My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

@Zetherin,

Zetherin

Your comment below

[quote]The reason why I thought you were being nasty was because of this:[/quote]

[quote]I have tolerated your immaturity for as long as I can and will no longer respond to your inane @#$%*[/quote]

I am sorry and regret my hasty words and retract that unfortunate statement "which I now retract"

Further response by me
I understand but this was the "only negative or if we want to stretch this thing out "nasty comment" to you by me, I was over sensitive and I should have elaborated more carefully what I meant

Even at my advanced age I am prepared to learn , so lets put the whole sorry episode behind us and continue to debate as friends even if our beliefs are at opposite poles. Smile

I can learn much from a young person like yourself, and you might just learn a lot from a person like me, who has been through the hard university of life as well as the scholastic university. :perplexed: :bigsmile:

I have been around the block and am learned in classical science, physics, astronomy (life long amateur with my own German equatorial Newtonian ten inch reflector telescope)

My specially in the field of astronomy was the study of variable stars Cepheid variables or standard candles.

This information was shared between countries because variable Cepheid stars are vital for estimating the distance of remote objects in the universe

I am a Mechanical/Industrial Engineer , and also have extensive knowledge in computer science, indeed I was IT manager for the South African Electricity Supply Commission ESKOM "Central South Africa"

And much much more than that, but lets not bore you

I am not trying to blow my own horn just to give you and the others guys more information of where I come from

I will put these details on my profile as I wanted to be sure I became a welcome member to the forum, hopefully I have achieved that

Keep up the good work

Alan

@Alan McDougall,

You've been a welcomed member of the forum since you've been here, and I truly hope you know that -- We could all learn from someone with such extensive knowledge. Thanks for your contributions, just don't make any more ID threads Wink

(Oh, this was a joke, by the way)

Take care friend,

Vince

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;48932 wrote:

I can only suggest that there are indicators like the fundamental laws that hold the universe give us clues that there "might be a great and mighty mind" behind you and me and our families as well as the rest of the universe.

And I respect your beliefs. But I feel that you are imposing this on science because of your preexisting belief system, not because the findings of science make this a natural conclusion to someone who lacks such a belief system.

Quote:

What is your scientific method of proving there is no ID I am really interested in that

The honus isn't on anyone to disprove ID. All we can talk about scientifically is what we observe through science, and this doesn't even generate discussions in scientific circles about whether or not there was a conscious designer. It's something externally imposed on science, not a natural theory to arise from it.

@Aedes,

Zetherin

Quote:

You've been a welcomed member of the forum since you've been here, and I truly hope you know that -- We could all learn from someone with such extensive knowledge. Thanks for your contributions, just don't make any more ID threads (Oh, this was a joke, by the way)

Take care friend,

Vince

Last one from me I promise :bigsmile:

I do have a sense of humor love to laugh at life and especially at myself at times

Aedes

Quote:

And I respect your beliefs. But I feel that you are imposing this on science because of your preexisting belief system, not because the findings of science make this a natural conclusion to someone who lacks such a belief system

.

This was not meant to be a scientific debate, it is philosophic just as all things related to a creator must be.

Take this as an example, it sometimes rains in June , it seldom rain in March it always rained in July. Meticulous date have been kept to back this up

Does it prove that it always rains in July, no it proves nothing other than to indicate that it is more likely to rain n July.

To really know this and prove that the statement It always rains reflects the truth, one has to go back right to the, forgive me, creation of our planet

This is what in my limited silly way was trying to convey, ID is not science at best it is wild speculation and at worst the raving of a mad man

So I try to let my imagination go back and find the uncaused cause, the alpha point moment, the immovable force that somehow pushed out the universe and the possibility that this force is not blind chance, but an intellect of colossal proportions. I just like the idea of something or someone greater than me

Can I understand the minds of Albert Einstein or Ed Witten of superstring theory? No but I can try and believe by trying I have come much closer than most people to comprehending these great theories.

Supersstings are supposedly billions of times smaller than a quake and they can be observed in only one dimension in our three dimensional universe

If they are found maybe the LHC will bring us closer to these little beasties that might have width but no length or they might have lenght but no width. How silly is that??

