Home | Community | Message Board

High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate
    #4751895 - 10/04/05 12:17 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

From reading some other threads it seems to me that most people assume that the big bang/evolution and intellifent design are mutually exclusive. Why should this be? I fail to see how evolution being a factually supported theory negates ID which is more of a philosophical speculation. You can't disprove LAo Tsu with Newton, so how does evolution disprove the idea that the universe is created and organized by intelligence?

I see this as a thinly guised battle between materialism and spirituality. As a matter of fact we know that the earth was not created in 7 days, but that does not mean there isn't a higher level of knowledge or awareness behind it all. I don't think that established science proves a materialist/nihilist philosophy, which is just that : another philosophy.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4752483 - 10/04/05 01:55 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Here's an article I'm writing for the school paper:

Quote:

Teach the Irony

I?m going to do something very uncharacteristic of me: I?m going to agree with religious conservatives on something. I think Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes. Now, before you peg me as some sort of holy roller, let me explain. Most people do not understand how science works. They nod their heads in ignorance while creationists preach that evolution is ?just a theory,? even if they themselves are not creationists. It?s time to teach people what science really is.

In science, theory is all we have to work with. Science is based on limited degrees of certainty. Unlike religion, science never claims to be 100% certain of anything. Thus, even the most valid scientific inferences still fall under the category of theory. A valid theory must explain observable phenomena. It must make testable predictions. And it must be falsifiable. By this, I mean that it must be able to be proven wrong. Evolution, for example, could be falsified if we were to find rabbit skeletons in the Pre-Cambrian. A theory can be supported by the evidence over and over again, but it only takes one valid piece of evidence to prove it wrong. No such hard evidence against evolution has been produced, despite what phony ?creation scientists? may tell you, so it still stands as a valid theory.

Now, what about Intelligent Design? Is it a valid theory? No. That?s not to say it?s necessarily wrong. It?s just unscientific. Intelligent Design says there are things in nature which are too complex to have evolved by chance, and therefore must have been subject to outside intervention by an intelligent designer. So how could we test this? What predictions does this make? The answer: none. It doesn?t tell us anything we can look for in the fossil record to support it, nor can it be falsified. It does not tell us that we will or will not find certain features in specimens, but simply claims those features to be improbable(but they happened anyway).

So here we get to why I would like to see Intelligent Design taught in science classes alongside evolution. Intelligent Design is a perfect example of pseudoscience. Rather than keeping it out of the curriculum, it should be taught to help students understand the difference between science and pseudo-science, so they can discern other forms of pseudoscience when they come across them in the future. If the children are taught why Intelligent Design is not scientific, they can better understand what science is, and gain an appreciation for its methods. The irony of it all is that an honest examination of Intelligent Design and its relation to science would be the last thing the creationists would want to see.




--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4752515 - 10/04/05 02:00 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Blame it on Descartes.

No, really... it's his fucking fault.

Of course, his move DID free the scientific community from the grasp of the church.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 30,813
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4752967 - 10/04/05 05:47 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

it really might be that we are extremely minor intelligences, unable to conceive of a super intelligence that creates and exists between past and future in such away that the entire universe is desined and constructed intelligently as a moebius in a greater dimension.

but that is a stretch of open mindedness and conjecture and a few leaps of faith too.

to make it science one needs more than hypothesis.

until then, does it merit more energy spilled, or possibly corpses of the supporters of believers of a regime that declares this true and that not?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAnnomM
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 23 days
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4752982 - 10/04/05 06:27 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Paradigm  :thumbup:

Quote:

Divided_Sky said:
I see this as a thinly guised battle between materialism and spirituality. As a matter of fact we know that the earth was not created in 7 days, but that does not mean there isn't a higher level of knowledge or awareness behind it all. I don't think that established science proves a materialist/nihilist philosophy, which is just that : another philosophy.




The hypothesis that the earth was created in 7 days is the same as ID. They both explain everything with a simple word "God". They both say something about the way things started without asking the why question to a deeper level. ID is not a result of the scientific method, but a result of fantasy. It is nothing more than fantasy. It's a matrix theory; cool, possible, but not part of science. I can make up millions of fantasy theories about the creation of the universe, some may sound more logic than others, but there is no way to actually tell which of my theories is more likely. And it would be stupid to just pick one and believe in it, wouldn't it? 

Science does not express reservations about the truth of theories.

