FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > Religion

Greetings!

Religion Discussions on religions, mysticism, and spirituality as well as opposing views such as agnosticism and atheism.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2005, 07:15 PM
Zhavric's Avatar
Zhavric Zhavric is offline
The one and only...
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 829
Once and for all: Why ID is not science

From another thread, Joseph stated
"Correct accreditisation is never off-topic. ID is not dogmatic but blatant. It seeks to become a new sector of science - it may contribute to the current vacuums. Its rejection is a dogmatic premise. If it does not or cannot verify its scientific merit - it will fall by the wayside on its own. No need for extra measures."
So, let's examine ID and understand why it cannot be considered part of science.

All of science follows the scientific method. It is a common thread that links all aspects & branches of science together. In it's MOST BASIC form, it looks something like this:

Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Theory -> Law

Observation - A scientist will begin his inquirey by observing some characteristic of the natural world. It's important to point out that this phase has no assumption to it (that's a hypothesis). "Lightning can be seen before it is heard" is an example of an observation. We haven't made any assumptions as to the nature of lightning: we are only stating what is plain.

Hypothesis - An assumption with a testable conclusion.

Experiment - A method of testing the hypothesis that involves a control group.

Theory - If an experiment turns out to validate a hypothesis on numerous occasions, it becomes a theory. NOTE: many hypothesis never make it past the point of experimentation and never actually becomes theories.

Law - A law is a very simple theory that ALWAYS performs in a certain manner. NOTE: Very few theories become laws.

A note on theories vs. laws: If we make the analogy to machines, then a law would be a slingshot. It is a very simple mechanism with only one moving part that always performs in the same manner. Pull a slingshot back so far with a one pound sphere of metal in it and the sphere will always travel the same distance. A theory, on the other hand, is like an automobile. We know that when we put the key in and turn it, the car will drive and that's the basic ideas behind it, but the inner workings are subject to revision. Perhaps we can "tweak" the engine to run on ethanol or install a new fuel injector. We still know that the car drives, but the reasoning behind it can be refined over time as our technoology and understanding increases.

Now, ID does not follow the scientific method.

At the core of ID is the ASSUMPTION that life or aspects of life are too complex to have occured naturally. Can we plug that into the scientific method? Let's try:

Observation - "Life is too complex to have occured naturally". Nope. Doesn't work. We've made an assumption rather than an pure observation. We've observed speciations / macro-evolution / mutation in labs and thus know that life can change. So leaping to the assumption that something is too complex to have occured naturally is an assumption. The only tenable observation we can possibly make is "Such & such is complex" but even this is flawed as "complex" is an arbitrary distinction and still smacks of assumption.

Hypothesis - How would we ever test wether or not something is too complex to have occured naturally? The answer is that we cannot. Even if we could, this line of reasoning is flawed as it offers no actual explanation; it does not tell us how the organism developed / how it was designed / how it came about / etc. It's a dead end.

Experiment - What would be used as a control group? How would one examine the hypothesis? It's folly.


Furthermore, we see just how inane ID becomes when we apply it to other aspects of science that don't apply to life. Consider the following:
The concepts of electricity as we know it is just a "theory". Has anyone ever SEEN an electron? Scientists cannot agree on the structure of atoms and even now there is great contraversy about how electrons behave. Electricity is too complex / awesome & powerful to have occured naturally. Therefor, we should examine the possibility that electricity is caused by a designer...

... and that designer might be Zeus.
So we see that ID is simply a branch of theistic folklore and has ZERO to do with science.
__________________
All of you are retarded.

ZHAVRIC
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 11-29-2005, 12:53 AM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Can't add much to that. The interesting thing is that evolution has intelligent design built into it, organisms are designed to fit their habitat by the combination of random variation and natural selection. It is conscious design by means other than variation and selection that fails to meet the criteria of a scientific theory.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-29-2005, 01:22 AM
jericho jericho is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: kershaw,sc,usa
Posts: 506
Observation: childbirth

Hypothesis: wow, that's incredible. It is intelligently designed. Especially if it's your first grandchild.

Experiment: next child is different. same ingredients.