Our concept of logic just collapses down at this infinitely micro level. So logic and science will never ever bring us closer to understanding god. But I try nevertheless.

Maybe is just boils down to faith

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

This was not meant to be a scientific debate, it is philosophic just as all things related to a creator must be...

This is what in my limited silly way was trying to convey, ID is not science at best it is wild speculation and at worst the raving of a mad man

As is anything that can't be proved one way or another. And ordinarily people in science don't have a problem with beliefs about God that are part of religious traditions.

The trouble with MOST people in the intelligent design community is that they want to interpose intelligent design as an idea into the science discussion in our country, including into science classrooms. And that's, quite simply, inappropriate. It's not science -- it's theology that coopts words used in science for rhetorical purposes; but a veneer of scientific legitimacy can't make something science if it doesn't use a scientific method.

I think you have a more openminded or reflective approach, because you understand how science differs from logic. But as you know, a logical proof does not necessarily illuminate anything about the physical world. After all, a lot of logical truths have been overthrown with experimentation.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

The honus isn't on anyone to disprove ID. All we can talk about scientifically is what we observe through science, and this doesn't even generate discussions in scientific circles about whether or not there was a conscious designer. It's something externally imposed on science, not a natural theory to arise from it.

I didn't want to get involved in this earlier, but thought it better to let the conversation run it's typical course before possibly taking this in a different direction. And, Aedes, don't think this is addressed specifically to you. My comments are general in nature.

As a little preamble, let me say that I do believe intelligence (i.e., God) created the universe. But, I wouldn't try to "prove" that with any human instrument. So, I don't think it fruitful to pursue ID as a science. At the same time, we're kidding ourselves if we think science classrooms are neutral on metaphysical subjects. I can tell you of my freshman chemistry class where the TA went on a rampage against Christians, claiming no Christian could ever be a scientist. You can dismiss that as atypical if you like, but a dismissive attitude smacks of the same "my niggas is happy" nonsense that came out of the Old South. As long as the attitude remains, you'll find Christians fighting it.

Further, there is no universally agreed upon definition of science that allows the definitive statement "ID is not science", nor is there universal agreement on whether metaphysical topics lie outside science. I can cite you paper after paper that continues to argue the definition of science and whether metaphysics plays a role. Until an ID theory is disproved, it remains an open question, not "nonscience". The truth is that no one bothers to study it because most have made a belief-based conclusion before they even looked for evidence.

That is one aspect of this that does belong in this forum and for which this thread could be used. It's probably the hotter, more controversial topic.

But, if we're to be proper about this, we should address the more mundane topic first - does the study of intelligence belong in science? If so, what data can be used in that study? I think the topic does belong, and I can think of three techniques in current use:

1. Testing the subject to determine something like an IQ. It is unlikely God would submit himself to such a test.

2. Biological studies of body structure (brain size, opposable thumbs, etc.). Again, unlikely for this topic.

3. Archaeological studies of the artifacts left by the subject.

Number 3 is the only possibility, but again I know what objections would be raised. However, let me ask this. I often see in this forum a caution to not impose anthropomorphic assumptions. If we were to find life somewhere else in the universe, we should not assume it will be like us. If that is true, then what criteria would we establish as evidence of intelligence?

My bottom line is this: though I don't think ID will ever be a fruitful science, I find the arguments for excluding it are often very weak and laden with belief-based statements. As such, I intend to always speak to that bias.

@Resha Caner,

If individuals in science classrooms have bones to pick, that's an indictment of themselves and not science as a discipline. Science itself is silent on metaphysical subjects. Go point to a single research article in any scientific journal that addresses a metaphysical question. As for individuals, they can say what they want, but there IS some merit in defending the methods and findings of science against encroachments and influence from NON-science.

Resha Caner wrote:

Further, there is no universally agreed upon definition of science that allows the definitive statement "ID is not science"

ID will be science as soon as a testable hypothesis is offered. We're all still waiting.

Resha Caner wrote:

nor is there universal agreement on whether metaphysical topics lie outside science

Maybe not among acolytes of metaphysics. Isn't metaphysics partly defined by its non-physicality?

