 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Veritas
Posts:250
 | | 09/26/2007 7:26 PM |
 Alert | Almost everyone has the wrong idea, in some way, about Intelligent Design. I would like to address that confusion.
1. Intelligent Design DOES NOT address who or what God is. Some theists have hijacked the philosophy and they get attention in spite of not deserving it. Does it support theism in some way? Of course, but not for the reasons or in the ways that most theists think that it does.
2. The originators of Intelligent Design DO NOT want it taught in public schools yet because they are not satisfied that it meets the rigorous demands of "scientific theory". In fact, they believe that they are at least a decade away from that.
3. Intelligent Design DOES NOT reject micro-evolutionary theory ... just the macro- stuff.
4. Intelligent Design posits one simple and central fact ... that when we find high improbability and high specificity coordinated in the same phenomena, object, etc., then design was a factor in the origin of the same.
---------------------------
Now, for something completely different ... (moment of silence to celebrate Monty Python) ..... OK
Let's try dealing directly with one or more of the four points offered above. Based on previous experience in other forums, I fully expect that someone will flame out and shoot immediately into an emotional orbit that has little or nothing to do with what I'm saying here. | | | |
| | JAG
Posts:477
| | 09/26/2007 11:23 PM |
Alert | Well said.
Also do not forget that a core model of ID had been proven. We can make inner species mutations and even new species by the use of intelligence. | | | |
|
| | JillyBean
Posts:375
| | 09/26/2007 11:47 PM |
Alert | | Bull Crap.. Intelligent Design is Creationism in a Halloween Costume. | |
Tens of THOUSANDS of pure-bred dogs are killed in shelters in the Us EVERY YEAR!
Do your part
~Spay or Neuter your pets
~DON'T buy animals from irresponsible breeders..
~There is an adoption group for every breed of dog.. | |
|
| | JAG
Posts:477
| | 09/26/2007 11:53 PM |
Alert | | Why do you live in such a paradigm? I mean have you ever really investigated it? | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | | JillyBean
Posts:375
| | 09/27/2007 8:51 AM |
Alert | I don't CARE who wrote it.. I watched the entire drama unfold when the Kansas city school board was voting on whether they would teach ID in their science classes and was APPALLED. This DRIVEL is nothing more than an imagined bridge between theology and science.
This can't even be classified as a "theory". In the context of science, a theory refers to a logically self-consistent TESTABLE model or framework. A scientific theory must originate from experimental evidence. Therefore the word "theory" can not apply to the concept of Intelligent Design because it is untestable conjecture, and should be labeled a "hypothesis" at the very best. | |
Tens of THOUSANDS of pure-bred dogs are killed in shelters in the Us EVERY YEAR!
Do your part
~Spay or Neuter your pets
~DON'T buy animals from irresponsible breeders..
~There is an adoption group for every breed of dog.. | |
|
|  | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/27/2007 9:13 AM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 09/27/2007 8:51 AM
I don't CARE who wrote it.. I watched the entire drama unfold when the Kansas city school board was voting on whether they would teach ID in their science classes and was APPALLED. This DRIVEL is nothing more than an imagined bridge between theology and science.
This can't even be classified as a "theory".
OK ... apparently you DID NOT read the first point in my initial post! Not only did I make it clear that ID is not yet a theory in the eyes of its authors, but that it was hijacked as you say! Intelligent Design says NOTHING about creation! Just because someone says that it does, does not mean that it does! You should read a little more ... it would keep you from saying silly things in public.
Posted By JillyBean on 09/27/2007 8:51 AM
In the context of science, a theory refers to a logically self-consistent TESTABLE model or framework. A scientific theory must originate from experimental evidence. Therefore the word "theory" can not apply to the concept of Intelligent Design because it is untestable conjecture, and should be labeled a "hypothesis" at the very best.
1. OK ... then please explain how Natural Selection explains or helps to explain the origin of DNA.
2. Also, describe in detail how Natural Selection is a logically self-consistent concept with respect to the origin of DNA under Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
3. In what way is the detection of high specificity in conjunction with high improbability NOT testable?
4. While it's true that a hypothesis leads to an experiment, it takes much much more than just experimentation to get to a theory. There is a mathematical framework subject to things like physical law that governs the collection of models into what is eventually called a theory. Please describe how Natural Selection fits into this. | | | |
|
| | Trogdor!
Posts:294
| | 09/27/2007 10:05 AM |
Alert | Veritas,
1. Regarding #4 in your original post:
How can you logically or scientifically conclude "design" from "high improbability and high specificity"?
2. Natural Select isn't supposed to explain the origin DNA, it's supposed to explain differentiation of species.
3. Describe, in detail, how the detection of high specificity in conjunction with high improbability IS testable, thereby reaching the conclusion of "design".
