| padib said: How are ID proponents similar to drunk people? Are you saying they are fabulating? |
No, in my example they are the same because neither of their theories are scientific theories and neither of them understands why scientists do not take them seriously.
| padib said: The only thing ID pursues as a mandate is to discover, document and support the cases of intelligence and design in the world, material and biological. |
What does it predict? How is it falsifiable? If ID cannot answer both of those questions (and it can't, especially the latter) then it cannot be a scientific theory.
| padib said: They focus on topics like information theory to get a deeper understanding of the genetic code, on engineered systems within living things (even cells) in terms of purpose. |
In other word, they start from the conclusion they want (underlined words) and try to justify it, which is the exact opposite of the scientific process that starts with known facts and try to explain them as completely and as simply as possible.
| padib said: The only difference between ID and Evolution is that ID looks for these patterns to support a directed origin for them, whereas Evolution uses random change as the maker of these designs (here read "blind watchmaker"). |
The other difference is that science did not start with the idea of random mutations in the genetic code causing changes in species (indeed, DNA and genetics themselves did not exist when the original theory of evolution was formulated) but observed the differences in the species and how, even though different, they had apparent relations to each other and formulated a theory to explain it, which is called evolution (well, a family of theories nowadays).
Mendel's work that led to the foundation of genetics could have refuted evolution but it turned out to support it by theorising a mechanism by which traits could be inherited from parents to children.
The discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick also supported evolution in that it gave a mechanism by which change in inherited traits was possible.
This is the exact opposite of the ID approach to posit the existence of intelligence design and look for things that are complicated and not explained yet. it is also unscientific in another way in that a scientist, when confronted with an unexplained phenomena will not say "a wizard did it" and call it a day but actually tries to explain it.
| padib said: (here read "blind watchmaker"). |
I haven't yet (so many books/games and movies, so little time) but given that you seem to use it to support a point that I do not refute I won't feel compelled to read it right now.
What about you, Have you read it? more importantly, have you understood it? (this very conversation seems to indicate that you did not understand it as you do not seem to understand evolution 101).
| padib said: See, here is a usefulness of ID. Take a complex system in living things, like wings or eyes as basic examples (there are many many more). ID wants to quantify the complexity of said design so as to understand, for instance, if it were even possible, what was the possibility of it even happening by chance. |
This rejoins what I said earlier about what I like about ID: it looks for what science hasn't explained yet (and sometime what it already has explained as with the eye) and thus helps science see where it might be wrong. So far they have found nothing to cause a fundamental shift in evolutionary theory, thus only strengthening it.
It also reminds me of another fallacy of ID, the one that states "if we can disprove evolution we will have proven ID" (paraphrased) which is not true as disproving evolution would not make ID a scientific theory and it forgets the possibility that there might be another explanation (and a scientific one at that or it wouldn't count anymore than ID) that explains the new known facts that disprove evolution.
There is also the possibility that random changes might not be the only pathway to evolution so that even if we found something that could not be explained by random changes but could be explained by other means (or could be explained by random changes but could be better explained by those other means) it still wouldn't invalidate evolution as having a second path available does not negate the existence of the first path. It would however, profoundly change evolutionary theories.
| padib said: Structure can be quantified, so that easy statements can't be made as easily "Oh, that just evolved over millions and millions of years |
That is not the way science work, that is the way ID work ("Oh, that was just intelligently designed"). The way science work would be to look among the facts we know if any of them (or combination of them) explains the phenomena. If yes, then no change to the theory is necessary. If not, then a number of theories are likely to emerge and further study and experimentations will give us more fact to tell us which one(s) are most likely.
Until such time, there will be no leading theory but a number of competing ones (like is the case in the field of abiogenesis); and after we have more facts we can prune the disproved theories (like geocentrism) and abandon the less likely ones (like recapitulation theory) and have a broader consensus.
Does ID do any of that or does it look at something complicated and say "it must have been done by something intelligent".
| padib said: Really? What if it couldn't evolve over millions and millions of years, but now we're proving to you that it would take, given rates and the complexity we see, require exponentials by an immense scale of millions and millions of years. What if the probability of an asteroid hitting the environment was greater, or a black hole? |
Are you refering to the math based article from your earlier post? If so I already answered that in another post that I posted after the post I am currently answering to.
| padib said: Is evolution even possible? Why would people keep asking if they felt like they were given a proper answer? But unanswered questions will keep being asked. |
I read the following quote somewhere: "It is difficult to make some people understand a certain thing when their financial interest is dependent on their not understanding it"
I would rephrase it for this debate as: "It is difficult to make some people understand a certain thing when their religious interest is dependent on their not understanding it"
It is not that proper answers were not given, it is that creationists are doing their best to find ways not to accept them. It is not only a river in Egypt you know.
| padib said: Repressing it will only serve to make the repressed stronger. Remember Martin Luther King. |
Good thing ID is not repressed then, just horrible at supporting its belief. I think a good title for an Expelled-like film from the other side of the issue would be:
"Flunked: No Intelligence Found"
From another post:
| padib said: Smartypants answer: God doesn't have a creator. His world doesn't follow those of our world. He is self-sufficient, ineffable and goes beyond our logic. On that premise I stand. Can't say the same about you. For you, all things have a begining, even those that made other begin, and those things need a begining: it is an infinite puzzle. Which position is more reliable? |
Why stop at one turtle though*? It seems more logical that there either would be no turtle at all or an infinite number of turtles. Stopping at one turtle is arbitrary.
* see my previous post including turtle all the way.
| padib said: You can label people names but that just proves that you're the one who's name-calling: Irrational, indoctrinated. |
Faith is not based on reason so it is by definition irrational. As for indoctrination, its literal meaning is "teaching doctrine" and the definition of doctrine is "a set of beliefs" so that indoctrination means teaching someone a set of belief. How is religious education not indoctrination?
| padib said: If they took it a step further (say before the big bang), didn't you as well? What came before the big bang? An alternate universe? Are you indoctrinated? Are you? Who told you that? Did you come up with that idea yourself, or did your guru on TV tell you so? Why did you believe him? Are you Irrational? Indoctrinated? |
Whatever came before the big bang (if anything) would need to be determined (if determinable) based upon physical evidence, not upon the ipse dixit of a book.
| padib said: It is not irrational to believe in one because there are many, that's illogical. |
I agree, it is not the multitude of supposed eity that make the belief in one irrational but the fact that belief in one is not based on reason but on faith.
| padib said: It is however irrational to believe in more than one, as they are different and don't match |
There are polytheistic religions you know. Now I suppose you meant that it is irrational to believe in more than one religion when the religions you believe in are incompatible (not all religions are incompatible, for example hinduism and buddhism) but while I agree that it is irrational because the belief in any religion (or lack thereof like atheism) is not based on reason but on faith, I would not agree that believing in two incompatible religions is necessarily more irrational than believing in only one (or many compatible ones). Why? Because one can believe in a religion without believing all of its assertions are literal truths. For an example of that see the Baha'i faith teaching of the unity of religion.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
