How would you "prove" Intelligent Design ?

[Moose]

Moose and taks, I'm glad someone's readng my stuff, but if you re-examine

 

"The problem, if problem there is with ID is that they have yet to formulate a falsifiable set of criteria for ID. This may regarded as weedy pigeon behaviour by the proponents and would not stand in scientific circles. But it does not make them scientifically wrong."

 

You'll see I do not actually back ID because while it has yet to be disproved, it is very weak. It is weak because it has no testable points. It is like Freud's theories. He says "Either you agree you want your mother, or you are suppressing it." [Thinks: I wonder what Freud's mother had to say about this. Must have made great conversation at Christmas.]

 

What I'm interested in here is whether we can concoct a workable testable hypothesis on behalf of the ID people. If we do create a good one then we can set about demolishing it. But until we do, we are simply relying on faith to tell us they are wrong. And if we are relying on faith alone then I think we could get off our high horses.

 

Finally, never mind pandas. Have you seen a platypus?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm not dismissing intelligent design on the basis of faith. I am just saying that an assumption such as intelligent design that has yet to be explicitly contradicted by means of a known scientific assumption (some fact that's been proven empirically), does not prove an argument.

 

Not being able to disprove something doesn't mean that it's true.

 

This is why all theories aren't science. There are however "scientific theories", which are constructed on the basis of scientific facts. I refer you to my early section on the big bang theory.

 

Until you introduce some scientific fact for intelligent design to stand on, it does not belong in the classroom (not a physics one anyway).

 

You can't blame the scientists if you can't find a way to make your theory scientific. Believe me if anyone's been open minded enough throughout history to keep an eye out for such things I would credit scientists more than any theologian.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Moose

[Walsingham]

I think you underestimate the orthodoxy of a well entrenched scientist! You also underestimate the peculiar behaviour of clerics under the right circumstances.

 

I may also ad that you seem to be disstressingly keen on associating me with ID. It is not MY theory. But as a scientist I regard it as a moral imperative, and an intellectual challenge that we should investigate it thoroughly. Or else how are we different from the learned wise men (not just priests) who told Galileo he could not possibly be right, without looking through his telescope?

[Moose]

As far as I'm concerned it's been investigated as far as is possible for such a thin theory.

 

I suppose if you're that keen on experimenting with it, you could start praying and recording if it changes the laws of gravity, or the flux of an electric field.

 

I however would prefer not to waste my time.

 

Seeing as in your own words - "I regard it as a moral imperative, and an intellectual challenge that we should investigate it thoroughly" I have no doubt you'll be undertaking this essential research immediately.

 

Otherwise please quit with the hypocrisy.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Moose

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Moose does have a point. There isnt a way that I can see of how you could test ID in a scientific manner.

 

Which would seem a pretty important consideration if you wanted to teach it as a science.

[random evil guy]

I don't think Christians are vilified, but I believe fundamentalists have a small voice.  What is a Christian fundamentalist?

 

anyone who interprets the bible literally...

[Walsingham]

As far as I'm concerned it's been investigated as far as is possible for such a thin theory.

 

I suppose if you're that keen on experimenting with it, you could start praying and recording if it changes the laws of gravity, or the flux of an electric field.

 

I however would prefer not to waste my time.

 

Seeing as in your own words - "I regard it as a moral imperative, and an intellectual challenge that we should investigate it thoroughly" I have no doubt you'll be undertaking this essential research immediately.

 

Otherwise please quit with the hypocrisy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Insofaras I have free time to do so, I am, by suggesting we have a crack at it. Otherwise, being neither a biologist or physicist I am not well placed to contribute much.

 

As for praying and seeing if it affects a field, that sounds no less outlandish than observation altering the outcome of a physics experiment, as has been clinically noted.

 

In any case we seem to be chasing in circles. I have a different definition of what truth to yours. We've made clear what our definitions are. I'm happy to let it rest.

[random evil guy]

As far as I'm concerned it's been investigated as far as is possible for such a thin theory.

 

I suppose if you're that keen on experimenting with it, you could start praying and recording if it changes the laws of gravity, or the flux of an electric field.

 

I however would prefer not to waste my time.

 

studies have shown prayer does not work.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4681771.stm

 

if the patients are unaware of the study, prayer does not work. the few studies which have a 'mixed' result is due to the placebo effect and statistical anomalies...

