ID/Creationism challenge

[fishbob]

It's not science for you guys. That's why you have such problems looking at the data objectively. It's a political, social, ideological pseudo-religious movement for you guys.

Unintended definition of ID - concise, accurate, and extremely amusing considering the source.

 

[sphenisc]

@sphenisc,

If you follow the link of Wikipedia's citation of the quote you take as ID's central claim, you will find that when it says "certain features of the universe and of living things", it's not talking in general terms. It makes very specific claims about features covered by the claim.

The cited quote directs you to "For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" ", which makes the following statements:

" intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution ."

" the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected."

It goes on to touch on all the points commonly associate with ID (irreducible complexity, fine tuning etc.)

Great, thanks for that.

Contrary to your literalistic interpretation, the central claim of ID is specifically referring to the origin of life, the entire history of observed and inferred life, and the origin and cosmological development of the universe, not just known tinkering by known intelligent beings (humans).

Well, it's not specifically referring to them, if it did I wouldn't have a problem.

 

[fishbob]

Are there any testable (falsifiable and reproduceable) predictions in ID that model anything in any quantitative way? I don't mean a bullet point list of apparent weaknesses in opposing theories, but a set of specific, testable claims concerning ID mechanisms.

To date: not only no but hell no.

The closest thing to an actual claim we are likely to ever see by an ID proponentist will be something along the lines of: "we don't like evolution".

ETA: see post 487 for a prime example. Taking out the wordiness and removing the false statements, the entire post boils down to "we don't like evolution".

 

[fishbob]

WD, you know something is wrong with evolutionism when it has to rely on the courts to silence dissent.

You are obviously confused about the difference between dissent and dishonesty. If you paid attention to the court case, you would know that illegal activities were exposed, false information was identified, and weasels were caught lying yet again.

 

[fishbob]

Look at some of the papers of the Discovery Institute. Doesn't take long. Start with those that are peer-reviewed.

Doesn't take long at all.
Ask yourself "who are the publication-reviewing peers of dishonest creationists".

 

[fishbob]

I got the joke but there are peer-reviewed papers there, and the list is not comprehensive. One pernicious lie promoted by evos is that IDers and others do not publish.

Another pernicious lie is the claim that "evos say that IDers do not publish".
IDers make a vast sum of money selling their publications to the faithful. Jack Chick and Michael Behe publish all the time.

More accurate claims would include: "evos say that IDers publish drivel" and "evos say that IDers publish for the money".

 

[fishbob]

If you determine the date of a fossil and then make "corroborating" measurements confirming the date, then an additional piece of evidence causes you to revise the date of your fossil so you make "corroborating" measurements that now confirm the new date... I'd say there's something wrong with the technique underlying your "corroborating" measurements, or at least that the measurements can't be shown to yield an objective date.

Got an example of this ever happening the way you stated above?
Show it.

 

[fishbob]

numbered for my convenience:

1 - We're talking about the curriculum, right? Yes, the first amendment, imo, does and should be acknowledged to be able to include even religious arguments in the curriculum.

2 - Moreover, it should regardless include accurate information (often does not) about evo theories AND THEIR WEAKNESSES.

3 - If you are not presenting arguments against the theory in some depth and intensity, you are just indoctrinating students and not teaching them real science.

4 - Real science education does not care if they believe the theory or not. In fact, true science in education would rather they not believe it, try to argue against it, if that results in their understanding the theory better. In fact, unless one takes a critical approach to the theory, one will likely never fully understand it.

1 - The Dover case was specifically about the science curriculum. Religious arguments are not relevant to science. "We don't like evolution, so we are going to lie to the kids" is not a valid scientific argument. So, no.

2 - IDers and Creationists have a lengthy record of avoiding accurate information. Science on the other hand, makes a point of discussing weaknesses and conflicting evidence.

3 - The ID position has consistently been to make stuff up instead of finding valid arguments against evolutionary theory. Spending all your time promoting dishonesty instead of looking for valid arguments is just making you look silly.

4 - Right. Based on fact and real evidence.

 

[fishbob]

Evos wouldn't resort to the courts if their theory was so obviously and reasonably true. They'd welcome ID to be taught because their ideas would be so clearly superior in a factual level but since that's not the case, they resort to the courts and seek to indoctrinate kids rather than to teach them to think critically.