4. Since you admit that ID does support theism, how, exactly, does a deity fit into physical law? | |
 | |
|
| | Michelle
Posts:90
| | 09/27/2007 10:50 AM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 09/26/2007 11:47 PM
Intelligent Design is Creationism in a Halloween costume.
What she said.
| |
I used to be Chelle.
"Well-behaved women seldom make history." - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/27/2007 11:31 AM |
Alert | Posted By Trogdor! on 09/27/2007 10:05 AM
1. Regarding #4 in your original post:
How can you logically or scientifically conclude "design" from "high improbability and high specificity"?
Good question ... From an Information Theoretic framework, these are properties of things that are known in advance to have been designed. Specifically, the name of this model is "The Design Inference"; also a book published under the same title by the Cambridge University Press ... you can get a copy on Amazon.
For instance, it is highly improbable that the faces on Mt. Rushmore were realized by wind and water erosion. It is also highly improbable that any rock formation will turn out the way that it does ... the difference is that the rock formation called Mt. Rushmore has a very high degree of specificity. Hieroglyphics, DNA, etc. all have extremely high improbabilities that natural undirected forces would produce them AND they are highly specific.
The Design Inference is not actually anything that scientists question, even though it is the bedrock of Intelligent Design. What people have trouble with is (1) facing the problems with macro-evolution and (2) mistaking ID for Creationism.
Posted By Trogdor! on 09/27/2007 10:05 AM
2. Natural Select isn't supposed to explain the origin DNA, it's supposed to explain differentiation of species.
Correct ... but most people think that Natural Selection explains the origin of species when (1) it does not and (2) it can not.
Posted By Trogdor! on 09/27/2007 10:05 AM
3. Describe, in detail, how the detection of high specificity in conjunction with high improbability IS testable, thereby reaching the conclusion of "design".
There are two basic ways to arrive at a probability value ... one is theoretical and the other empirical. Theoretically, for every coin toss that is heads there is one that is tails; however, in real life (empirically) this never happens but is always very very close. The mathematics of either is essentially the same though.
So, with something like DNA, the theoretical probabilities match very well with observation such that while we find DNA to be entirely awesome, it is equally mysterious how it ever came to be in the first place. Without DNA, NOTHING in the cell is built, much less the cell itself. DNA does nothing but provide the "code" or instructions that various protein machines carry out as they assemble amino acids into proteins and proteins into cells. But I oversimplify here.
Bottom line, the probability that a cell, much less DNA, can come together by natural undirected forces is essentially zero ... well beyond the limit at which we call the likelihood "absurd". In fact, there are no fundamental forces that are major players in the assembly of these things. About 30 years ago, scientists thought that chemical forces were sufficient, but that was later found to be wrong. DNA does all of the work instructing various molecular machines to USE chemical and electrical forces to "get it done".
[I'm going to stop this explanation during this response, because it's about to get too long. We can continue it later if needed.]
Posted By Trogdor! on 09/27/2007 10:05 AM
4. Since you admit that ID does support theism, how, exactly, does a deity fit into physical law?
A deity DOES NOT "fit in" to physical law in any way, nor did I or would I, ever suggest such a thing. Simply put, natural science observes and describes a great number of things that are "designed" and/or "structured". Many of those things, like DNA or the Big Bang, defy physical law with respect to their origin, yet they are undeniably true. At this point, we can no longer rely on a purely naturalistic methodology to explain things.
Intelligent Design offers a bridge to something because it uses a mathematical model and rubric to "point" in a direction that natural science ignores; namely "design". Whether the design is the result of a conscious agency or a yet undiscovered "force" is not something natural science NOR Intelligent Design can answer ... this requires a philosophy of some sort.
| | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/27/2007 12:47 PM |
Alert | Am I supposed to believe that it was coincidence that ID started shortly after a 1987 court decision that stated that teaching creationism was against the establishment clause and that the first ID textbook "Of Pandas and People" which first edition had the references to creationism changed to intelligent design?
Am I supposed to believe that Phillip E. Johnson, the founder of the ID movement, a born again Christian who when speaks, talks of recapturing America for Christians, doesn't have a Christian agenda?
Am I supposed to believe that ID isn't creationism, even though its pretty much the same except the references to the bible are gone and god is now ID?
I guess I'll refer this to #2
--------
This is what the founder of ID said in a speech.
In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America.
-----
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/27/2007 1:43 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/27/2007 12:47 PM
Am I supposed to believe that it was coincidence that ID started shortly after a 1987 court decision that stated that teaching creationism was against the establishment clause and that the first ID textbook "Of Pandas and People" which first edition had the references to creationism changed to intelligent design?
