|
Happy Veterans Day Happy Holloween! Election Is Coming Up Marlee Shrider and Prop. 8, Darn that's a hot topic All the fuss on Prop. 8 Why God Wont Answer Amputee Prayers Why Intelligent Design Isn't Science Marylee Shrider dumber than she looks Dam Ouija Board Any Skeptical Groups or Clubs in Bako? January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
Why Intelligent Design Isn't Science
Hey all, just another awesome day, well I was doing some research, on why ID isn't science, and well ran across an article at http://www.naturalism.org/s... that was too good not to just post, so here it is, feast your eyes on this, and finally see why the new Ben Stein movie is dumb, and why our poor journalist was wrong. (Yipes I guess skeptics are grumpier at 4:37 AM. Enjoy you guys Why Intelligent Design Isn’t Science Contrary to the claims of some proponents of intelligent design (ID), science does not presume naturalism. So science doesn't reject ID because ID is supernatural. Nevertheless, science does reject ID because the ID hypothesis exemplifies none of the characteristics of legitimate scientific explanation. For some basic characteristics of scientific explanations, click here. Some of those sympathetic to intelligent design (ID) argue that science as it’s currently taught assumes naturalism, and further that science tries to rule out ID as unscientific on the grounds that ID invokes the supernatural. 1 But science makes no claims about naturalism. Scientists simply propose explanations which are accepted or rejected on the basis of their scientific merit. Intelligent design fails as science not because science a priori rules out the supernatural (methodologically it doesn’t need to do this, and in fact wastes no time on the matter), but because the intelligent design hypothesis has no merit as a scientific explanation. Because science doesn’t presume naturalism, there’s no basis for supposing it violates any U.S. constitutional prohibition on states favoring or establishing a particular religious or philosophical view. So ID need not be imported into the science curriculum to provide "balance" or give non-naturalistic views "equal time." Because ID conclusively fails as good science, it should not be presented or taught as a viable scientific alternative to Darwinian accounts of evolution. But ID could usefully be discussed as an example of pseudo-science, helping to clarify what science actually is, and does. Below, I’ve set out what I take to be some fairly uncontroversial, central characteristics of legitimate scientific explanation, and then list reasons why ID doesn’t embody or exemplify these characteristics. I don’t pretend that these are exhaustive, that they aren’t redundant to some extent, or couldn’t be improved upon in many respects, so I invite interested parties to improve upon them. But it’s crucial to note that in characterizing science, none of the points below invoke the natural/supernatural distinction. By virtue of its aims and methods, science ends up producing a unified view of the world, but it doesn’t start out with ontological assumptions that qualify it as a partisan philosophy.A first cut at some basic characteristics of scientific explanation: Awesome article, and I can only close, if we must teach intelligent design next to evolution, why not fortune telling along side math, World War Two Denial in History class, or Prayer Healing along side GERM THEORY!!! or whatever a crazy person in a given subject wants to teach. hope you all enjoyed this is your grumpy skeptic going to get some sleep
Why intelligent design (ID) isn’t science (the corresponding points above are in parentheses):
Additional points:
On proving a negative : In general, ID is a negative thesis - that standard evolutionary explanations cannot, however well elaborated, account for some particular phenomena, e.g., "irreducible complexity." The plausibility of the design hypothesis is thus only a function of the purported failure of selectionist explanations. But there is no argument to support the idea that selectionist explanations will not or cannot be completed, especially as biological mechanisms become better understood, and indeed many selectionist explanations are complete to the satisfaction of many scientists. This means, if selectionist explanations are completed and filled out to a reasonable degree (what’s reasonable is of course a bone of contention), then the intelligent design hypothesis loses this sort of support. The same goes for the origins of life: once a plausible mechanism is established, then ID becomes otiose.
On falsifiability : It is often supposed, although not universally agreed, that scientific hypotheses and conjectures are at least in principle falsifiable, if not directly testable. In contrast, ID is unfalsifiable: no experiment could prove or disprove it. ID simply says that what selectionism or other science can’t explain is explicable by appeal to design, so ID can always fill the gaps left by science: thus there’s no way to prove it wrong. (This point is taken from Larry Arnhart’s piece" Evolution and the New Creationism: A Proposal for Compromise," Skeptic V8#4, 2001, p. 48.)