Resha Caner wrote:

I can cite you paper after paper that continues to argue the definition of science and whether metaphysics plays a role.

Are these science papers? And what do you mean by "a role"? Kuhn and Popper both had a metaphysical angle to their discussions of science -- but they were writing philosophy, not science.

Resha Caner wrote:

Until an ID theory is disproved, it remains an open question, not "nonscience". The truth is that no one bothers to study it because most have made a belief-based conclusion before they even looked for evidence.

So what's YOUR method to study it? I'll cite you a bunch of studies of 16S RNA sequences in prokaryotic evolution -- you tell me how to take these data and ask a question about intelligent design.

Resha Caner wrote:

But, if we're to be proper about this, we should address the more mundane topic first - does the study of intelligence belong in science?

Of course. But that is the study of intelligence among subjects that can be studied, i.e. animals including humans.

Resha Caner wrote:

I often see in this forum a caution to not impose anthropomorphic assumptions. If we were to find life somewhere else in the universe, we should not assume it will be like us. If that is true, then what criteria would we establish as evidence of intelligence?

It doesn't matter if it's like us or not. It's very likely that organisms will employ structurally similar strategies to accomplish basic things like metabolism, sense perception, reproduction, etc. There is such a thing as convergent evolution, which is why bats, birds, and insects all independently evolved wings, and why dolphins, penguins, salamanders, and fish all independently evolved fins.

Resha Caner wrote:

My bottom line is this: though I don't think ID will ever be a fruitful science, I find the arguments for excluding it are often very weak and laden with belief-based statements. As such, I intend to always speak to that bias.

And this is why I try to restrict my arguments on the matter to what REALLY matters. Namely, intelligent design is inserting itself into discussions of mature scientific topics BEFORE finding a way to present itself as an actual physical science. People in church can talk about it all they want. But don't bring it into a science classroom, please, until there has been something that resembles science in it other than co-opting scientific words.

Evolutionary science neither asks nor answers questions about god, design, or intelligence in the affirmative or negative (whatever individuals have to say about it outside of pure scientific communication). It addresses questions about process. Ultimate questions about intelligent design, creation, whatever, belong in a different conversation.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

If individuals in science classrooms have bones to pick, that's an indictment of themselves and not science as a discipline.

And this means what? Your statement sounds like the dismissiveness I mentioned. If an individual preaches against Christian views in a science classroom, what action should be taken against them? The knife should cut both directions if this is to be the rule.

So science classes are to be strictly science only? What does this mean? Does it mean no history of science should be mentioned in a classroom? So, Ptolemy should not be mentioned because he was supplanted by Copernicus. In fact, Newton's theory of gravity should not be mentioned because it has been supplanted by Einstein. Does this mean no speculative science should be mentioned, but only that which has a widespread consensus of support. So, string theory should not be mentioned, nor gravitons and muons.

Aedes wrote:

ID will be science as soon as a testable hypothesis is offered. We're all still waiting.

First, I will repeat my statement that I don't intend to defend ID. Rather, I meant to point out how quickly such things are dismissed for reasons other than science. What does "testable" mean? Does it mean we must have physical evidence of the entity itself or does it mean we only need physical evidence of the effects of the entity? Surely you are aware of debates between realists and instrumentalists. A realist says science only deals with what we know to be physically real. As such, a realist would dismiss gravitons (and curved space for that matter). An instrumentalist says this is unnecessary. The idea that gravity causes a curvature in space is more instrumental in producing an accurate answer than the idea of gravitational force. It doesn't matter if one or either "exists", but merely that one produces a result more consistent with our data.

So, which position (or some other) lies behind your statement?

Do your statements claim that the philosophy one brings to science plays no role in how the data is interpreted? I strongly disagree. Metaphysical concepts are invoked all the time, though it seems people are often unaware of them. Within my own field (structural dynamics) it is commonplace to use the concepts of "damping" and "stiffness". It has been known for centuries that these concepts do not "exist". In other words, "stiffness" is not a true physical description of the molecular behavior of the material. Rather, it is a convenient mathematical device that approximates physical reality. If knowingly using a mathematical model that does not represent physical reality is not the invocation of metaphysics, then I don't know what is.