I have long advocated teaching about ID and creationism in science classes. It would be very educational to hold up all the valid ID criticisms of evolution and would only take about this - - - long. It would take far longer to present the invalid ID positions though.

I don't think this can actually happen because some student would claim that the school was challenging his religious beliefs.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Intelligent Design

 

[Wowbagger]

Randman: Why do you think scientists get up in the morning? What do you think motivates them to do further work in their fields?

Do you really think a professional scientists, with important challenges to tackle, is going to put up with Intelligent Design - if no one can come up with a manner in which such a theory can lead to further discoveries, in their field?

Why don't you address that challenge? You say you already communicated positive evidence for I.D. But, how would we know if it was truly positive? If it does nothing to keep motivated scientists busy with new discoveries, how could we say there was valid evidence in that direction, at all?

This comment shows you are delusional, as so many evos are.

How was my statement delusional?

A paper written by a Darwinist, describing things in Darwinistic ways, is simply not going to cut it as evidence conflicting with Darwinism, and it certainly wouldn't cut it as evidence for a Designer.

If ENCODE contradicted Darwinism, then how come its findings were put to use by Darwinists, and did not further any research into Intelligent Design?

If QT shows us evidence for "Logos", or any I.D. for that manner, then how come such an entity does not add anything to our understanding of physics, when one asserts its application?

There seems to be some serious flaws in your accusations.

 

[BenBurch]

They're too used to religion where any modification to embrace reality does weaken it.

Thing is, it's hard to strengthen a lie, because when you revise the lie that is religion, you make the lie more and more obvious.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Unintended definition of ID - concise, accurate, and extremely amusing considering the source.

It's interesting that the fundamentalist, cultists would call people who don't accept his religious doctrine as science as being "religious" ourselves.

 

[BadBoy]

Right, and medical schools should teach that leeches are the cure for everything just to show that they aren't. School time and resources are limited, we don't have the time or money for your stupid crap to be taught alongside reality just to show that your stupid crap is stupid crap.

, you got my respect

 

[aggle-rithm]

Of course, and part of that is the way you teach them. You don't use faked pictures known to that way for decades (haeckel).

Have you no human decency?

It's not enough that you've beaten that poor strawman to death. Now, you pull him out of his grave and start pummelling him AGAIN?

What did he ever do to you?

 

[Wowbagger]

Intelligent Design

Is this supposed to mean that Intelligent Design is "Forbidden"?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Have you no human decency?

It's not enough that you've beaten that poor strawman to death. Now, you pull him out of his grave and start pummelling him AGAIN?

What did he ever do to you?

Are strawmen intelligently designed, or did they evolve?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Are strawmen intelligently designed, or did they evolve?

They evolved from a primitive form of straw-marmoset.

 

[Dinwar]

Of course, and part of that is the way you teach them. You don't use faked pictures known to that way for decades (haeckel).

It has been conclusively demonstrated to randman by ANTpogo's excellent work that Haeckel is no longer used. The fact that randman is STILL using this argument is telling.

 

[sphenisc]

@sphenisc,

If you follow the link of Wikipedia's citation of the quote you take as ID's central claim, you will find that when it says "certain features of the universe and of living things", it's not talking in general terms. It makes very specific claims about features covered by the claim.

Yes, it makes some specific claims about features covered by the claim, but it doesn't anywhere limit the claim to just those features or specific claims, which is as you'd expect from either standpoint. From an 'honest' proponent's perspective they'd expect to add more and more features to build up their evidence base. From an opponent's perspective they'd want to be able to continually bring in new features as previous claims were falsified.

What was the court case where this was proven? The term "Creationism" was replaced with "Intelligeng Design" in textbooks, and obviously so (there were significant errors, indicating it was a "Find: Replace All" thing rather than re-working the textbook to remove Creationism). So yeah, ID is, and has been proven to be, Creationism in disguise.