On low probability events
: Science accepts the possibility that certain events and conditions may have been extremely low probability occurrences, but doesn’t draw any ontologically inflationary conclusions from this. In contrast, ID draws the inference that since (let us concede for the sake of argument) it’s highly improbable that the universe has constants which are favorable to life, or that life arose at all, there must have been an intelligent agent that chose the constants and/or created life. But this inference simply begs the question of the prior probability of the existence of the designer. 66 comments from 19 users
posted by
thegrumpyskeptic
on Jul 18, 2008 at 01:51 AM
posted by
possummomma
on May 9, 2008 at 09:41 PM
Hey all, Thanks for the support...it means a ton. I almost couldn't believe what I was being told, regarding Wayfarer's commentary on the situation. There's really nothing to say, is there? You either believe that Chrissy is who she claims to be or you don't. I do, however, find the irony to be stunning - Wayfarer, king of multiple user id's - ...is suggesting that someone else is being manipulative or misrepresenting themselves? That's quite the laugh. Like I've seen said before, there is some intense projection going on here. But,...most of all, I feel badly for people like Buffoo/Wayfarer. I've had many, many helping hands this week. There has not been one need that wasn't met for the children, despite the upheaval. Chrissy, Dave, Abi, and the Becks...thank you. Anyone wiling to sit up with our kids or give Mike a break deserves kudos and hugs. -Pmomma posted by
randomfactor
on May 9, 2008 at 08:20 PM
Buffoo reminds me of Gandhi's famous aphorism about Christ, whom he confessed to admiring. "I do not admire your Christians," he continued. "They are so unlike your Christ." . "Orthodox" Christianity--that is, the standard-variety American version--has little of compassion about it, it seems . PS, Buffoo: Oh, *YES* you are. posted by
sagefever
on May 9, 2008 at 04:06 PM
I'll be keeping nothing but good thoughts for Possum in my heart and mind. Way~ there is a time and a place for everything,this is not the time for being uncharitable. Remember when P. thought tkozy was "manipulating" the blogs? He was not,and she felt terrible and apologized for it. I know you'd do the same but why not save yourself that? I said then and I say now~having been manipulated before myself~ I'd rather error in charity and goodwill than error in being unkind.
posted by
Wayfarer
on May 9, 2008 at 03:57 PM
I am well aware that your are seriously ill Possum and I pray for the best for you, but misrepresenting yourself, trying to manipulate the blogs, and slanderous attacks doesn't help you any Possum/Chrissy. P.S. we are not as dumb as you think we are. posted by
ChrissyL
on May 9, 2008 at 02:19 PM
Wayfer - Still playing games Possum. The only blogger playing games is you. I don't take potshots at seriously ill neighbors, way. It's hard to think kind thoughts about you right now. If you believe in god you need to open your heart and listen. Random -Chrissy, could you give an off-line address to send good-wishes cards? I'll send you a pm. The update is that she's going to be taken down to UCLA next week to see if they can help. We're trying to help them get kids to and from school without stress and keep the kids distracted. She's supposedly coming home in a bit but it's been an in-and-out process all this week. posted by
randomfactor
on May 9, 2008 at 08:25 AM
Wayfarer, I thought my estimation of you had reached its nadir. Here's one of those rare occasions when I was in error. You truly are an orthodox Christian. No doubt you'll take that as a compliment; rest assured it is no such thing. . Chrissy, could you give an off-line address to send good-wishes cards? posted by
Wayfarer
on May 9, 2008 at 07:00 AM
posted by
ChrissyL
on May 9, 2008 at 01:11 AM
Of course the people on the blog care about Possum...why would you even say a thing like that? Anyone know how she is doing? I was responding to Wayfarer who has accused me of being possummomma in the past (thank you you-know-who for reminding me that Way did that before). I know some care or else I would have said "In case any of you care." Apologies for not being clear. I don't know what is o.k. to share but her father said she is in pain. Her kidneys are bad. Once more I'm sorry if I worded it badly. posted by
NancyII
on May 8, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Of course the people on the blog care about Possum...why would you even say a thing like that? Anyone know how she is doing? Only 3 people can remove posts. 1. Jason, the moderator, 2. The person who started the blog, and 3. The person who commented. posted by
ChrissyL
on May 8, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Hey Possum;) Possummomma is in the hospital in case you care. Where did she post? Did someone erase her post? posted by
witterpitters
on May 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