Science is not a religion. I do not believe that any scientific theory is the ultimate truth, that would make it a religion. But I do believe that we can get the best understanding of how the universe works by use of the scientific method. Beside that, it's just the most fun. Scientific theories are fucking great to read and think about, but that's just my personal opinion :smile:


Edited by Annom (10/04/05 06:49 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinekotik
fuckingsuperhero
 User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 2 years, 14 days
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Annom]
    #4752990 - 10/04/05 06:42 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

unfort, the intelligent design being spread today has nothing to do with higher knowledge, and everything to do with teaching christianity in school.


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinefreddurgan
Techgnostic
Male

Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 9 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: kotik]
    #4753097 - 10/04/05 09:04 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

kotik said:
unfort, the intelligent design being spread today has nothing to do with higher knowledge, and everything to do with teaching christianity in school.




Correct. They try their hardest to pretend like that's not the issue, but it is.


--------------------
Ishmael
http://www.ishmael.org

Ron Paul 2008!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 4 years, 8 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: freddurgan]
    #4753204 - 10/04/05 10:05 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

No one has talked about the imminent by-product of all this. If ID can be taught in science class, then why cant evolution/big bang theory be mandated in theology and philosophy classes?
Furthermore, what would then stop the creation of the church of human secularism, which gets tax free EVERYTHING as well as government endowments and such.

I mean, who actually pays attention in high school, or who even, by the time they get to X science class where they teach these two opposing ideas hasnt already made up their mind.
By the time 7-8th grade biology or environmental science rolls around, these kids will have been either evolutionist, or creationist for years.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 30,813
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #4753254 - 10/04/05 10:32 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

i guess you should be able to put anything on the curriculum, including jihad and it's various mis-interpretations, but there is science in the study of evolution, and there is no science in intelligent design, merely astonishment at the complexity and fittingness of things.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 30,813
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Annom]
    #4753267 - 10/04/05 10:39 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Annom said:
Paradigm
The hypothesis that the earth was created in 7 days is the same as ID. ...




no it isn't
one is a metaphor in which the idea of creation is embedded as a closed issue, and the other is a collection of mechanisms that are directly observed repeatedly and consistently not fully understood - being an open case for ongoing investigation.

I find the comparison dangerously misleading


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAnnomM
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 23 days
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: redgreenvines]
    #4753328 - 10/04/05 11:09 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

the other is a collection of mechanisms that are directly observed repeatedly and consistently not fully understood - being an open case for ongoing investigation.




That is science and not ID.

The "Intelligent Designer" is the same as the God who created the earth in 7 days. I don't see much difference in the basis of the two believes.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Annom]
    #4753337 - 10/04/05 11:12 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Intelligent Design does not teach Young Earth Creationism. It doesn't even deny that evolution occurs. It simply posits that an "Intelligent Designer" must have intervened with evolution at certain points in order to create the level of complexity we see today.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Silversoul]
    #4755171 - 10/04/05 06:26 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, as Paradigm stated I am NOT talking about Biblical Creationism. I am not talking about a white haired human-like figure with a beard creating the universe with magic. And furthermore I am NOT stating that ID is science or should be taught as science. I think it belongs in a philosophy class and not a science class.

However, I think the term psuedoscience is too condescending. Higher intelligence or organization principles in the universe, beyond what human beings can easily comprehend or observe, should not be treated like ghosts, UFOs or Jamiacan psychics. I think that a rational person can easily see that ghosts and alien visitors most likely do not exist based on fact. However as to whether the universe is theistic or non-theistic is not a question that human science has the capacity to answer.

Vedante philosophy is Intelligent Design, the idea that all the universe is an infinitely complex dream in the mind of God. In Buddhism a Buddha or Enlightened one because inseperable with a transcendental and eternal consciousness. Are those philosophies 'psuedoscience' as well?


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAnnomM
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 23 days
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Silversoul]
    #4755265 - 10/04/05 06:51 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
Intelligent Design does not teach Young Earth Creationism. It doesn't even deny that evolution occurs. It simply posits that an "Intelligent Designer" must have intervened with evolution at certain points in order to create the level of complexity we see today.




Yes, I know. My comparison with Creationism was more abstract.

Divided_Sky, if ID is not science it is pseudoscience; by definition.

Quote:

However as to whether the universe is theistic or non-theistic is not a question that human science has the capacity to answer.





Yes, that's why it's fantasy if we make a theory about it. I like matrix theories. I like philosophizing about higher consciousness etc, but there is no reason to believe in ID. All kind of god theories are possible. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that a theory is the 100% ultimate truth though.

My problem with ID:



ID solves a problem by saying that it is something we will never be able to understand, so they call it god. It is the easiest way out and there is no fun left to explore and explain things with more elegant theories than "god".

