Intelligent Design questions

[BlueTalon]

Without arguing philosophy of science... there are testable hypothesis and there are untestable ones. Evolution is not a testable hypothesis in itself - it is a theory put together using testable pieces.

ID cannot be tested empirically... That is why teaching it in classrooms is wrong. We should be teaching:

1) what can be tested empirically

2) conclusions we may make based on a)

3) fact that our conclusions may be incorrect

You're the first person I've seen here who correctly identifies evolution as a philosophy of science. But your observation that ID cannot be tested empirically doesn't get us anywhere, because evolution likewise cannot be tested empirically. Instead, what happens is that someone like Liberty constructs an experiment to test a hypothesis, and draws a conclusion based on the results of the experiment. However, the conclusion is preformed before the experiment even takes place!

If this happens, it means evolution has occurred.

But if this doesn't happen, it never means evolution didn't occur. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable -- at least, not as long as evolution proponents are running the experiments and editing the science journals.

IMO, evolution and ID should be addressed in the same classroom in the same way, at the same time. If in the science classroom, fine. If in a philosophy classroom, fine.

For what it's worth, I'm only a proponent of teaching ID as long as evolution is treated and taught as a scientific fact. I'd be just as happy if the discussion were simply opened up to allow a critical analysis of the major problems with evolution.

[smsmith40]

BT

Evolution (and all other scientific theories) is merely the theory that best fits the available facts and it should be taught that way.

Why would you teach the NEXT best theory that fits less of the established facts?

If you were teaching about geography, would you teach round earth AND flat earth?

If you were teaching cosmology would you teach two models of the solar system, one with the sun at the centre and one with the earth at the centre?

[Prosperity]

:doh: How are you going to test that? By carefully constructing a well planned, well though out, well designed experiment in which you carefully measure and mix chemicals in a controlled environment? Like that's going to prove it all happened randomly. :laugh:

Not randomly, spontaneously, there is a difference when it comes to scientific terms.

I already put links to some experiments if you don't feel like looking up their methods fine by me I know you won't think differently either way.

[Prosperity]

You're the first person I've seen here who correctly identifies evolution as a philosophy of science. But your observation that ID cannot be tested empirically doesn't get us anywhere, because evolution likewise cannot be tested empirically. Instead, what happens is that someone like Liberty constructs an experiment to test a hypothesis, and draws a conclusion based on the results of the experiment. However, the conclusion is preformed before the experiment even takes place!

If this happens, it means evolution has occurred.

But if this doesn't happen, it never means evolution didn't occur. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable -- at least, not as long as evolution proponents are running the experiments and editing the science journals.

IMO, evolution and ID should be addressed in the same classroom in the same way, at the same time. If in the science classroom, fine. If in a philosophy classroom, fine.

For what it's worth, I'm only a proponent of teaching ID as long as evolution is treated and taught as a scientific fact. I'd be just as happy if the discussion were simply opened up to allow a critical analysis of the major problems with evolution.

Can you deny that ID has nothing testable within it as a philosophical argument? While the theory of evolution has clearly has soemthing which can be testable?

"conclusion is preformed"

that is your opinion nothing less, scientists are probably the last group on Earth to do this, and it is peer reviewed so if it went contrary to evolution it would be pointed out. Scientists love to prove each other wrong, because once something is shown to be lacking there is room for growth of knowledge.

[rebornempowered]

that is your opinion nothing less, scientists are probably the last group on Earth to do this, and it is peer reviewed so if it went contrary to evolution it would be pointed out. Scientists love to prove each other wrong, because once something is shown to be lacking there is room for growth of knowledge.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Halton Arp has a different interpretation of Red Shift. He is an evolutionist and I believe an atheist. He may be agnostic, I'm not sure. Anywho, he couldn't get his papers published because it went against the grain of Big Bang interpretation. He had to publish his works himself.

Many peer reviewed journals have been accused of censorship by other scientists. Not creationist scientists but evolutionary scientists.