:-) Audrey - glad you enjoyed the salad! The BIG RIP!!!! kinda like my pants (that shrank in the dryer!) did! HAHAHA! See the world IS obese!!! Too many big macs! Gonna rrriiipppppppppppppp those pants!! posted by
AudreyB
on May 8, 2008 at 09:26 AM
Witters I'm still thinking about that red potato salad. Ummmm Random Repeating big bangs. That's my hope. Ad infinitum or nauseam. I saw a new documentary on Discover Channel a couple of months ago . It seems the latest scientific theory for the end of time is the BIG RIP.........OK, waiting for jokes. www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.htm l
posted by
randomfactor
on May 8, 2008 at 09:17 AM
posted by
ChicaEscuela
on May 8, 2008 at 09:17 AM
It matters to some people, because science as it is disproves a literal interpretation of their religion. If they can no longer convince people that every letter of their holy book is true, then they can no longer arbitrarily claim to be moral authorities. It matters to them, because to lose this battle is to lose their power. posted by
AudreyB
on May 8, 2008 at 09:13 AM
posted by
witterpitters
on May 8, 2008 at 09:13 AM
AllRED: it was nice meeting you at the BBQ :-) Thanks for the ice & soda. Maybe you can stay longer for the next get together :-) Jason: ditto!!!!! Your daughter is A-DOR-ABLE!!!! What a cutie :-) posted by
randomfactor
on May 8, 2008 at 09:10 AM
They *ALWAYS* claim deathbed conversions. Darwin got the same treatment at the hand of those people his theories irritated. posted by
witterpitters
on May 8, 2008 at 09:09 AM
allRED: I guess my take on this whole discussion is that it doesn't matter HOW we got here, just that we make the most of our time while here. Nobody gets off this planet alive!! Although, what IS 'dead"? The body may be gone, but what about the "soul" "spirit"? IMO, we never really leave! There will be those who say gone is gone, but really? How do we know since we are still "alive" - so to speak! Is there "reasoning" behind those who have physically left us? Other then to make room for others to take that "space". Why have more then 100 thousand people physically "left" this place if not to make room on our overpopulated earth for newbies? Why are there disasters that take many to the "other side"? Why do some see, hear others from the "other side" and others do not? I don't believe ANY of these questions can logically be answered! Until WE cross over!
posted by
randomfactor
on May 8, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Audrey, Ron's claiming that Sagan knows better now, suffering the eternal fires of Hell. Of course, he's really helping with the prep work for the *NEXT* Big Bang, but don't tell Ron that... posted by
AudreyB
on May 8, 2008 at 08:56 AM
OK I want specifics. What "view" of his has been disproven? Sagan doesn't know anything anymore, he's dead. Which, by the way, disproves the old "no atheists in a foxhole theory". Sagan didn't run to or cling to a fantasy when he was dying. posted by
Lingtaowoo
on May 8, 2008 at 08:55 AM
I liked Carl when I was growing up...if anything that he taught us, was to think ' outside the box '...and we've have in many ways.. posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 08:54 AM
Grumpy thanks for the space I'll quit now sorry about useing your blog to as some will say Preach Ron posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 08:52 AM
Carl Sagan taught alot of his views when he was living and many of his views have been dis proven I bet he knows now the Truth posted by
AudreyB
on May 8, 2008 at 08:51 AM
posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 08:48 AM
Audrey in the mind of us mortals your answer seems reasonable but cold had to be created Heat had to be created that spark had to be created that space for the spark had to be created posted by
randomfactor
on May 8, 2008 at 08:45 AM
I believe in Creation by a Surpeme Being So does the ID crowd. They just lie about it so they don't have to admit that in court. posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 08:44 AM
Maggie life and death like I said black/white night/day they go together What some believe of death is being final &n bsp; I ask if not final what then for you and others that believe it "am" I trying to save you from a Hellous life after death &nb sp; NO I'm just saying wouldn't it be better for you if someone tells you different and they might be right posted by
AudreyB
on May 8, 2008 at 08:39 AM
BTW Ron Cold is an absence of "electrons and protrons and Atoms and alot of little thingy's hitting each other" So is dark for that matter. posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 08:37 AM
Random I've never looked into ID I have no idea what it teaches or says but I have a better idea what Atheist and science teache in schools I believe in Creation by a Surpeme Being There has to be something for something to start I believe that something was a created place by a God of Creation posted by
Maggiepoo