If all people believed that the best model to explain the motion of the planets was "god", we would not have Newtons model. I think it's sad to explain something we don't yet understand by saying it must have been god and not think about it anymore.

Quote:

Vedante philosophy is Intelligent Design, the idea that all the universe is an infinitely complex dream in the mind of God. In Buddhism a Buddha or Enlightened one because inseperable with a transcendental and eternal consciousness. Are those philosophies 'psuedoscience' as well?




Yes, without any doubt.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAnnomM
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 23 days
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Annom]
    #4755289 - 10/04/05 06:59 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Oh and just to make my view clear:
Evolution doesn't disprove the idea that the universe is created and organized by intelligence IMO.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Annom]
    #4755298 - 10/04/05 07:02 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I thought psuedoscience was 'paranormal 'phenomena'that people mistakenly presume to be science like UFOs and such. Religions or philosophies are not fake sciences, they are not science. Neither are they 'fanstasy' by default. I think it is a falisie to outright deny the existence of anything you can neither prove or disprove. I don't think any speculation that is not established by scientific fact belongs in the pile of 'psuedoscience'.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAnnomM
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 23 days
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4755333 - 10/04/05 07:12 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Hehe, well than we might just have a different definition of pseudoscience :smile:


pseu?do?sci?ence

A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.



I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about a definition because I know what you mean now  :laugh:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4755342 - 10/04/05 07:14 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Divided_Sky said:
it seems to me that most people assume that the big bang/evolution and intellifent design are mutually exclusive. Why should this be? I fail to see how evolution being a factually supported theory negates ID which is more of a philosophical speculation.




You're right, neither theory negates the other. Infact they can both be complementary if you have an open mind about things. They could even SUPPORT each other.

But as it stands right now, ID theorist like to say that Neo-Darwinism is full of shit. Some of them claim that IDT DOES negate evolutionary theory. And the only thing that Neo-Darwinists have to do is point out that there is no legitimate scientific evidence supporting IDT.

until their is, it will never be taken seriously.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4755360 - 10/04/05 07:20 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I think what makes IDT a psuedo-science is that it CLAIMS to be scientific when it is in fact not.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Annom]
    #4755367 - 10/04/05 07:24 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I don't think something can properly be called pseudoscience if it is not erroneously regarded as scientific. The Buddhist view of the Dharma, for example, is not pseudoscience because it does not claim to be scientific.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 30,813
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Silversoul]
    #4755443 - 10/04/05 07:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I thought someone meant the ID as in "ego and ID" - just my ego, I guess
now I have unballanced this thread and I am unravelling in embarrassment.

Intelligent Design (not ID as in "ego and ID") is not science by any measure or consideration. while ID as in ID in "ego and ID" is part of science.

Intelligent design is the embodiment of backwards thinking, like deja vu - "if this is beautiful let us thank the artist", but it is nature, the art is in our own appreciation, no external agency need be involved in the totality of nature.

unfortunately most people understand Evolution backwards as well which makes many of the minor arguments too much more meaningful than they should be in the silly contexts that they are waged (and I have done nothing to help with my "ego and ID").


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: redgreenvines]
    #4755640 - 10/04/05 08:42 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

exactly


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblemoog
Stranger

Registered: 02/15/05
Posts: 1,296
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4755753 - 10/04/05 09:08 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

This is something i've been trying to tell people for many years. It's the extremists on each end of the spectrum that don't think it's possible for evolution and intelligent design to coexist. I believe in a combination of the two and, for me, they complement each other.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #4755976 - 10/04/05 10:14 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

psilocyberin said:
No one has talked about the imminent by-product of all this. If ID can be taught in science class, then why cant evolution/big bang theory be mandated in theology and philosophy classes?
Furthermore, what would then stop the creation of the church of human secularism, which gets tax free EVERYTHING as well as government endowments and such.

I mean, who actually pays attention in high school, or who even, by the time they get to X science class where they teach these two opposing ideas hasnt already made up their mind.
By the time 7-8th grade biology or environmental science rolls around, these kids will have been either evolutionist, or creationist for years.




um since when isn't evolution/big bang theory discussed in philosophy classes? are you suggesting philosophy is only taught with a theistic presupposition? secondly, if i recall correctly, philosophy and theology classes are not part of the standard high school curriculum. my high school did not offer a single "theology class". what would there be to mandate? also whether the kids were evolutionist/creationist is irrevelent, some people are undecided and others change their minds.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: redgreenvines]
    #4755992 - 10/04/05 10:21 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
I thought someone meant the ID as in "ego and ID" - just my ego, I guess
now I have unballanced this thread and I am unravelling in embarrassment.