[Prosperity]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Halton Arp has a different interpretation of Red Shift. He is an evolutionist and I believe an atheist. He may be agnostic, I'm not sure. Anywho, he couldn't get his papers published because it went against the grain of Big Bang interpretation. He had to publish his works himself.

Many peer reviewed journals have been accused of censorship by other scientists. Not creationist scientists but evolutionary scientists.

It got through eventually and he was awarded some prize by the American Astronomical Society in 1960 so the scientific community does turn around, unlike say every other field in academia.

What do you mean he is an "evolutionist" as far as I know his work was all done in astronomy.

[BlueTalon]

BT

Evolution (and all other scientific theories) is merely the theory that best fits the available facts and it should be taught that way.

Why would you teach the NEXT best theory that fits less of the established facts?

If you were teaching about geography, would you teach round earth AND flat earth?

If you were teaching cosmology would you teach two models of the solar system, one with the sun at the centre and one with the earth at the centre?

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to that. But you say that from the perspective of one who already believes in evolution, so it's a circular argument. I happen to believe that evolution does not best fit the "established facts" as you put it. But it's a discussion that can never happen as long as pro-evolutionists have a stranglehold on the science orthodoxy, and your examples prove my point. You equate ID to flat earth or geocentric solar system. From a science perspective, they are worlds apart. A better analogy would be teaching that the earth is spherical or teaching that the earth is obloid. That's a discussion that has merit, and takes looking at the evidence to determine. This whole evolution/ID thing always breaks down to charges of "backdoor religion" from the evolutionists, even though the ID proponent never mentions any god, nor necessarily even wants to.

IMO, the pro-evolution scientists and backers have put themselves in the same position as the 17th century Catholic Church -- they are the keepers of the orthodoxy, and woe be unto any who challenge it! And while evolutionists charge that ID is all about religion, I would charge that the reverse is also true -- for evolutionists, it is also about religion. It's often about hatred of/bigotry against "organized religion", and it's about religious-style acceptance of unverifiable and unprovable ideas, many of which contradict scientific laws.

Again, I just want the discussion to happen, and all I'm looking for is some intellectual honesty about the flaws in evolutionary theory. If that were to happen, I would lose most of my incentive for advocating ID alongside evolution.

[Prosperity]

My understanding is that Evolution is an argument/theory because it puts together a large number of testable theories (along with a wealth of evidence). Yet in itself Evolution cannot be tested.

Only parts of evolution can be tested... such as mixing a bunch of chemicals, heating them up and getting organic molecules, membranes, things like that.

It all adds up, but cannot be tested as a whole.

AlexRS, I respect your thoughts on this so if you come back to this thread answer this question:

Can you test all the predictions of the theory of relativity using only one experiment (testing it as a "whole" in your words)?

You say evolution cannot be tested as a whole because it is made of smaller testable pieces, but that is true of a lot of theories. Also what exactly is your definition of a theory?

For example, wikipedia say:

A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together

this is consistent with the Theory of Evolution. If you have a different definition or if you don't trust wikipedia please attempt a correction.

BT, if you can just show how ID can be tested then you can start putting it in the same sentence as science. That is the focus of the thread.

[rebornempowered]

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to that. But you say that from the perspective of one who already believes in evolution, so it's a circular argument. I happen to believe that evolution does not best fit the "established facts" as you put it. But it's a discussion that can never happen as long as pro-evolutionists have a stranglehold on the science orthodoxy, and your examples prove my point. You equate ID to flat earth or geocentric solar system. From a science perspective, they are worlds apart. A better analogy would be teaching that the earth is spherical or teaching that the earth is obloid. That's a discussion that has merit, and takes looking at the evidence to determine. This whole evolution/ID thing always breaks down to charges of "backdoor religion" from the evolutionists, even though the ID proponent never mentions any god, nor necessarily even wants to.