Edited November 16, 2005 by random evil guy

[taks]

You'll see I do not actually back ID because while it has yet to be disproved, it is very weak. It is weak because it has no testable points.

yes, that's what i was getting. i wasn't really interested in that part with my comment so much as i was interested in the bit about attributing this to science. i.e. that it is not testable makes it unscientific, but not necessarily scientifically incorrect, either. we can never know, actually, and i have to take it on my own faith that it is incorrect.

 

What I'm interested in here is whether we can concoct a workable testable hypothesis on behalf of the ID people. If we do create a good one then we can set about demolishing it. But until we do, we are simply relying on faith to tell us they are wrong. And if we are relying on faith alone then I think we could get off our high horses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

agreed.

 

i think you just said the same thing i did in the preceding comment.

 

however, there are many aspects of ID that actually can be not only tested, but disproved. in particular, their idea of irreducible complexity (at least with some examples).

 

taks

[Walsingham]

What is irreduceable complexity, anyway? I could look it up, but I'd rather hear it from you guys.

[~Di]

I don't think Christians are vilified, but I believe fundamentalists have a small voice.  What is a Christian fundamentalist?

 

Hmm, perhaps we have a failure to communicate. When you commented that "Fundamentalists do not, contrary to popular belief, anecdoatal evidence, and constant claims to the contrary, have a choke-hold on power in this country", you apparently were dissecting Christianity into several small packets; I, on the other hand, am discussing Christianity as a whole. Christians DO have a chokehold on power in this country, and as I previously stated in some detail, the "fundamentalist" faction in particular wields an immense amount of power.

 

As tragic as the murdered atheist is, I fail to see how that proves that the country is run by fundamentalists.

 

If you believe my comments in that regard were attempting to "prove the country is run by fundamentalists", then we truly do have a major failure to communicate. If you reread what I wrote, you may note that I was simply responding to your comments about fundamentalists being "beset by hostility from virtually every side in our society", and your statements that people on this very board had even threatened to beat Christians to death. I was simply pointing out that other factions are also "beset by hostility" , and I mentioned several examples, including the fact that atheists had been murdered for their belief... or perhaps for their non-belief.

 

As for your insistance that a "fundamentalist" is different from a Catholic or a "non-fundamentalist" Christian, I respectfully disagree. Christianity is Christianity overall, with some segments more ... er... enthusiastic than others in foisting their beliefs upon the rest of the populace. My point is that the government is quite clearly controlled by Christians, period. But beyond that, a "fundamentalist" faction is clearly in control of the White House, as is a large segment of congress. Before you dispute that, Bush makes quite the point of being a born-again evangelical, which is by any definition a "fundamentalist", as is Southern Baptist and just about any other hell-and-brimstone type of congregation. Fundamentalist isn't a specific sect; it's a belief system that wants government to use religion as its core... a theocracy, if you will... and wants literal interpretation of the Bible codified into law. (That's simplistic, but you get the gist). Hell, Bush insisted that one reason Harriet Miers was qualified for the USSC because she was a born-again evangelical! That's pretty damned "fundamentalist", and both the White House and the USSC are pretty damned powerful, you must admit! :D

 

However, trying to break down Christianity into dozens of tiny segments (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, Mormon, Methodist, etc., etc., etc.) makes little sense to me, since any and all of these taken to extreme can be "fundamentalist".

 

Now, as to the whole "control" issue.  When you're hunted down and killed for speaking against Christians and Christianity, I'll give a little more thought to your charge, but I don't see it that way right now.

 

Excuse me? I truly do not understand the meaning of that statement. Exactly what "charge" have I made? I suspect I haven't expressed myself well, so if you'll be more specific, I'll attempt to clarify my meaning.

Edited November 16, 2005 by ~Di

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

What is irreduceable complexity, anyway? I could look it up, but I'd rather hear it from you guys.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's already been covered in this thread.

[Walsingham]

What is irreduceable complexity, anyway? I could look it up, but I'd rather hear it from you guys.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's already been covered in this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Rats. Caught out.

[kirottu]

Just wondering what the evidence is for Intelligent Design ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Boobies. It

Edited November 16, 2005 by kirottu

[Walsingham]

Just wondering what the evidence is for Intelligent Design ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Boobies. It

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Boobies. It

[Cantousent]

So, you say that Christianity taken to the extreme wields "immense power?"