Aedes wrote:

So what's YOUR method to study it? I'll cite you a bunch of studies of 16S RNA sequences in prokaryotic evolution -- you tell me how to take these data and ask a question about intelligent design.
...
Of course. But that is the study of intelligence among subjects that can be studied, i.e. animals including humans.

Exactly. I didn't say I had the answer. I said it is valid to ask a question about intelligence. As I tried to point out with item #3 in my post, studying intelligence does not always mean directly studying the subject. It can mean (as for many other scientific endeavors) studying the effect of the subject. Do you dispute the validity of studying the intelligence of a subject by studying the effect it has on the physical world? If so, let's discuss that.

If not, then why would you object to applying those techniques elsewhere? I'm not familiar with the details of intelligence testing, so I'm sure some techniques would not apply and some techniques would need improvement. That's not the point. I'm saying it would be scientifically valid to make the attempt. Now, is anyone really interested? Is it worth funding such a study? That's a different topic. It would be a tough slog to get funding for something like that, and I've got enough to do without taking that on.

But, again, there is no scientific basis for saying that a search for intelligence in the physical or biological structures of the universe is invalid.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

If an individual preaches against Christian views in a science classroom, what action should be taken against them?

They shouldn't, I agree.

Resha Caner wrote:

So science classes are to be strictly science only? What does this mean? Does it mean no history of science should be mentioned in a classroom? So, Ptolemy should not be mentioned because he was supplanted by Copernicus. In fact, Newton's theory of gravity should not be mentioned because it has been supplanted by Einstein. Does this mean no speculative science should be mentioned, but only that which has a widespread consensus of support. So, string theory should not be mentioned, nor gravitons and muons.

This is off the deep end, don't make ridiculous arguments as if that somehow represents me. Ptolemaic ideas as well as worldviews based in religion are certainly fair game to talk about in science class. Railing on against Christians is not.

Resha Caner wrote:

What does "testable" mean? Does it mean we must have physical evidence of the entity itself or does it mean we only need physical evidence of the effects of the entity?

How about something versus nothing. I can weave any kind of story around evidence and it will have every bit as much or as little evidence as does intelligent design.

So it's ID to some, it's the cosmic slot machine to others, and for me I kind of like the little blue gremlin theory of creation. How do you discern all these?? The only thing we "know" from a scientific point of view is that which is rooted in physical evidence.

Resha Caner wrote:

Do your statements claim that the philosophy one brings to science plays no role in how the data is interpreted?

The core of science is the methods - results relationship. Those are what they are, and the validity of the results depend solely on the strength of the methods. The ensuing discussion can certainly invoke philosophy, but the more abstract you get and the less grounded in evidence you are, the less meaningful is the discussion. If you read enough journal articles, you'll see that people are extraordinarily cautious in the discussion sections about making wild inferences that don't have support.

@Resha Caner,

The main reason ID is not science is because ID claims are outside of nature and cannot be tested, experimented, falsifiable, etc. The IDers cannot even produce ONE coherent experiment to test for an Intelligent Designer. Thats it. Thats why ID is not science because there is nothing science about it. Its just random claims that go nowhere and where are we left in the end?... sitting around doing nothing but still calling it "science." Not to mention that if we did accept such idiocracy into the classrooms, where would it end?....we might as well teach Astrology next to Astronomy and "Magic" in mathematics.... Also while we are at it, which form of ID are we going to choose if (god forbid;)) it ever did get into the classrooms? Every religion has their own form of ID that is different from the others... so either we cherry-pick the "best" one or we have to teach all of them because science is about as unbiased as you can get, and still wonder how we are going to have the time to do all of this in one class period.... yea, makes perfect sense to me:sarcastic:

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

And yes ID IS NOT SCIENCEI never said it was, only that some factors of classical physics indicate there might be an ID
...
I agree we can never prove ID scientifically only give substantive clues though science that there might be an ID no more no less

No. No factors of physics, classical, relativistic or quantum, indicate there "might be an ID". They may not rule it out because ID is not a scientific concern; it's a matter of personal faith. The constants of nature tell us about how the universe is, not how it came to be so. We do not know the relationship between these constants and other factors of the universe. One possibility is that they are not constant at all, merely 'locally' (in time) constant. This view holds a lot of weight in the physics community because it may explain other phenomena. You mentioned yourself the relation between some constants and the age of the universe. Since the latter is not constant, the former are not either.