Intelligent Design (not ID as in "ego and ID") is not science by any measure or consideration. while ID as in ID in "ego and ID" is part of science.

Intelligent design is the embodiment of backwards thinking, like deja vu - "if this is beautiful let us thank the artist", but it is nature, the art is in our own appreciation, no external agency need be involved in the totality of nature.

unfortunately most people understand Evolution backwards as well which makes many of the minor arguments too much more meaningful than they should be in the silly contexts that they are waged (and I have done nothing to help with my "ego and ID").




but when you say "totality of nature" emphasis is still on the whole rather than a specific part. for example if i see a beautiful tree outside i'm aware that the tree doesn't exist on its own but as part of the totality of nature which created it. therefore rather than worshiping the tree itself, it makes more sense to think of the totality of nature. this is essentially the same as the concept of God ( don't thank me, thank God).


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMikeOLogical
Doctor ofShroomology
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/31/04
Posts: 4,133
Loc: florida
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4757452 - 10/05/05 03:30 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

until the intelligent dsign hypothesis can be tested, it will remain pseudoscience...

thus far no one has devised a test that will either prove or disprove intelligent design...

and the one question intelligent design proponents will not and cannot answer is, what is the origin of the supposed designer?

was there an intelligent designer for the intelligent designer? surely an intelligent designer who can create such an elegant design for the universe could not have come about except by intervention of an even greater intelligence...


--------------------
We got Nothing!
we're no longer selling jars.  :laugh:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 1 year, 6 days
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4757549 - 10/05/05 04:44 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I say, explore god with all means, then try a hypothesis which can be tested :wink:
I am quite sure, humans will find something behind existence somedays in the future, what they are able to proof and interpret.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #4758001 - 10/05/05 10:29 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

the only "evidence" that ID theorists have is Dembeski's "Design Filter" which is also used in the SETI project. Basically it's a process that determines probablity. If a pattern has a certain degree of improbability and all alternative explainations are discounted, then it supposedly indicates design.

The only problem with this is that the results are not falsifiable. Using the "design filter" we can only search for negative characteristics (or the absence of characteristics) but we can never affirm characteristics of design. All we can do is say "well, we've checked off all other alternatives. All that's left is design by an intelligence."

This is an extremely abstract inference! And since design can only be confirmed by this method, and not falsified, then this method does not stand up to the criteria for a valid scientific theory.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 30,813
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4758133 - 10/05/05 11:09 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

premises of intelligence consciousness and or design with which seti was conceived, may not be correct.
fractal patterns seem designed and are basically chaos.

is this about making up a new creation myth?
or about which club we are members of?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4758165 - 10/05/05 11:20 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

that's interesting, that's like saying designers are not part of nature. brain are chaotic systems, biological, natural systems. even the most "designed" pattern is "undesigned" from a certain perspective, and vice versa it seems.

IOW an arbitrary, useless concept IMO.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: MikeOLogical]
    #4759196 - 10/05/05 03:31 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

MikeOLogical said:
until the intelligent dsign hypothesis can be tested, it will remain pseudoscience...

thus far no one has devised a test that will either prove or disprove intelligent design...

and the one question intelligent design proponents will not and cannot answer is, what is the origin of the supposed designer?

was there an intelligent designer for the intelligent designer? surely an intelligent designer who can create such an elegant design for the universe could not have come about except by intervention of an even greater intelligence...




who says they will not answer it? they will say the original designer also designed time and therefore always was.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMikeOLogical
Doctor ofShroomology
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/31/04
Posts: 4,133
Loc: florida
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Deviate]
    #4759412 - 10/05/05 04:30 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

the original designer would have to be so complex that it is unfathomable that it came about without the help of a supremely intelligent being


--------------------
We got Nothing!
we're no longer selling jars.  :laugh:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Deviate]
    #4759415 - 10/05/05 04:31 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

crunchy, that's exactly what the ID theorists are saying, that high degrees of order can not come from chaos...

but we know from fractals and chaos theory that this is not necessarily true.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: MikeOLogical]
    #4759421 - 10/05/05 04:32 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

MikeOLogical said:
the original designer would have to be so complex that it is unfathomable that it came about without the help of a supremely intelligent being




ah! A paradox! lol!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: MikeOLogical]
    #4759748 - 10/05/05 05:58 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

MikeOLogical said:
the original designer would have to be so complex that it is unfathomable that it came about without the help of a supremely intelligent being




why?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMikeOLogical
Doctor ofShroomology
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/31/04
Posts: 4,133
Loc: florida
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Deviate]
    #4760857 - 10/05/05 11:18 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

because surely if the universe is so complex that it cannot come about without the help of an intelligent designer, then the designer of the universe would have to be even more complex, such a designer would need an even greater intelligence to be designed... and then you're left with the paradox of who designed the designer of the designer...