on May 8, 2008 at 08:37 AM
posted by
randomfactor
on May 8, 2008 at 08:34 AM
By the way, the *REASON* the earth is younger than the universe is a fascinating story, Ron. Carl Sagan's books are a great way to read about it. posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 08:32 AM
Well 1st let me answer Witter She writes does it really matter Witter just like black and white or day and night How long is the life expecting of Man/Women you are here for a very short period of time But after your little travel though this life and death comes and it comes to all of us where are you then on the opposite side of life I know some believe death is final and some believe life is just starting I happen to believe the latter If you are right death is final if you are wrong Ron &nbs p;   ; and nice to talk to you again posted by
randomfactor
on May 8, 2008 at 08:26 AM
It matters a lot of some people, wp. That's why they came up with the Intelligent Design flavor of creationism. . Ron, how old are you? I'm younger than you are. Shouldn't we be the same age? . To answer your question--no, space wasn't "here" before the Big Bang, nor time (probably--I'm not up on the membrane hypothesis which says they can go back before the singularity.) . Granted there has to be dirt before you can dig. But where'd the *HOLE* come from? Did it exist before you started digging? posted by
witterpitters
on May 8, 2008 at 08:14 AM
posted by
AudreyB
on May 8, 2008 at 08:10 AM
Allred You really should check out a book by Carl Sagan (Cosmos, or any book on astronomy) which explains how the universe was created. It took billions of years for the residue of the big bang to coalesce into galaxies, stars, and planets. I've always felt that the magnitude of the big bang is much more majestic and awe inspiring than the dry, unsatisfying tale of creation in the Bible. You may also want to look into a book titled "Your God is Too Small". That says it all.
posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 08:00 AM
This is a really easy answer Publican. Because God is the great "I am". Buff God also said There is no other God that I know of posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 07:58 AM
By the way most science believe the universe is 17 billion years old but the earth is about 4/7 billion How is that The big Bang should have made every thing the same age no you claim the earth 4 billion posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 07:51 AM
posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 07:49 AM
Space before the Atheist Big Bang Theory was it here 1st or was it created after your big bang Was a little piece of energy floating around in a no space place and by the way where did that piece of energy start Fools that believe the big bang are the same fools that have no faith in Creation= Atheist They give out a ridiculous theory and call them selfs scientist posted by
randomfactor
on May 8, 2008 at 07:45 AM
Ron, where was the hole before you started digging? If man created money, where did debt come from? (I know, the Republicans invented it.) Actually, there *WAS* no cold before the Universe existed. posted by
allRED
on May 8, 2008 at 07:39 AM
Cold opposite of   ; Heat according to your Big Bang Theory Heat was created by electrons and protrons and Atoms and alot of little thingy's hitting each other But COLD where did it come from what made space so cold between Galaxy do we asume cold was alway here
posted by
Wayfarer
on May 8, 2008 at 05:57 AM
posted by
ChrissyL
on May 8, 2008 at 01:47 AM
I went to a Catholic University. Even in such a religious institution, my degree in biology was based on true science. Intelligent design has no footing in reality. I don't understand the need of evangelicals to demand that their philosophy be accepted as a science. When you define ID, you must be careful because you are attempting to define God. Do we really wish to insist that people like Kent Hovind and CSE (Creation Science Evangelism) are defining God's power? I don't. I love God. I worship and celebrate the Word because it fills me with unmeasurable joy and peace. ID proponents need to see that promoting false science doesn't draw any believer closer to God and it drives unbelievers farther away. posted by
Publican
on May 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Sojourner... Not an answer worth making. It is as bad as the folowing answers: "Because The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the greater "I is". "Because Thor is the greatest "I am that I am". "Because Lemminkainen is the really good "I am". I do not mean to be a punk here... I really just do not get how you find that answer in any way adequate. You can substitute nearly any entity with any properties as the subject of that sentence: it asserts nothing more about the subject than "great" existence. Tens of thousands have thought that Adrammalech, Byelobog, Batara-Kala, or Abeguwo had great existence. Although no one has asserted that about Yahwesusllah besides myself and now... "Because Yahwesusllah is the great "I am." And none of them even exists, much less exists great. posted by