Alan McDougall wrote:

Again an informative response thank you. I Read your post very carefully and it makes real sense

I agree we can never prove ID scientifically only give substantive clues though science that there might be an ID no more no less

I belong to no religious organisation, but I really don't mind if others do, so long as they do not try to force feed me with their exclusive ideas on creation etc. I make up my own mind, but I am flexible and can be moved from my position with telling dialogue, communication an debate by other informed folk, indeed some much more informed than me

This is all groovy, though if that's how you feel I'd suggest you look into the origins of ID more deeply. ID's primary purpose is to undermine the theory of evolution, the biggest threat to the credibility of organised religions. This is not scientific, not philosophical and not theological: it's political. It seems to me that your interest is less in debunking evolution than explaining unexplained and striking empirical facts about reality. If you're as independently-minded as you say, why subscribe to someone's politically-motivated clap-trap. You agree it is not science; ID proponents beg to differ. Make up you're own mind.

I have a friend, a fellow physicist, who is religious. I asked him, with this thread in mind, at what point in the making of the universe he thinks God stepped in. He said: 'I don't know.' I liked that. He has faith, but it's a separate thing from his understanding of how things physically are, and he's happy not being able to reconcile the two. 'I don't know' is a healthy sign for a physicist; the problem with religion is the lack of that.

Alan McDougall wrote:

I can only suggest that there are indicators like the fundamental laws that hold the universe give us clues that there "might be a great and mighty mind" behind you and me and our families as well as the rest of the universe.

I know this wasn't directed toward me, but I'll interject anyway. The fundamental laws of nature are, as time passes, shown to be not fundamental at all. The law of electrostatics is now founded on quantum electrodynamics. The uniformity of matter is now founded on quantum field theory. The 'fundamental' element is refined and refined, possibly to infinity. As I mentioned before, any point in scientific progress where a theist steps in, points at something and says: 'God did that', they are always going to be premature.

Alan McDougall wrote:

What is your scientific method of proving there is no ID I am really interested in that

Disproving fairy tales is not the province of natural science.

Alan McDougall wrote:

Either way the truth will remain the truth no matter which side of the fence we care to sit on. Do I have the truth , I do not know, do you do you know.

No-one here has the truth so no-one would expect you to either. What you said you had was a case. I think it's clear you do not.

Alan McDougall wrote:

To me the Uncaused Cause is what the religious refer to as god

I think it was Stephen Hawking that said once we find the equation and formulae for the "Theory of Everything" then we will know the mind of god, or TOE would equate to god and the concept of a creator or god would become unnecessary

If one thinks about it there is really no difference between TOE and god. all forces are to be found in TOE and all things emanate from god, if you believe in god that is

The theory of everything would not constitute an intelligent designer, whether or not we want to call the TOE God or otherwise.

Resha Caner wrote:

As a little preamble, let me say that I do believe intelligence (i.e., God) created the universe. But, I wouldn't try to "prove" that with any human instrument. So, I don't think it fruitful to pursue ID as a science. At the same time, we're kidding ourselves if we think science classrooms are neutral on metaphysical subjects. I can tell you of my freshman chemistry class where the TA went on a rampage against Christians, claiming no Christian could ever be a scientist. You can dismiss that as atypical if you like, but a dismissive attitude smacks of the same "my niggas is happy" nonsense that came out of the Old South. As long as the attitude remains, you'll find Christians fighting it.

Hi Resha
Did you read the 'Is Atheism an excuse.../Is Theism an excuse...' threads. There are rabidly anti-religious atheists out there, and rabidly anti-atheist theists. This isn't a science problem; it's a people problem. It is not the domain of your lecturer to speak on religion, nor to proclaim who may and who may not be scientists. There is a huge difference between institutionalised brainwashing (ID 'science') and an inappropriate lecturer.