But before you claimed "Intelligent Design is literally and completely, the attempt to put a thin veneer of science onto creationism", now it seems to be the outcome of the attempt.
If it's the attempt, then, as a historical event, the Dover Panda Trial would be evidence that the event occurred, so evidence for ID. Yet no-one ever uses it in this way. Certainly no-one's responded to the OP by offering it as evidence. So again the imprecision in language seems to allow an awful lot of wiggle room about what can be claimed about ID.

You appear to be entirely ignorant of the ID movement's history. I mean no offense here--I'm just stating that before you advocate for the idea you really should learn what they're about. The court case I mentioned is a great place to start; it shows that the movement demonstrably started as a dishonest attempt to force Creationism into the classroom. Not a promising start to an ostensibly scientific theory.

No, I'm not ignorant of the movement's history. I've followed and participated in many of the threads on this website on the subject, one of the highlights of my time here was correcting Dr Adequate on a point of fact about the KvD trial. Petty to mention it, but the opportunities were few and far between where Dr. A's concerned.
Nor is it relevant to whether I advocate for the idea or not. The history of the movement is irrelevant to the truth of the claim. That would be to fall for an ad hominem fallacy which I don't think you'd really want to advocate.

Both quotes describe the way ID is intended to be used. They don't describe what ID is. The ID movement is a different thing from the ID...let's called it "conjecture".

Not our problem.

It may not be your problem. It is mine, since there seems to be an awful lot of equivocating between the conjecture, the aspects of the conjecture that everyone focuses on and the underlying actions and intentions of the movement.

ID always has the exact same flaws, whether it's the religious form or some attempt to convince yourself that it's not religion. First, it NEVER presents an actual designer for consideration, which leaves this at the level of "What if this is all a dream?" arm-chair philosophy, which is not science.

That's obviously false, since I've given you her name. Your standard objections to ID don't apply to the points I'm making.

You're dealing with paleontologists and geologists here--we're trained to reject any idea that lacks a mechanism (look at what happened to Wagner),

I don't know Wagner, did you mean Wegener? You don't think the mechanism by which a vet plans and operates on her patients can be amply demonstrated? You don't seem to have understood my point at all.

which means EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT a significant number of people studying evolution will reject ID. Second, ID typically rests on the idea of irreducibly complex structures. However, each time they porpose a structure as irreducibly complex it's shown to be in fact entirely possible to develop that structure in incrimental steps. In other words, ID rests on personal incredulity.

Again your standard objections to ID don't apply to the points I'm making. I have not referred to IC nor does it constitute any part of my argument. Have you followed what I've been saying? This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to "ID", not a response to anything I've said.

You appear to be totally ignorant of the history of this movement. I would suggest looking into it.

I've no idea how you got that impression. But however it was, I can't plead ignorance as an excuse for my opinion.

Do you have an qualms about appealing to the "actual" meaning of the words and "sinister" creationists? Doesn't it smack of an appeal to motives fallacy?

No. Creationists (and, by extension, the major advocates of ID) have openly stated that they are attempting to convert the USA into a theocracy. They will do whatever it takes to do so. If they convince people to teach ID, they will then convince people to teach Creationism, then to teach Biblical Literallism, and so on, until we live in a theocracy. This is not a Slippery Slope fallacy--it's what they stated they will do. Thus, we can assume going in that what these people are advocating as science is, at minimum, horribly mangled by biases and that if there's any grain of truth there it's burried deep. It is a major error to assume that people are honest after they've openly stated they are not.

Okay, no qualms then. Which makes me wonder about the earlier ad hominem... Oh well at least your open about it. I hope you won't be too surprised if I don't accept the fallacy.

Let me be quite clear. I accept what I've called the central premise of ID. But I also think that it is probably a poorly phrased representation of what ID actually is in practice. It would be improved by referring to "certain specified features", "the origins of the universe and of life", "non-human intelligent cause" or some such. Because that's the way it always seems to be used in practice. But decrying the movement or irreducible complexity doesn't address the point I'm making.

I'm quite prepared to accept that I'm being pedantic and literalistic, that seems to be quite appropriate when it comes to statements of definition. But the statement does get around 42,000 hits on Google which suggests it widely accepted. I don't think I'm the only person to see this as an anomaly, but maybe it's only me that thinks it's worth being clear about which of the variety of definitions of "ID" is being used in a particular context.