IMO, the pro-evolution scientists and backers have put themselves in the same position as the 17th century Catholic Church -- they are the keepers of the orthodoxy, and woe be unto any who challenge it! And while evolutionists charge that ID is all about religion, I would charge that the reverse is also true -- for evolutionists, it is also about religion. It's often about hatred of/bigotry against "organized religion, and it's about religious-style acceptance of unverifiable and unprovable ideas, many of which contradict scientific laws.

Again, I just want the discussion to happen, and all I'm looking for is some intellectual honesty about the flaws in evolutionary theory. If that were to happen, I would lose most of my incentive for advocating ID alongside evolution.

Very well put sir!

Although, I am not an advocate of ID being taught in public schools. The last thing we need is some brainwashed evolutionist teaching kids ID.

[BlueTalon]

Not randomly, spontaneously, there is a difference when it comes to scientific terms.

There's no functional difference, when you are trying to bridge the gap from no-life to life. Or, if you want to insist there is still a difference, fine. They're different. But they are equally true and applicable.

Can you deny that ID has nothing testable within it as a philosophical argument? While the theory of evolution has clearly has soemthing which can be testable?

Yes, I deny that. In order to conclude that many of the things you say support evolution actually support evolution, you have to go in with the presumption that evolution occurred, and that this supports it. In other words, interpretations are often circular, and often self serving.

"conclusion is preformed"

that is your opinion nothing less, scientists are probably the last group on Earth to do this, and it is peer reviewed so if it went contrary to evolution it would be pointed out. Scientists love to prove each other wrong, because once something is shown to be lacking there is room for growth of knowledge.

You make a big huge leap of religious faith here, by assuming "scientists" are objective and the peer review process the be-all-&-end-all. No doubt it's helpful. But while scientists love to prove each other wrong, they also love to blacklist other scientists who go against the orthodoxy of evolution.

There are boatloads of scientists who believe Darwinian evolution is a load of bull, and I'm not even refering to ID/creation proponents. To try to present "scientists" as an objective group who universally accept evolution, is either disingenuousness on your part, or true belief on your part in something that is a complete fallacy.

[rebornempowered]

It got through eventually and he was awarded some prize by the American Astronomical Society in 1960 so the scientific community does turn around, unlike say every other field in academia.

What do you mean he is an "evolutionist" as far as I know his work was all done in astronomy.

Good try but the books I am referring to weren't published until thelate 80's and the 90's.

By evolutionist I mean that he believes in evolution. He simply doesn't necessarily subscribe to the Big Bang portion of what is currently taught.

Also, for the record, may I be the first to challenge you to do some real study and inquiry on the topic from both sides instead of going to Wikipedia to try and refute me please.

[BlueTalon]

Very well put sir!

Although, I am not an advocate of ID being taught in public schools. The last thing we need is some brainwashed evolutionist teaching kids ID.

Thanks. I'd actually be for putting both evolution and ID in a history of philosophy class. But wherever evolution is, ID belongs, since the both are philosophies of science that address the same thing. The way I would address the issue is to have a debate in the classroom between proponents of both sides. That way, students get their information from the best of both sides, can make up their own minds, and aren't relying on the single perspective on the teacher, regardless of what his/her viewpoint is.

[Prosperity]

There's no functional difference, when you are trying to bridge the gap from no-life to life. Or, if you want to insist there is still a difference, fine. They're different. But they are equally true and applicable.[/quotes]

Random events are causeless as far as I know they can only happen when we are talking about quantum theoru.

Yes, I deny that. In order to conclude that many of the things you say support evolution actually support evolution, you have to go in with the presumption that evolution occurred, and that this supports it. In other words, interpretations are often circular, and often self serving.

Prove ID is testable, you bring nothing to the table until then, sorry.

You make a big huge leap of religious faith here, by assuming "scientists" are objective and the peer review process the be-all-&-end-all. No doubt it's helpful. But while scientists love to prove each other wrong, they also love to blacklist other scientists who go against the orthodoxy of evolution.