Where are you getting this information from? It just doesn't make any sense with respect to what Intelligent Design is and what it's authors claim. Sounds like you think that there is such a thing as the Wedge document?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/27/2007 12:47 PM
Am I supposed to believe that Phillip E. Johnson, the founder of the ID movement, a born again Christian who when speaks, talks of recapturing America for Christians, doesn't have a Christian agenda?
Whether or not he founded it is not the issue, nor is the reason that he did. What actually matters is whether or not The Design Inference is valid or not. According to the body scientific, it is entirely valid based on its mathematical and logical structure. So, what we have here is a case where Christians are using a solid scientific apparatus in their quest for knowledge. With respect to things like DNA ... The Design Inference gives more knowledge than the currently accepted paradigm.
But with respect to Johnson, of course he has a Christian agenda! News Flash?! The people that rail against him don't have an agenda of their own? In general, I do not care about anyone's agenda ... the truth is much bigger than that. The truth can be had with or without an "agenda" and everyone has one "agenda" whether they are willing to admit it or not.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/27/2007 12:47 PM
Am I supposed to believe that ID isn't creationism,
Yes.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/27/2007 12:47 PM
even though its pretty much the same except the references to the bible are gone and god is now ID?
You clearly have no idea what Creationism truly is, much less ID. If you had at least one book from either camp, you wouldn't dare say something so patently absurd. Creationism claims that Jesus created everything in six literal days about 6-10 thousand years ago, while ID claims that intelligence is the cause for design when we find it in nature. I have video of the main authors of ID (Dembski, Wells, Berlinski..) saying this ... I will try to find a way to get them into this forum. Also, it should be known that there are just as many theists who are pro-ID as there are atheists ... at least among scientists who accept ID. The Discovery Institute even has its own share of atheists. So much for your Christian Agenda theory.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/27/2007 12:47 PM
I guess I'll refer this to #2
--------
This is what the founder of ID said in a speech.
In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America.
-----
OK ... I'm still waiting for something more sinister...
Am I to assume that you think that the following things are sinister?
1. freedom of thought
2. good science
3. objective reasoning
4. assumptions on the table
5. a high level of education
6. and freedom of conscience
I guess you think that Christians are gearing up for a hostile takeover of America using these tools?  | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/27/2007 4:44 PM |
Alert | I'll be more direct. Addressing your initial posts points.
1) You state that theists hijacked the philosophy. I pointed out that the recognized founder was the one that did this. You did not disagree, so I'm not sure how you can stand by this statement.
2) Right off the bat there were textbooks. Textbooks are for classroom work. Perhaps if people write textbooks, but say we don't want to push it into schools, people believe them.
3) I understand that.
4) I realize that ID followers don't understand probability. | |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3153
| | 09/27/2007 5:47 PM |
Alert | | Maybe it should be called Idiot Design? | |
I'd rather live one day as a lion, than my whole life as a lamb. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/27/2007 7:10 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/27/2007 4:44 PM
1) You state that theists hijacked the philosophy. I pointed out that the recognized founder was the one that did this. You did not disagree, so I'm not sure how you can stand by this statement.
If I understand you correctly, you equate Philip Johnson with the nutburgers in Kansas? This seems preposterous to me. The goals of Philip Johnson and the folks who've made news out of ID are worlds apart in every way. The founders of ID are not trying to promote Creationism but the hijackers of ID are ... it gets no more complex than that. Philip Johnson's "agenda" is way more lofty than Creationism.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/27/2007 4:44 PM
2) Right off the bat there were textbooks. Textbooks are for classroom work. Perhaps if people write textbooks, but say we don't want to push it into schools, people believe them.
Who promoted the textbook?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/27/2007 4:44 PM
4) I realize that ID followers don't understand probability.
Nice try ... it's also true that evolutionists do not understand probability ... but almost no one does, theist or not. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/27/2007 7:15 PM |
Alert | Posted By drummer72 on 09/27/2007 5:47 PM
Maybe it should be called Idiot Design?
Wow ... you are one fart smeller ... wish I could talk that good! | | | |
|
| | Trogdor!
Posts:294
| | 09/27/2007 7:42 PM |
Alert | Wow ... you are one fart smeller ... wish I could talk that good!
I wish I could be so inebriated by the exuberance of my own verbosity! | |
| |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/27/2007 7:52 PM |
Alert | Posted By Trogdor! on 09/27/2007 7:42 PM Wow ... you are one fart smeller ... wish I could talk that good! I wish I could be so inebriated by the exuberance of my own verbosity!
Are you trying to say that I am not as think as you drunk I were?   | | | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3153
| | 09/28/2007 12:40 AM |
Alert | | I guess you got the point! Idiots can't spell. | |
I'd rather live one day as a lion, than my whole life as a lamb. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|