Resha Caner wrote:

Further, there is no universally agreed upon definition of science that allows the definitive statement "ID is not science", nor is there universal agreement on whether metaphysical topics lie outside science. I can cite you paper after paper that continues to argue the definition of science and whether metaphysics plays a role. Until an ID theory is disproved, it remains an open question, not "nonscience". The truth is that no one bothers to study it because most have made a belief-based conclusion before they even looked for evidence.

I'm sorry, but this is codswallop. There are overlaps between science and metaphysics in some scientific theory, but such theories are that from which we draw falsifiable hypotheses. It is no-one's burden to 'disprove' ID: if it makes no falsifiable predictions, it is NOT science. Since it does not, it is not. I'm assuming here that in looking for definitions of science, the scientific community has not been surveyed. Science is investigation via the scientific method, which is very clearly, universally and unambiguously understood. Since ID does not proceed by this methodology, it is not science.

But this argument has been stated over and over and over by various members of the scientific community since the inception of ID. It gets ignored by folk like yourself, not because that community has a bias against scientific theology that needs to be addressed, but because they simply want to ignore it. That's how faith prevails, by ignoring the bleeding obvious. I suppose it's easier to respond that scientists don't know what science is than to admit ID isn't it.

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

The main reason ID is not science is because ID claims are outside of nature and cannot be tested, experimented, falsifiable, etc. The IDers cannot even produce ONE coherent experiment to test for an Intelligent Designer. Thats it. Thats why ID is not science because there is nothing science about it. Its just random claims that go nowhere and where are we left in the end?... sitting around doing nothing but still calling it "science." Not to mention that if we did accept such idiocracy into the classrooms, where would it end?....we might as well teach Astrology next to Astronomy and "Magic" in mathematics.... Also while we are at it, which form of ID are we going to choose if (god forbid;)) it ever did get into the classrooms? Every religion has their own form of ID that is different from the others... so either we cherry-pick the "best" one or we have to teach all of them because science is about as unbiased as you can get, and still wonder how we are going to have the time to do all of this in one class period.... yea, makes perfect sense to me:sarcastic:

Well said, and in fewer words.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

This is off the deep end, don't make ridiculous arguments as if that somehow represents me. Ptolemaic ideas as well as worldviews based in religion are certainly fair game to talk about in science class. Railing on against Christians is not.

Please don't get upset. I never meant to imply that my statements represented you. I'm searching out the boundaries of your opinion on the matter. I don't think my statements were off the deep end. You earlier gave the impression that ID should not be discussed in a science classroom. You now say worldviews are fair game. It sounds contradictory to me, so I want some clarification.

Aedes wrote:

How about something versus nothing. I can weave any kind of story around evidence and it will have every bit as much or as little evidence as does intelligent design.

Yes, and you seem to be answering an issue I'm not raising. At this point all I have tried to indicate is that the question of intelligence is valid, and that methods exist for studying intelligence. Due to the conservative nature of most professional scientists, I expect the most they would dare to say is "yes, there are indications of intelligence" or "no, there are not". They would not conjecture on the nature of that intelligence (though I'm sure ABC News would make some hay from it).

Aedes wrote:

The core of science is the methods - results relationship. Those are what they are, and the validity of the results depend solely on the strength of the methods. The ensuing discussion can certainly invoke philosophy, but the more abstract you get and the less grounded in evidence you are, the less meaningful is the discussion. If you read enough journal articles, you'll see that people are extraordinarily cautious in the discussion sections about making wild inferences that don't have support.

This is an empiricist's answer. I don't expect to sway you any differently, but I though we went over the "it is what it is" philosophy in earlier posts. Such arguments are inherently circular and don't establish anything. Either you buy it or you don't. A method cannot establish itself as valid. IMO, the only value to a method is that it allows others to repeat the experiment, thereby adding a "seeing is believing" reinforcement to the evidence.

