|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 8:35:48 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
The inference that we were designed is a scientific deduction (it is falsifiable). Questions of who the designer is are philosophical.
1. The possiblilty that we are designed may be a falsifiable notion, but so far it has not led to a definite conclusion, nor has it done anything to extend our understanding of biological functions.
2. Even if it were conclusive, the next step, by deductive reasoning, would have to be an investigation of the intelligence itself. To stop short of this would be scientifically irresponsible, not to mention laughable. It would be kind of like reading an engrossing mystery novel, but then stopping short of actually finding out how it ends because that would be too philosophical.
quote:
Darwinism allows that there is no God. From a philosophical standpoint, this indirectly implies there is no God. Since science can't prove that God doesn't exist, such an implication is philosophical.
Incorrect. No science of any kind allows for theism or atheism to be part of the theorem. If someone infers theism from the theory, that is completely subjective, but science does not imply anything.
To use a different example: does our government imply atheism because of the separation of church and state? Not at all. It simply means that the two don't mix in American government. Church is one thing, the state is another.
Same with science: theism is one thing, science is another.
quote:
Depends on your criteria of "flaw." Perhaps the existence of an imperishable design is impossible. All these are philosophical arguments.
It still reflects on the supposed designer no matter how you semantically tiptoe over it. Once we acknowledge- scientifically- that there is a design, we begin to profile the designer based upon our observations.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 10:24:33 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6776
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
What does that matter?
Well in a flawed universe to have an information system that maintains itself in the overwhelming number of cases for billions of years indicates incredible capability and sophistication.
quote:
Somehow I don't see that in this sentence:
Science frequently leads to philosophical considerations that science itself cannot answer; that fact simply delineates the limits of science, not ID.
Your syntax points to ID as an exception to the limits of science.
That is bad syntax; I should have added ‘in particular’.
quote:
Is there any other assumption to choose from without resorting to religious doctrine (which would be unscientific)?
Well, as I indicated before these are philosophical and metaphysical questions, so no.
quote:
Actually, it was more of a theological question stemming from the fact that I can't understand what a Judeo-Christian worldview stands to benefit from ID over evolution. The implications don't place the designer, i.e. God, in a very good light.
But perhaps that doesn't really matter. What I firmly detect is that the push to get ID into the classroom has nothing to do with the designer, creator, God, et al. ID supporters oppose evolution because they see it as atheism in sheep's clothing. Their response is a Trojan Horse of their own: theism couched in the guise of "better" science.
Well exactly; it a theological question, not a scientific one, so no one would look to either ID or evolution to answer it.
quote:
In other words, you have no answer.
No more than anyone else on this issue.
quote:
The presence of pain and suffering in the world can be, and has been, addressed very fully by philosophy and religion.
But the best scientific answer ID can offer is, "The designer must either be flawed, or else flawless and dispassionately capricous."
Well yes, exactly. As I have said continually, it is a philosophical and religious question; no science can answer it, nor would anyone expect it to.
quote:
Pain and suffering merely underscore the more fundamental point: why flaw and imperfection? The designer was either incapable of perfection, or else didn't care how much pain and suffering resulted from the designer's deliberate sabotage.
As you have said, it is a religious and philosophical question; ID doesn't address it, nor could it.
quote:
He has said this, or at least to that effect. He obviously doesn't think he is religious. Anyway, I didn't mean to make it seem that I was taking sides with him. My comment was more of a sideline, kind of like, "Gee, that's ironic."
Either way, that is exactly what Dawkins does; conflates his metaphysics and his science.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-200
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/23/2008 7:06:56 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well in a flawed universe to have an information system that maintains itself in the overwhelming number of cases for billions of years indicates incredible capability and sophistication.
It maintains itself, but by evolving, adapting, and mutating. The side effect of this is a whole lot of extinction throughout the ages and some pretty sad misfires of genes-- not just in humans.
What does this scientifically prove about the designer?
quote:
Well, as I indicated before these are philosophical and metaphysical questions, so no.
then what good is it to religious supporters who demand that it be included in science cirriculae?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/24/2008 2:39:44 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 534
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:BVZquote:
It assumes the existence of a designer, but refuses to abandon the assumption when no evidence is found to support it.