--------------------
We got Nothing!
we're no longer selling jars.  :laugh:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: MikeOLogical]
    #4760948 - 10/05/05 11:32 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

no, not if everything is the expression of only one intelligence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineScarfmeister
Thrill Seeker
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 8,127
Loc: The will to power
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: redgreenvines]
    #4761121 - 10/06/05 12:01 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
Quote:

Annom said:
Paradigm
The hypothesis that the earth was created in 7 days is the same as ID. ...




no it isn't
one is a metaphor in which the idea of creation is embedded as a closed issue, and the other is a collection of mechanisms that are directly observed repeatedly and consistently not fully understood - being an open case for ongoing investigation.

I find the comparison dangerously misleading




Funny that everything in the bible that is obviously crazy is a metaphor.


--------------------
--------------------
We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Deviate]
    #4761212 - 10/06/05 12:17 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Deviate said:
no, not if everything is the expression of only one intelligence.




But that is the very ARGUMENT of the ID theory, that biological complexity must be a result of design. The designer most definitely is going to be complex. IDT refutes the idea that specified-complexity (or irreducible complexity) can come out of a system that is not specifically (or irreducibly complex). Therefore, such a complex creator must have been designed, and IF NOT, then such a creator can just happen out of nowhere, or by complete chance, then the whole premises of IDT goes out the window!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 1 year, 6 days
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4763392 - 10/06/05 12:44 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I think, to discuss ID, we should forget about our well known linearity of time, as it is obvious for me, that design and evolution will mix only in the future. We are constantly under constructrion, aren't we ? So, were does design will lead us ? Is it related to total order, which is equal to death (which is the rooting-point of all life) ? Or lies the design, what will lead us to something, allready in the process ? I think, it lies in the process, and so can not be that external. We use to mistake something, we don't know and can't measure so far, to be external. Common fault.

If we will look from the (optimal designed) futute to the (not so well designed) past, the vision could get clearer (but for me still clouded somehow at the moment). Interesting how the optimal design just got channeld to the immense singularity of bigbang... I have to contemplate :grin:

Or this expression of ID doesn't lead anywhere, because so many misinterpretations could be inside ?

Now I stop, as I get confused :grin:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #4763610 - 10/06/05 01:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Bluecoyote, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say... so i'll just go on... :smirk:

...Also, who says that God is an intelligent entity? Couldn't God be simply a life force, an energy? Energy itself? Personally, I reject the notion of an "intelligent" and sentient divinity. Sentience entails interpretation, and interpretation leaves open the possibility for MISinterpretation... if this is God, then God is probably just as ignorant as to what is really going on as the rest of us.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 1 year, 6 days
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4763718 - 10/06/05 01:49 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

:wink: Yes, I have to recontemplate on this :wink: It mostly was purposed to inspire :wink:
But one I see for sure, if we have to define a concept like 'god'. There is no room for misinterpretations for him, as he is the exact truth.
He left that play-ground all to us..the immature minds, the immature intelligence :smile:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #4765039 - 10/06/05 07:05 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

LET'S PLAY!!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Intelligent Design
( 1 2 all )
djd586 3,059 22 12/18/03 05:32 PM
by fireworks_god
* Argument by Design Bullfrog1 1,534 10 12/09/07 09:38 PM
by Holly
* Creationist Propaganda
( 1 2 all )
Viveka 1,731 22 04/21/04 06:31 PM
by Viveka
* Is evolution still being debated???
( 1 2 all )
GoBlue! 4,166 34 11/29/02 10:14 AM
by Adamist
* Science and Pseudoscience
( 1 2 3 all )
Huehuecoyotl 3,504 49 01/25/05 07:30 AM
by oceansize
* A debate on the subject of the morality of drug use. neuro 1,807 7 02/21/03 07:10 AM
by Sclorch
* Spiritual Debate: Which is more necessary for humanity.... tekramrepus 1,744 18 06/17/03 05:22 PM
by ViBrAnT
* assessing intelligence Phencyclidine 1,265 16 05/25/04 03:00 AM
by Phencyclidine

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,700 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.059 seconds spending 0.017 seconds on 18 queries.