Once you move beyond taxonomy, biology is no longer direct experience, but the effect created by tools (such as a microscope). Once a tool is inserted between the subject and the observer, the methods (and thereby, the underlying philosophies) used to build that tool play a role. Using an electron microscope means you believe electrons exist (or, alternatively, that the electron concept is instrumental to a deeper study of small subjects).

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

I'm sorry, but this is codswallop. There are overlaps between science and metaphysics in some scientific theory, but such theories are that from which we draw falsifiable hypotheses. It is no-one's burden to 'disprove' ID: if it makes no falsifiable predictions, it is NOT science. Since it does not, it is not. I'm assuming here that in looking for definitions of science, the scientific community has not been surveyed. Science is investigation via the scientific method, which is very clearly, universally and unambiguously understood. Since ID does not proceed by this methodology, it is not science.

But this argument has been stated over and over and over by various members of the scientific community since the inception of ID. It gets ignored by folk like yourself, not because that community has a bias against scientific theology that needs to be addressed, but because they simply want to ignore it. That's how faith prevails, by ignoring the bleeding obvious. I suppose it's easier to respond that scientists don't know what science is than to admit ID isn't it.

You appear not to have read my posts. Go back and read my statements on ID before accusing me of saying what I have not said.

I don't know your background, so I'll start with something simple and we'll go from there. Yes, "science" and "method" have commonly understood meanings among scientists. But these are informal, not formal understandings. No credible scientific organization has defined a general scientific method. What most do (and I could cite you ISO and SI documents) is establish standards for documenting the process and standards for the instruments used to take certain types of measurements. Even then there is much room for subjective debate about the data.

But, if you have a document from a credible scientific organization that defines a general scientific method which I can apply in my next structural dynamics test, please tell me about it. It would be of great use to me.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

I'm still curious how pointing to aspects of our universe and proclaiming, "There! See?!" equates to a "Case for Intelligent Design".

Good point....but, I think your playing coy. You cant see where the structure (best word I could think of at the moment) of the universe plays into our supporting a "Intelligent design"? I understand its as transparent as anything else, but your question is reductive without reflection. i guess its still a good way to express doubts though.

peace

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

Good point....but, I think your playing coy. You cant see where the structure (best word I could think of at the moment) of the universe plays into our supporting a "Intelligent design"? I understand its as transparent as anything else, but your question is reductive without reflection. i guess its still a good way to express doubts though.

Woops, that's not how I was wanting to come off. While I appreciate the approval of my expression, I'm sorry to say you've assumed or deduced incorrectly; such the 'coy' response is quite reflective. As far as "reductive"; no, the subject does that just fine on its own - don't shoot the messenger.

But in the interests of warm-fuzzy proliferation, I'll restate:
[INDENT]I was really hoping to see something that amounted to a "case" for Intelligent Design. I thought I'd heard them all and, I'm sorry to say that I've not only heard this one, I think it was the first one I've heard. "Cuz there's so much neat stuff"-isn't really a case for anything (much less something so difficult to support as ID).

I've chosen to inject my desire for some kind of 'case' purposefully; preferring this over the more caustic, confrontational tones that these subjects usually dredge up.
[/INDENT]There are some good arguments I've heard, just not this one. Hope this helps. With respect to all who've shared here,

Thanks

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

You appear not to have read my posts. Go back and read my statements on ID before accusing me of saying what I have not said.

Eh? I quoted the part of your post I was responding to.

Resha Caner wrote:

I don't know your background, so I'll start with something simple and we'll go from there. Yes, "science" and "method" have commonly understood meanings among scientists. But these are informal, not formal understandings. No credible scientific organization has defined a general scientific method. What most do (and I could cite you ISO and SI documents) is establish standards for documenting the process and standards for the instruments used to take certain types of measurements. Even then there is much room for subjective debate about the data.

