|
 johnm214
 
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
 Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? 
#10502356 - 06/13/09 10:41 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
After discussing the issue at length in this forum we finally got to a point where no proponent of ID as scientific or testable could actually demonstrate that it actually means something concrete enough such that its neccesary consequences could be observed and therefore tested- rejecting or supporting it. It can't be shown to be science cuz it doesn't actually mean anything that can be observed and tested.
Simply put, I've never seen any way in which ID could be tested, refuted, or supported. Some vague claims have been made by some, but they seem obviously problematic and when you get right down to it they refuse to actually lay out the methodology for testing their predictions nor do they explain how the failure of any of these predictions could ever falsify ID (unless you limit ID to be quite narrow: the flagellum is designed, or soemthing like that).
Usually at this point the proponents switch to bitching about evolution- with the implicit unstated assumption that a failing of evolution is a support of intelligent design (how this is so isn't explained). It seems ID at times doesn't even mean anything- its just such that occupies the negative space of evolution- that which we cannot reliably prove is ID (can't show exactly how primates evolved? Score one for ID).
I was struck by this quote from the Dover School decision regarding this curious phenomena:
Quote:
ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed “contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach” and that “(i)n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago.
... Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID, as will be elaborated upon below....even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.
pg 71 of opinion
Is this accurate? Agree disagree?
If your hypothesis has no neccesary consequences it is not scientific, as it can never be tested or disproven. The court seems to think this is the situation with ID thought presented to it, and it seems similar to the arguments we've seen on this board.
What do you think?
|
 dill705
Amazed
Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10502458 - 06/13/09 11:00 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You pretty much covered it. Meaningless claims, illogically linked to the complexities we see in the natural world and evolutionary biologies current lack of explanation for some of these complex structures.
--------------------
My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end.
-Icelander-
I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW!
~dill705~
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: dill705]
#10503041 - 06/14/09 01:36 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well actually i think that intelligent design does account for the alternatives to evolution.
Think about it this way:
start with the premise that this universe contains clearly observable order.
Order occurs when factors of the world end up that way. One way this can happen is if conscious beings channel the factors into a specific scheme.
One theory is that this order was put in place by some intelligence (instigator) that is inaccessible to us. Essentially, it is a logically valid (but completely unproven or unevidenced) theory.
The alternative to this is that the order we see was not channeled into being by a conscious instigator. This is the theory that was developed primarily during the enlightenment when it became clear that there was evidence for naturally occuring order, whereas there was no evidence for a god.
So this other theory states that as soon a self-replicating systems occur by chance, they will continue to develop towards greater complexity.
What other options are there?
well there is the option that life has always existed
But this is not really an alternative theory, but a disclaiming theory. it says 'there was no beginning so there is no point asking how life began'
but if you assume there was a beginning point/flux to life then there is the question of whether that occured 'with' or 'without' intelligent influence.
'with' is intelligent design
'without' is evolution
it seems like a very clear dichotomy to me...
but it is true that stupid people use evidence that is against evolution to credit intelligent design. that is trully falacious.
It is actually quite interesting now that i think about it
most 'evidence' for intelligent design is not evidence at all, it is merely 'credence' to the idea of evolution. because evolution has heaps of holes and it is perfectly consistent that those holes are filled by intelligent design.
in this way, evidence against evolution is often a matter of shining light on holes for evolution.
i dont think there is any 'evidence' for evolution. it is not a real scientific theory. there is only more and more support to allow us to believe evolution is true.
so I think that it is all that intelligent design theorists can do - is show that evolution cannot explain certain things.
both intelligent design and evolutionary theory are possible.
Intelligent disign, i should add, has nothing to do with any existing religion here on earth.
Im thinking that 'intelligent design' should be replaced by the notion of 'undescoverable answer'.
hmm. society has told me that if you cant find an answer to something, you should forget about it.
maybe that is the third option???
the one that has a way of dealing with having no answer to the question. A standpoint that can help people understand what is right and wrong without dictating the origin of the universe to them, or giving them something to live for after life.
??
--------------------
 
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10503273 - 06/14/09 03:59 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i dont think there is any 'evidence' for evolution. it is not a real scientific theory. there is only more and more support to allow us to believe evolution is true.
That's how all scientific theories work.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10503360 - 06/14/09 04:59 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
scientific experimentation aims at creating situations where a hypothesis can be tested.
There is no testing. no expeirment, for 'evolutionary account'. Only a theory.
The problem of falsifiability takes front stage when it comes to scientific explorations. But that is because science can only be used to compare falsifiable theories. Falsifiability, however, has nothing to do with whether something is the case or not.
When we ask between evolution and intelligent design, we dont have two falsifiable claims. We have one falsifiable claim, and one unfalsifiable claim, and the falsifiable claim (evolution) could only ever be falsified with experiments that surpass any time span of many human lives.