sojourner7
on May 7, 2008 at 10:51 PM
posted by
Publican
on May 7, 2008 at 09:58 PM
See, I was perfectly willing to let BLT go his way, despite his obvious inability to address a basic issue about his religious beliefs. Then Wayfarer jumped in with a typically silly response. My use of "heart" had little to do with my main argument - it was largely play. Wayfarere is typically just wrong that any part of my post is based on a mistranslation but both he and BLT make NO attempt to answer the main argument of my post. That is important and is on a par with someone serving on a jury who refuses to listen to argument or evidence and insists that the defendant is guilty because they dislike the color of their skin. That argument is crystal clear to many atheists and the inability of the religious to attempt an adequate answer marks them as mainlining irrationality. It is not an argument to ignore or put out of mind: if you can't answer it then you might as well believe that you are a 700-foot tall Pelican named Stella. here, let me repeat it: "You already know this. Your heart has not received the TRUTH of: Thor, Nepthys, Hotei, Olorun, Yarilo, Kwatee, Kinich-Ahau, Apocatequil, or even Huitzilopochtli. And your heart has not been humbled for Huitzilopochtli even though Huitzilopochtli demanded many sacrifices of human hearts. As many as 70,000 human heart sacrifices were performed by the Aztec to Huitzilopochtli... Now, these are all deities actually worshipped by from tens of thousands to millions of people. Anyone wishing to research these non-existent deities can start at Godchecker ( http://www.godchecker.com/g... ). Your heart has not been humbled to the truth of thousands and thousands of Gods, BLT... Why are you relying on your arrogant andprideful and stubborn mind to exclude them? You are shutting out an even longer list of nonexistent Gods from your heart, though. All of the above deities have been worshipped by from tens of thousands to millions of people. There is an open-ended list of deities yet to be worshipped by anyone, including Pepsicoketab the secondary creator of tiny bubbles, Yahwesusllah the tripartite deity of fused monotheism, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Well, that last one may be worshipped already. The Pastafarians of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and their ubiquitous pirate-fish logo are the fastest growing church on Earth. ( http://www.venganza.org/ ). BLT, allow HIS noodly appendages into your aorta!!" And RF provided the obvious conclusion: we all have a very long list of thousands of Gods that we do not believe in - atheists just add one more to that list, the imaginary magical buddy you believe in. In long-form the argument is: what evidence or reasons can you present for the existence of your God which is better than the evidence that you yourself find insufficient for the existence of the tens of thousands of Gods you don't believe in? One more time, since BLT just pretended he didn't read the argument and Wayfarer tried to disappear it with some nonsense about mistranslation of "nous." Answer the uniqueness argument or admit that you are part of the problem. Wayfarer is just wrong about mistranslations. Both the Old and New Testaments refer to the heart: Lebab in the Hebrew and Kardios in the Greek. The Greek word "nous" means "mind" not heart. But don;t take either my or Wayfarer's word for it. John Chryssavgis wrote at the beginning of chapter 3, Kardia, the Heart of his 2004 book John Climacus: "In the Old Testament, too, the term heart (leb, lebab) is normally used in an all-embracing sense. It signifies not only the emotions, the feelings and affections, but also the spiritual center of the human person. It is even the seat of thought and reason. The New Testament reflects the Semitic rather than the Platonist approach. After the incarnation, for example, Mary is said to have kept everything in her heart like a treasure. Moreover, even thoughts arise from the heart which is seen as the moral center of the human person, the determinant of action. Furthermore, as the inner person, the heart signifies the center of the spiritual life." posted by
Wayfarer
on May 7, 2008 at 05:58 PM
The heart as used in scripture is a inadequate translation of the Greek word "Nous" which means the spiritual nature of man, the core of his being, the part of him that is the image of God, that is capable of speaking to God. Sorry Publican ,but you based your entire long argument on your linguistic ignorance. posted by
randomfactor
on May 7, 2008 at 04:59 PM
posted by
blognroll
on May 7, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Then I suggest making your own sign (like in the song, Signs). Don't let anybody speak for you. You've got your own voice. BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:Advertisement |