Evidently you haven’t bothered reading Jack’s posts.
I have read many of his posts.
His 'evidence' pretty much amounts to argument from incredulity every time.
quote:
quote:
Science makes assumptions all the time. But evidence contradicting the assumptions should force the scientist making the assumption to abandon that assumption.
That is exactly why evolution should be dumped, but it won’t because evolution is not science.
If you have something to put on the table, feel free to do so. What is this evidence that you think contradicts the theory of evolution?
quote:
quote:
On the other hand, if a scientific theory based on an assumption creates predictions that turn out to be accurate, the assumptions that spawned the scientific theory gain credibility (even though they might not be intuitive.)
Uh, like the prediction that all information driven nano-machines are designed? That is a prediction that makes ID falsifiable, yet it hasn’t been falsified.
Read what I said again. This time more carefully.
For an assumption to become more credible, predictions made by theories based on that assumption must be shown to be accurate. Your assumption that ALL machines smaller than some arbitrary size (decided by who I wonder?) must be designed, has not been proven. Hence, your assumption has not gained any credibility.
quote:
Compare that with evolution’s prediction that all species will change over time unless they don’t, in which case evolution predicts stasis.
Actually, you have it wrong. Evolution predicts that populations will either change or go extinct when their environment changes in such a way that their current phenotype is no longer well adapted.
This is what we see.
Notice that the environment has to change. If it doesn't the optimal phenotype remains static, and hence, the population remains static as well. (The phenotype at least. Since we don't really have access to much of the genetic material of the creatures in question, it is kind of hard to say if it has changed or not. There are more and less efficient ways of reaching the same optimal phenotype.)
quote:
quote:
Another big problem with ID is Occam's razor. Assuming a designer is exactly that, an assumption.
What does Occam’s razor say about assumptions that have empirical support?
Occam's razor does not specify. It simply states that the theory that uses the LEAST amount of assumptions to make the MOST accurate predictions is the superior theory.
ID makes unnecessary assumptions, that does not increase it's predictive power.
quote:
quote:
Occam's razor simply cuts ID away, since evolution ALREADY explains the diversity of life, WITHOUT making that unnecessary assumption.
This is a laughable abuse of Occam’s razor. Occum’s razor does NOT favor an ASSUMPTION that has absolutely NO empirical support over an assumption that does have empirical support.
Remember, assumptions gain credibility along with the predictions that are ultimately based on them (through scientific theories). If the prediction is shown to be accurate, the assumptions gain credibility.
Evolution is based on certain assumptions (like all scientific theories are), and the predictions made by evolution turn out to be accurate. But only that, THEY TURN OUT TO BE USEFUL. Why do you think companies that create new medicines make use of evolution theory? Do you think they would be doing that if the theory did not make useful predictions?
Now, while we are discussing predictions, what predictions does ID make, that the TOE does NOT make?
quote:
quote:
So it is possible to take the theory of evolution and latch a designer onto that.
It is quite possible to believe the fairytale of evolution and merge it with the evidence for ID. That is why it is wrong to consider ID as an “alternate” to evolution.
Why do you think evolution is a fairy tale? Do you think pharmaceutical companies would be investing money in a fairy tale? You do know that the TOE is being used in genetic algorithms right? You claim that the TOE is a fairy tale does not correlate with reality. I suggest you digest and deal with this fact.
quote:
quote:
We assume that a designer exists.
Actually, rather than assuming a designer exists ID presents evidence supporting the contention that design is required for the origin of information driven nano-machines.
If you have evidence for this, I suggest you present it.
quote:
On the other hand mindless undirected evolution ASSUMES that nature is capable of producing information driven nano-machines through random natural processes. This assumption contradicts the evidence.
Actually, you have it the wrong way around. The development of machines smaller than an arbitrary size (again, who decided what that size should be?) is one of the CONCLUSIONS of the TOE. It is not an assumption. While the TOE DOES make assumptions, this is not one of them. The development of nano machines is a conclusion that is reached from OTHER assumptions.
quote:
Now what?
You could try addressing the OP of this thread even though it has been thoroughly refuted.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