So essentially, pragmatically, we have to unfalsifiable claims.
science does not apply
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10503517 - 06/14/09 06:22 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You're making the same mistake MM made, of thinking that examination of evidence doesn't count as a test. It does. Every time we examine a fossil, we're testing the theory of evolution. If the evidence doesn't fit, then the theory is falsified and a new one created that matches the entire body of evidence.
The theory of how we evolved is falsifiable. It's been falsified many times. It just happens that when we replace the theory with a new one, a central tenet remains unchanged - that of Natural Selection. This is simply because we haven't found any evidence that disproves it yet.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10503663 - 06/14/09 07:58 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think about evolution as a theory. Rather I think about evolution as a system where competing algorithms survive depending on how well they are able to perform compared to other algorithms, and where random changes are made into the codes of the replicas when the algorithms are self-replicated.
Isn't this a type of system, rather than a theory? And isn't there like billions of evidences that this system applies to biology?
Edited by Zanthius (06/14/09 08:11 AM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 13,632
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Zanthius]
#10504517 - 06/14/09 12:09 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
id is the antichrist
an imposter
a joke
--------------------
~~~~~
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10504880 - 06/14/09 01:32 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
There is no testing. no expeirment, for 'evolutionary account'. Only a theory.
huh? How so? As zouden observes, we look at the evidence and test our theory against it. When a new fossil is discovered, we can observe whether it is supportive of evolution. If it is not compatible with evolutionary theory then we would have to make some changes- either in our analysis of the fossil or in the theory. After many tests like this we determine what the most supported explanation is, that looks like current evolutionary theory.
There is a bunch of ways we can test evolution- look at the genome of related organisms, genetic information over time, look at structures and how they appear to evolve, look for organisms that cannot be explained by evolution and see if they are inconsistant with evolution.
How are you saying the theory isn't testable? You can't just claim something like that and not back it up.
Quote:
So this other theory states that as soon a self-replicating systems occur by chance, they will continue to develop towards greater complexity.
ugh, are we conflating abiogensis with evolution here? Greater complexity is not the goal or the push, the push is to survival. Bacteria still flourish and they are much less complex than other life, why is this? Cuz complexity is not favored, survival of the genome is.
Quote:
The problem of falsifiability takes front stage when it comes to scientific explorations. But that is because science can only be used to compare falsifiable theories. Falsifiability, however, has nothing to do with whether something is the case or not.
So what?
Are we again descending to the metaphysical analysis of what reality is? Who cares, science isn't attempting to explain that. We look at what we can observe. If a hypothesis is so meaningless that it doesn't have any neccesary consequences that we can detect then what does it matter anyways? Of course it doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means its not science cuz we could never determine it to be false, and thus we have no way of knowing if it is or not cuz its consequences cannot be tested. This seems to be the case with ID.
Quote:
hmm. society has told me that if you cant find an answer to something, you should forget about it.
maybe that is the third option???
this seems like more metaphysics.
We can find a bunch of evidence for certain phenomena, that we can never know if there's another layer under the observable shell of the onion is immaterial. We are looking for what effects our world- observable phenomena. If it is not observable it is not science and some would say it is totally immaterial to anybody.
Your third option is just a demurrer. I think your operating under the mistaken assumption that the intent of science is to analyze what reality is rather than what the observable universe operates like. Science doesn't purport to say god isn't directing things behind the scenes, only that we cannot know one way or another without some evidence of such and until that time it is pointless to allege something that cannot be tested.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10505804 - 06/14/09 04:28 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution is only falsifiable under chance conditions that you will find an anomoly. You cannot design an experiment that can falsify evolution. There are plenty of Intelligent design theories that purport a mix between a creator and the effects of natural selection here on earth - so evidencing evolution does not falsify intelligent design. The only way to use science to show that evolution of species is true is either to show that it is impossible for a creator to have designed life, or to show at least that evolution can generate a new species with new morphologies.
Merely looking at all the fossils and how they are arranged makes it SILLY to deny evolution is at least happening. However to go from there to the point where you say that 'LIFE AROSE ON EARTH THROUGH THE PROCESS OF NATURAL SELECTION FROM NON-LIVING SUBSTRATE' is not science.
as for mixing up evolution with abiogenisis, im sorry that it seemed that way. I was referring to the inherent complexity difference between living things and non living things when life was emerging from primordial soup, not between individual living things in today's world.
--------------------
|
Arden
לנשום
Registered: 09/01/08
Posts: 7,648
Loc: Α & Ω 
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10507615 - 06/14/09 09:32 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
ID theory, like any other speculations arising from transient components which are indistinguishable from the same system they attempt to describe, will be swallowed whole by the movements of time.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Arden]
#10508537 - 06/15/09 01:05 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Evolution is only falsifiable under chance conditions that you will find an anomoly.