 

Pardon me, Di, but I think I will re-read your statement. In the meantime, I don't see outright persecution of people in the United States based on "fundamentalist" principles. You don't like isolating specific groups within the whole? I think it's ridiculously stupid to look at the whole and make one overarching generalization. It is simply unacceptable. You had to backpedal a bit, however, and use the same template. "Christianity is Christianity overall, with some segments more... er... enthusiastic than others... [emphasis added]" See, it really is a bit hard to talk about Christianity as one homogenous group, isn't it. It's perfectly fine for you to isolate segments, but not for me? Furthermore, "fundamentalists" have the connotation of radical according to your definition while to others it is merely any Christian who believes every word of the bible should be taken as true in every specific instance.

 

Of course, the problem is that you don't like to talk about specific groups within the whole, which forces you to make statements such as, "[t]hat's simplistic, but you get the gist." Undoubtedly, you will have a simplistic stance when you refuse to allow for "segments" within Christianity. Those "segments" have existed for the entire history of the religion. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

 

For one thing, Christians themselves attack fundamentalists. I, myself, have not taken the same political views as fundamentalists on a wide variety of issues. In fact, in. this. very. thread, I have taken a view opposite of the fundamentalists. I, also, don't believe that we should sacrifice education on sound, scientific principles to religious fervor.

 

Where I disagree is in thinking that we somehow have a government almost under the control of religious fundamentalism. It's rubbish to suggest it. You say Bush wanted Miers because she was a "born-again evangelical!" Did Miers pass through the senate into the Supreme Court? Is Alito a fundamentalist? What exact issues make someone a fundamentalist. Others in this thread are willing to state a definition, but you don't like to own up that they are a different group within the movement. I suppose the idea is that Christians are all on a sliding scale from "Palatable" (meaning they only agree with Di's ideals) and "crazy fundamentalist" (which means they have beliefs Di considers dangerous), How about this, all the world is on a sliding scale, from "Palatable" to "crazy in some way." Yes, we're going to have to identify those segments, if not by their association, then at least by the beliefs that put them on the wrong end of the scale.

 

In the meantime, those crazy fundamentalists haven't yet mandated prayer in school, the abolition of banks, the outright ban of abortion, the requirement of church on Sundays, and a "non-Christian" tax. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors to suggest, just because the President is what you consider a radical fundamentalist, that the country is somehow under the thumb of a radical fundamentalist movement.

 

"[h]owever, trying to break down Christianity into dozens of tiny segments (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, Baptists, Evangelical, Mormon, Methodist, etc.,etc.,etc.) makes little sense to me, since any and all of these taken to extreme can be 'fundamentalist'."

 

So, we can't even identify what it is that makes a group "extreme?" Come on, this is nothing more than mental gymnastics. We categorize things on a constant basis, but I have to say that the fact that most people in government are Christian somehow equates to Christian fundamentalist rule? A more stupid and worthless argument, I have rarely faced.

 

You say:

 

"When you commented that 'Fundamentalists do not, contrary to popular belief, anecdoatal evidence, and constant claims to the contrary, have a choke-hold on power in this country', you apparently were dissecting Christianity into several small packets; I, on the other hand, am discussing Christianity as a whole."

 

How the hell does one discuss Christianity as a whole without discussing the various differences within the group?

 

"Christians DO have a chokehold on power in this country, and as I previously stated in some detail, the "fundamentalist" faction in particular wields an immense amount of power."

 

Okay, here is where you cite the "fundamentalist" faction as separate. So, is it okay or not that most folks in government are Christian, but the fundamentalists are bad? ...Or should folks not be allowed to vote for Christians? Like it or not, most folks in this country are Christian of some flavor or another, so it makes sense that most folks voted into office are Christian as well. We simply must separate those groups into segments, regardless.

 

You're using smoke and mirrors, Di. Nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

 

One last thing, since you enjoy questioning my ability to communicate.

 

I made this statement:

 

 

[kirottu]

Just wondering what the evidence is for Intelligent Design ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Boobies. It

[Surreptishus]

Some people say "More than a mouthful is a waste"

I say "Give me a bigger mouth!"

[Walsingham]

I have rectified my earlier ignorance regarding irreducable complexity. I have to say I have yet to see the flaw in the original statement. To whit: the existence of a mechanism which cannot be incrementally improved suggests that evolution is flawed. I can't think of any such mechanisms, but give me time. I'm still reading...

 

Di, I can't say I know much about Christian politics in the US but I can't possibly agree that Missisippi snake-testing baptists are in effective cahoots with New England Anglicans, or Utah Mormons. I mean I'll agree Christianity dominates American culture, but precisely how that manifests is probably pretty messy, and not up to individual people or sects.

