you saying that they shouldn't be taught in schools, just because they're \"theory\"?

TIGERassault wrote:And the maths comparison is absolutely bogus! Formulas and such in maths are distictly provable!

Are they? Just as in the question of origins, it depends completely on your assumptions.

For example, those who subscribe to "constructivism" in math use a different set of assumptions about logic and fundamental concepts. Thus they don't always accept the same "rigorous proofs" of classical and modern mathematics.

In other words, what you or I may see as "obvious mathematical truth" may be questioned by someone with a different set of assumptions.

Foil wrote:For example, those who subscribe to "constructivism" in math use a different set of assumptions about logic and fundamental concepts. Thus they don't always accept the same "rigorous proofs" of classical and modern mathematics.

That's not maths. Maths is defined as using a certain set of logic concepts. Other ways of using numbers isn't any part of maths.

Jeff250 wrote:The evolution vs. ID dichotomy is a myth.

Absolutely. I believe in evolution, I even believe in common descent. So does Behe. ID is NOT antithetical to Evolution

Palzon wrote:it's nothing less than William Paley repackaged and it's argumentation has as many holes.

No, it's very different from Paley. I presented an analogy on why I think ID is a legitimate field of research in this very long and boring post here.

TIGERassault wrote:

Foil wrote:For example, those who subscribe to "constructivism" in math use a different set of assumptions about logic and fundamental concepts. Thus they don't always accept the same "rigorous proofs" of classical and modern mathematics.

That's not maths. Maths is defined as using a certain set of logic concepts. Other ways of using numbers isn't any part of maths.

Not math? Tell that to a constructivist mathematician with a PhD (there are plenty of them).

Just because I don't agree with their particular set of logical constraints, it doesn't mean they're not doing valid math. In fact, despite their limitations, they've been able to come up with some pretty impressive work. (The way I personally see it: they are doing valid math, but because of the types of logic they don't accept, they are doing it the "hard way" unnecessarily.)


P.S. I don't put constructivist mathematicians in the same category as some of the "math quacks" out there, who post ridiculous results and refuse to acknowledge their logical impossibility.

P.P.S. If you say "other ways of using numbers isn't any part of maths" in general, you've just said you don't accept a significant chunk of modern mathematics!

In the end, nobody can prove something is so complex \"God\" must have created it. Simply can't be done. Just because you can't figure out a way for something to have been created, doesn't mean it had to be made by God.

ID is nothing more than a gut feeling or opinion.