My background? I'm a scientist. A theoretical physicist to be precise. I work in condensed matter physics, doing computational research on electron transport with a view to being able to simulate different molecule-based junctions in nanodevices. Many years of study. Didn't spot a single ambiguity about the thing we call 'the scientific method'. It's laid down in stone. It goes like this:

1. Observation: analyse data on the phenomena under study; look for patterns and consistencies based on previous knowledge.
2. Hypothesise: formulate a mathematical model of a process that yields the observed results.
3. Formulate a negative conjecture: one that states that your hypothesis is false.
4. Predict: Propose an experiment that has not yet been carried out and use your hypothesis to predict the results, with errors, of that experiment.
5. Experiment: Carry out the experiment, gather the results and errors.
6. Compare: Determine if the error ranges of the predicted results and the actual results overlap. If not, discard or revise the hypothesis. If so, discard the conjecture.

It's all pretty formal. Anyone who has been through experimental or computational lab training has it drilled into them from day one.

Resha Caner wrote:

But, if you have a document from a credible scientific organization that defines a general scientific method which I can apply in my next structural dynamics test, please tell me about it. It would be of great use to me.

There's plenty of literature on the scientific method with examples of how it is applied and followed. Dig in. It sounds like you did engineering. Do you not do this stuff? My understanding is that it adheres to the same method. You model stuff, build predictions from the model, make a prototype, test the prototype, compare the results and either pop open the champagne or go back to the drawing board. Same thing, different wording.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Woops, that's not how I was wanting to come off. While I appreciate the approval of my expression, I'm sorry to say you've assumed or deduced incorrectly; such the 'coy' response is quite reflective. As far as "reductive"; no, the subject does that just fine on its own - don't shoot the messenger.

But in the interests of warm-fuzzy proliferation, I'll restate:
[INDENT]I was really hoping to see something that amounted to a "case" for Intelligent Design. I thought I'd heard them all and, I'm sorry to say that I've not only heard this one, I think it was the first one I've heard. "Cuz there's so much neat stuff"-isn't really a case for anything (much less something so difficult to support as ID).

I've chosen to inject my desire for some kind of 'case' purposefully; preferring this over the more caustic, confrontational tones that these subjects usually dredge up.
[/INDENT]There are some good arguments I've heard, just not this one. Hope this helps. With respect to all who've shared here,

Thanks

I understand what your asking for now. Sometimes I read questions and need some help where they are coming from. So I guess I would have to ask where the separation is from scientific proof too Logical evidence in proving "intelligent design"?

Thanks

@Alan McDougall,

The scientific evidence (not proof) for ID would be that some empirically measured event is inconsistent with the conjecture that ID is not true, given prior accepted theory. Logical proof (not evidence) would be a contradiction in the statement that ID is not true, given a set of stated propositions. Right?

@Joe,

Bones-O! wrote:

But this argument has been stated over and over and over by various members of the scientific community since the inception of ID. It gets ignored by folk like yourself, not because that community has a bias against scientific theology that needs to be addressed, but because they simply want to ignore it. That's how faith prevails, by ignoring the bleeding obvious. I suppose it's easier to respond that scientists don't know what science is than to admit ID isn't it.

This led me to believe you only skimmed my post. You've made assumption after assumption in that paragraph. First, I said I wasn't defending ID. Second, you didn't address any of my points but leapt to telling me how my faith causes me to ignore all sorts of obvious road signs. According to you I have no good reasons, I'm just ignoring what I want to ignore.

You can think that if you want, but it's (what was your word) codswallop until you address what I said, not your preconceived notions of what I think.

Bones-O! wrote:

Science is investigation via the scientific method, which is very clearly, universally and unambiguously understood.

Bones-O! wrote:

It's all pretty formal. Anyone who has been through experimental or computational lab training has it drilled into them from day one.

Second, these quotes lead me to believe you haven't read much on the philosophy of science - that your expertise is confined to physics. Again, if I am wrong, inform me.

Yes, "method" was taught to me, but never formally. No professor ever gave it the attention and rigor that went into, say, developing the Rayleigh-Ritz method or Lagrange's equations.

No offense, but your outline of the scientific method amounts to what I would expect from an elementary school science textbook. I would think you have a better understanding of what "formal" means to a scientist. If it's so easy, you should be able to quote me the document from ISO, SI, somebody, that defines the scientific method.

Philosophy Forum

My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

Quick Links

My Account

able2know