So it is falsifiable.
A scientific theory doesn't have to be easily falsifiable, or likely to be falsified, for it to still count as a scientific theory.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10508542 - 06/15/09 01:07 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Right, in fact its quite the opposite. By the time it gets theory status the evidence is so one sided it is hard to falsify.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,115
Loc: Between
Last seen: 9 hours, 36 minutes
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: johnm214]
#10508630 - 06/15/09 01:37 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think evolution is intelligent 
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10509277 - 06/15/09 06:43 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Evolution is only falsifiable under chance conditions that you will find an anomoly.
So it is falsifiable.
A scientific theory doesn't have to be easily falsifiable, or likely to be falsified, for it to still count as a scientific theory.
ok, more clarification:
when something is said to be 'falsifiable' it means that it can be falsified. This might be due to chance occurence that it can be falsified at some moment,
or it might be because there is a way that someone could falsify it if they wanted to.
Since the falsifiability of evolution is something we will just have to wait for, it is not quite the same falsifiability as other real sciences, whereby an experiment can be set up to FALSIFY something.
The difference here is between:
falsifiabilty IN A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT,
and 'falsifiability' as the general hypothetical possibility.
Evolution has never been tested and it remains a matter of economics, philosophy, history, etc. It is the best theory we have. But its not science! its just scientifically sensible. ie, compared to all the other theories that are completely unsensible, in a scientific way.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10509500 - 06/15/09 07:31 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't understand yor point unless your claiming that no experiment can be done to test evolution and that this means it isn't falsifiable.
You can test evolution with experiments and you can falsify it.
Numerous examples of how this could be done have been mentioned, if you disagree please be specific.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10509666 - 06/15/09 08:06 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
You're making the same mistake MM made, of thinking that examination of evidence doesn't count as a test. It does. Every time we examine a fossil, we're testing the theory of evolution. If the evidence doesn't fit, then the theory is falsified and a new one created that matches the entire body of evidence.
The theory of how we evolved is falsifiable. It's been falsified many times. It just happens that when we replace the theory with a new one, a central tenet remains unchanged - that of Natural Selection. This is simply because we haven't found any evidence that disproves it yet.
We have not found any evidence disproving intelligent design?
And I am out of the loop because I havnt seen any experiments that could be constructed that could determine whether evolution was true or not.
You can only show that evolution is a plausible idea. Once something has a contradiction, it becomes implausible. That is why anything to do with the bible is implausible. But intelligent design itself is very plausible.
so its a question of what is more plausible
To some people, the 'scientists'; the lack of any evidence showing a god is frustrating, while at the same time they feel confident in using their imagination to suppose that evolution from non-living to living is possible.
To other people, the 'believers'; the lack of any evidence showing evolution from non-living to living is frustrating, while at the same time they feel confident in using their imagination to suppose that a god is possible.
Thus they end up with different ideas of which is a more plausible idea
Science has merely made evolution from non living matter a serious possibility, because all of our fossil records can be described by its theory.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10509778 - 06/15/09 08:35 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
whether evolution was true or not.
no, whether evolution is plausible in light of the evidence or whether it is inconsistant with the evidence. We are not searching for metaphysical truth, we are searching for verifiable theory explaining the many observations we make.
Quote:
the lack of any evidence showing evolution from non-living to living is frustrating
This has nothing at all to do with evolution. It is completely unrelated.
Quote:
But intelligent design itself is very plausible.
so its a question of what is more plausible
No, its a question of what the evidence supports. We can observe the forces of evolution.
We can not observe anything at all to do with supernatural or natural design of life.
Thus evolution has support while intelligent design does not.
Moreover, ID cannot be falsified so it is impossible to disprove and not science for the same reason imagining a cookie monster is behind the scenes controlling everything isn't- we can never find evidence that it isn't so and we have no evidence that it is so.
This has nothing to do with plausibility- it has to do with what evidence we have and whether the hypothesis may be disproven.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: Noteworthy]
#10511656 - 06/15/09 02:44 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Evolution is only falsifiable under chance conditions that you will find an anomoly.
So it is falsifiable.
A scientific theory doesn't have to be easily falsifiable, or likely to be falsified, for it to still count as a scientific theory.
ok, more clarification:
when something is said to be 'falsifiable' it means that it can be falsified. This might be due to chance occurence that it can be falsified at some moment,
or it might be because there is a way that someone could falsify it if they wanted to.
Yes, I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Science doesn't care whether something is easily falsifiable, it just has to be theoretically falsifiable. You can't easily falsify gravity, but it's still a theory.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,361
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory? [Re: zouden]
#10511758 - 06/15/09 03:03 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Science doesn't care
I want a methodology that is concerned about my feelings! 
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