 

Having said that, Eldar, I was under the impression that there has been a deliberate effort over the last fifteen years or so on the part of the Christian right wing to get involved in the political process through fund-raising, joining political parties, and mobilising their members to vote. Because of the generally low level of political participation, and the importance of the primaries, the Christian right have been able to punch well above their weight in numerical terms. This is evident, so I have been given to understand, in church sermons, interviews with churchgoers, and the traceable origins of campaign funds.

 

If I've understood y'all correctly the suggestion is that ID is merely one battle in a much wider campaign to get a Christian right agenda and viewpoint accepted as orthodox. i.e. (to mutilate my analogy) the debate is a smokescreen for the real issue, while at the same time being symptomatic of that issue - the replacement of a search for objective truth with a subjective defining of truth by a self-appointed (unless one counts in God) minority.

 

Is that a fair summation?

[Cantousent]

I think that's a fair assessment, Walsh. My problem isn't that Di, or anyone else for that matter, believes that the Christian right weilds power in the country. ...Or even that fandamentalists, which I consider a specific brand of beasts as outlined by the constraints of this thread, have some power. Where I disagree is that Christian fundamentalists are a powerhouse. Compared to atheists? Sure, Christian fundamentalists have greater power. ...But that doesn't equate to "...an immense amount of power."

 

We must judge the power of any movement on its ability to enact its will. Radical Christian fundamentalism would have to entail something ...er ...radical. That doesn't mean legitimate policy decisions with which I might agree or disagree. Roe v Wade is bad policy in my view because it assumes the Constitution affords protection where it does not. On the other hand, I don't agree in making abortion illegal. I am not radical because I have taken an opposing view on Roe v Wade. That's part of our democracy.

 

Radical, to have any meaning, has to mean truly radical measures. To whit, suggesting that marriage should be confined to hetero-sexual relationships is not radical. For the majority of our history, it would be consderably more radical to suggest otherwise. In this instance, I disagree with the majority again. I believe we should treat same sex marriages as equivalent in all ways, once the couples are married.

 

Radical is outlawing any religion other than Christianity. Radical is ruling that killing non-Christians is not murder. Radical is forcing business to adopt Christianity or pay extra "taxes" to your government.

 

I don't disagree with Di's stance, really. I mostly disagree with the severity of it.

 

...And, to be honest, what really got my goat was the issue with the axe-handle. It was a stupid and ridiculous statement that would have received vilification if made by a Christian about non-Christians. We should own up that the standard should be the same.

 

What some folks don't realize is that, should they lump us non-fundamentalists with fundamentalists, fundamentalism really will only prosper.

[Walsingham]

I agree that it seems logical to suggest that the possession of a great deal of power by a specific group would translate into signs of their agenda being pursued. The question is, how overt do those signs have to be?

 

One might argue that the very fact that creationism was even being seriously considered as fit for teaching as objective truth is a sign that something is afoot.

[Cantousent]

I'll agree. I think the Creationism issue is a way to lead into more radical measures. If that's Di's suggestion, we have more in common than I hitherto believed.

 

Creationism taught in science class must be defeated. It is an evil measure. ..But I've already said as much.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I have rectified my earlier ignorance regarding irreducable complexity. I have to say I have yet to see the flaw in the original statement. To whit: the existence of a mechanism which cannot be incrementally improved suggests that evolution is flawed. I can't think of any such mechanisms, but give me time. I'm still reading... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you read the one about cancer cells ?

 

What puzzles me is how someone who has actually seen new information being added (albiet rarely) in his own life time can actually claim that evolution would be impossible over the time scale involved which is a heck of a lot longer than however long he's worked in that lab.

[random evil guy]

i don't even know why there is any debate(well, i do 'know', but i don't understand it...). science belongs in science class, while religion belongs in religion class. shouldn't really be any debate. ID isn't a scientific theory, ergo it can't be taught in science class.

 

btw, am i the only one frustrated by creationists who seem to think 'theory' equals 'guess'...? 'earth revolves around the sun' is also a theory...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

i don't even know why there is any debate(well, i do 'know', but i don't understand it...). science belongs in science class, while religion belongs in religion class. shouldn't really be any debate. ID isn't a scientific theory, ergo it can't be taught in science class.

 

btw, am i the only one frustrated by creationists who seem to think 'theory' equals 'guess'...? 'earth revolves around the sun' is also a theory...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They kind of remind me of really extreme fanboys.

 

Yes it makes perfect sense ID not science. However it's not like we are dealing with rational people. I don't know any creationists although I did have someone tell me the earth was only 10,000 years old once. I showed him a bit of earth crust it was funny.

Edited November 16, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0