Well, it would seem that purpose arises from a higher level of consciousness. Without the ability to think and see more clearly, people would probably not experience it.
Can ID be disproven?
- Thread starter Meadmaker
- Start date
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Intelligent Design cannot be falsified but specific claims like "the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex" can be.
Wanna bet if the IDers lose the Dover trial it will move into the physics arena? Electron behavior is too weird to be explained by the laws of nature therefore...
Wanna bet if the IDers lose the Dover trial it will move into the physics arena? Electron behavior is too weird to be explained by the laws of nature therefore...
They should stick with the notion that evolution was directed. They would stand a better chance.
Its really kinda hard to tell the difference between directed evolution and undirected evolution. But I think the people who endorse directed evolution tend to be more anthropocentric, and in that case whether evolution is directed or not is a very personal belief (and its not really appropriate for science to be concerned with peoples personal beliefs).
Maybe, in a very politically correct world, a class intended not to offend would begin with "whether you think evolution is directed or undirected is up to you, but heres how it happened..." etc.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
Faith, philosophy, and some religious belief offer a way to 'let go' of things in facing life's changes. Our lives include various social passages and involvements - birth, childhood, adulthood, family, community, death. Faith in God may serve as one of several helpful strategies to face life. (I think there are better ways, but that does not mean faith does not have its answers.)
However, the idea of 'letting go' is anathema to science. Science is driven by a curiosity and wonder about how and why things work.
We see a watch
What is it?
How does it work?
Why does it work?
take it apart and there are gears and springs
where did these come from?
what materials make them up?
what are their measurements?
how are they related to each other?
did they have some other purpose before they were used in a watch?
are these the first relationships and purpose of these gears and springs?
is there a better way to 'create' a watch?
But ID takes the useful 'letting go' tool of faith & philosophy and misapplies it to science. The message of 'stop the questioning and just accept it as it is' has some validity in guiding lives, but not science. With science we must always ask questions and keep searching, even when we think we have gone as far as we can go.
Now that may be a place faith could help science: Tear apart old established notions and look at something in a completely new way. Just to see what comes of it.
But ID does not offer to do that.
ID offers to replace scientific searching with religious certitude.
That to me is the real danger of ID -
encouraging the 'letting go' of the search for scientific knowledge.
Stop the journey -
We know enough, go no further.
Warning Will Robinson!
Danger ahead.
Stop, your faith is in danger.
You might find you have no purpose in life but what you make.
There will be better answers to things like blood clotting or bacteria. But they will not come from leaving their explanation to an advanced civilization or supernatural deity.
However, the idea of 'letting go' is anathema to science. Science is driven by a curiosity and wonder about how and why things work.
We see a watch
What is it?
How does it work?
Why does it work?
take it apart and there are gears and springs
where did these come from?
what materials make them up?
what are their measurements?
how are they related to each other?
did they have some other purpose before they were used in a watch?
are these the first relationships and purpose of these gears and springs?
is there a better way to 'create' a watch?
But ID takes the useful 'letting go' tool of faith & philosophy and misapplies it to science. The message of 'stop the questioning and just accept it as it is' has some validity in guiding lives, but not science. With science we must always ask questions and keep searching, even when we think we have gone as far as we can go.
Now that may be a place faith could help science: Tear apart old established notions and look at something in a completely new way. Just to see what comes of it.
But ID does not offer to do that.
ID offers to replace scientific searching with religious certitude.
That to me is the real danger of ID -
encouraging the 'letting go' of the search for scientific knowledge.
Stop the journey -
We know enough, go no further.
Warning Will Robinson!
Danger ahead.
Stop, your faith is in danger.
You might find you have no purpose in life but what you make.
There will be better answers to things like blood clotting or bacteria. But they will not come from leaving their explanation to an advanced civilization or supernatural deity.
Last edited:
Does this include "random" evidence though? For surely if evolution relied upon randomness in order to bring about change -- albeit I admit, it may "appear" that way -- we have yet to identify the mechanism by which it genuinely works, and really haven't identified anything. Except to say, that things come about by random. Hmm ...
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Actually, the theory of evolution by natural selection proposes a mechanism for evolution. It's called "natural selection," and (as I'm sure you've been told many times already) it isn't random.Does this include "random" evidence though? For surely if evolution relied upon randomness in order to bring about change -- albeit I admit, it may "appear" that way -- we have yet to identify the mechanism by which it genuinely works, and really haven't identified anything. Except to say, that things come about by random. Hmm ...
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Iacchus, I despair of ever understanding how your mind works.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
Okay then, so this pretty much tells us that all the rules (to evolutionary development that is) have been defined beforehand, correct? So, what else does this tell us, except that evolution is "directed?" Otherwise how could something "new" come about, unless there was an element of randomness to it? If it was wholly reliant upon the environment which preceded it, meaning it could have been predicted beforehand (and the mechanism was already set in place), then there is nothing new about it. In which case there is nothing new about any of the reality we see before us.
Last edited:
I can 'demonstrate' psychic powers, or that they don't exist. It's all about the audience and methodology involved.
The fundamental debate is not over details - it seldom is. At this point, it's basically about the right to be left alone. "Leave me with my books or with my bible - but leave me."
Government-types just won't listen.
On the other hand, I have often said to anyone who won't embrace evolution: good luck working in biotech or research medicine, because your degree will only add to the irony when you are ultimately laughed out of jobs and presentations. No sane company will invest in products not supported by pure science, not unless they wish for lost billions, litigation, and a stock value of zero.
I used to think you were being cryptic. Now I think you do not understand evolution. Evolution has two parts, Iacchus. Random mutation (hint: It's called "random" because we cannot predict it) and selection.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Wrong. It appears to follow rules, which the theory of evolution attempts to describe. Saying that the rules were "defined beforehand" assumes the existence of an entity to do the defining, for which there is no evidence.
Which is to say there is no mechanism behind the change? So, why don't we just be honest and say it's "too complex" to predict?
It either follows the rules or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then you have no mechanism and nothing to speak of.
Because it isn't 'too complex'.
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick! We've understood genetic mutation for what? 50+ years now?
This is old science, man!
We understand the mechanism by which such things occur. There are a multitude of variables that contribute to these causes. It's kinda like predicitng the outcome of the World Series at the beginning of the season. There's simply too many factors involved.
And, of course, I am still waiting for the evidence of any 'Intelligent Designer'
It does not follow rules. It is described by rules. That is the way science works. You have been told this many times before, but have for some reason refused to see the difference between proscriptive rules and descriptive rules.
No, it's not, Iacchus.
It isn't "too complex", it is just too time consuming, too resource intensive, and a waste of time.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Iacchus, you would be more honest with yourself, and save us a lot of trouble, if you would just say:
"I want there to be a source for the rules that nature appears to follow. I am going to have a source. So I may have to twist what y'all say to make it sound as if you claim there is a source."
~~ Paul
"I want there to be a source for the rules that nature appears to follow. I am going to have a source. So I may have to twist what y'all say to make it sound as if you claim there is a source."
~~ Paul