I don't assume they are objective, I assume they are relatively objective a little bit more careful reading on your part will expedite this process.

There are boatloads of scientists who believe Darwinian evolution is a load of bull, and I'm not even refering to ID/creation proponents. To try to present "scientists" as an objective group who universally accept evolution, is either disingenuousness on your part, or true belief on your part in something that is a complete fallacy.

Boatloads? Well that is very descriptive isn't it? I doubt anything in science is universally accepted, doesn't mean the vast majority of scientists don't agree one way or another, better yet, doesn't mean that there isn't a wealth of evidence is support of a theory even if "boatloads" disagree.

I am sure you will post a link to that creationist website and list all the BOATLOADS of scientists that have a problem with evoltuion. I will proceed to name just the scientists named "Steve" that agree with evolution. My list would be larger.

But you aren't answering the question, is ID testable? If it is look at my first post. Until you do that you are wasting everyone's time with the same trite arguments. If you can't do it, don't bother posting in this thread.

[rebornempowered]

Thanks. I'd actually be for putting both evolution and ID in a history of philosophy class. But wherever evolution is, ID belongs, since the both are philosophies of science that address the same thing. The way I would address the issue is to have a debate in the classroom between proponents of both sides. That way, students get their information from the best of both sides, can make up their own minds, and aren't relying on the single perspective on the teacher, regardless of what his/her viewpoint is.

My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately it will probably never happen. We can dream though.

[BlueTalon]

It will happen in my world, I guarantee you that. If my options are to let my children get taught by someone like liberty in a public school or teaching them myself, I'll teach them myself.

Liberty, give us the parameters of any test you would accept. Without that, what you're doing is a set-up, because it leaves you free to reject anything for any reason.

And if you are going to try to characterize the event that started life (demanded by evolutionary theory) as spontaneous but not random, you either have a very narrow definition of "random" or a very interesting view of the beginning-of-life event.

By the way, I think for myself and I make my own arguments. I try to avoid debate-by-link, so no, I'm not going to link to a creationist site. Unless you want me to.

[rebornempowered]

It will happen in my world, I guarantee you that. If my options are to let my children get taught by someone like liberty in a public school or teaching them myself, I'll teach them myself.

I have chosen private school for my daughter and it's the best money I have spent. Yes, it may not be the same denomination as we are but it is still better than the alternative.

[Prosperity]

It will happen in my world, I guarantee you that. If my options are to let my children get taught by someone like liberty in a public school or teaching them myself, I'll teach them myself.

Liberty, give us the parameters of any test you would accept. Without that, what you're doing is a set-up, because it leaves you free to reject anything for any reason.

And if you are going to try to characterize the event that started life (demanded by evolutionary theory) as spontaneous but not random, you either have a very narrow definition of "random" or a very interesting view of the beginning-of-life event.

my parameters:

1. State you hypothesis

2. Make predictions

3. Name some methods of testing the predictions

4. Show some studies/experiments done that support the hypothesis through empirical testing

you can ignore 4 for now if you want.

PS I am genuinely offended, there is no one "like" me :cool:

[The Evil Genius]

heh heh heh...

[Zguy28]

Touche!

This could go on forever.

[The Evil Genius]

"Family Walks on All Fours, May Offer Evolution Insight, Experts Say"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_all_fours.html

Hmmmmm....

[Prosperity]

I wonder if BT is going to come back to this thread :laugh:

[Shallow1]

If we were created or evolved wouldn't we all be african?

[Winslowalrob]

If we were created or evolved wouldn't we all be african?

We are all from Africa. The migratory patterns for humans is quite interesting actually. We can all start using the n-word at will now .

[Zguy28]

If we were created or evolved wouldn't we all be african?

A good site for the Christian point of view for this or other topics is http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=244&ItemId=866

[Prosperity]

We are all from Africa. The migratory patterns for humans is quite interesting actually. We can all start using the n-word at will now .

"n-word" please.....