ID doesn't have to follow the method. It's what allowed you to understand the method. Science validates the intelligence of the design. That's why you can have theories that become laws. Repeatable results. Order.

jericho
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-29-2005, 03:51 AM
imn2caves imn2caves is offline
general knox
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: here
Posts: 516
None of you mentioned the one living example of why ID is a falsehood....George W Bush. I mean really, would a loving, living God make such a Festus?
__________________
Someone give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him!!

If you don't like abortions, then don't have one.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2005, 04:13 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Agenda
Can't add much to that. The interesting thing is that evolution has intelligent design built into it, organisms are designed to fit their habitat by the combination of random variation and natural selection. It is conscious design by means other than variation and selection that fails to meet the criteria of a scientific theory.
Can't add anything? I'm truely surprised at you guys - this is taking on a counter to theology as opposed any scientific/progressive observation. There is great paranoia here - the antithesis of science. Of course ID seeks and must be entered into a science, else it will not materialise to actionable, retainable, utilisable knowledge.

Quote:
So, let's examine ID and understand why it cannot be considered part of science.

All of science follows the scientific method. It is a common thread that links all aspects & branches of science together. In it's MOST BASIC form, it looks something like this:


Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Theory -> Law
And why does ID not fit there?

Observation: indisputable ID. Yet this is not the debatable issue - its allocation is the issue.

Hypothesis: There are two: Creation - or Self-Evolving. Of note here, there is NO proof for either. Lets never assume that SELF-EVOLVING is a Scientific fact - lets never forget it goes against the grain - including all Scientific premises, sp: Cause & Effect. Here, the controversial factor is the hypothesis Self-creationism! Its only fallback being we cannot prove a Creator - it just dangles grotesquely outside of that factor - 'UNSCIENTIFICALLY' - with no proof of such a premise even being possible. It is certainly not a Scientific fact or theory: don't assume it is - don't factor it into any scientific debate. Period.

Experiment: here, there is a great glitch with: 'A method of testing the hypothesis that involves a control group'. The glitch is that we are testing only a sub-plot of Creation, not the factor of Creation itself. Eg: water turns to gas when heated - scientific fact, experimented and provable anytime. How does this prove or disprove Creation? In fact, have we even devised a means of testing Creation? Which group does it - what is the criteria? Have we experimented and found the smallest, indevisable particle? Does it become a Created universe in a lab test? Does it answer where that particle comes from? What does this mean:

Amergain: 'organisms are designed to fit their habitat by the combination of random variation and natural selection'

Organisms are 'designed' - how - by what/whom? 'To fit their habitat by random' ... there goes your science! There is NO random, there is NO free designer. Random = no science, no laws, no reasonings. And if science cannot prove that it cannot expound the occurence of ID - it has to clearly admit it - same as any honest Theoligist must. Without fear!

If there's going to be any disproof of Creation - it cannot be via the proving of water turning to gass - or any other sub-component of the ID in Creation. This is a great glitch not just in science, but in basic coherence. Eg:

There is ID in a Automobile (car). Indisputable. Lets try to disprove it? We take water out of its radiator, and say this fell from the sky - when it is heated, there is energy resultant, which seeks its own path and races to the engine - and the car moves. And this proves the car just happened! Stop laughing: this is exactly what we're doing. The only variation here is: you are also saying that you are correct - because we cannot prove the car's manufacturer. Assume we cannot find the manufacturer/creator of the car - assume we are on Jupiter and a lone, stray car is found in a crater - does it make the premise vindicated - has any scientific fact or even a theory been established? What other result can be rendered here - noting we are unable to identify an actual manufacturer/creator of that car?

I am not straying from the ID topic, only I am establishing that not being able to prove the Creator - does not make the premise unsound - nor can this be used to prove otherwise. With regard how ID fits into this scenario, this is very clear.

We have to factor in the anomolies and gaps - without allocating them to a self-occuring vacuos premise. This calls for a much needed legitimate branch in science. We have to ask the question, scientifically - not philosophically or theologically: what other explanation can there be - as opposed to the controversial premise of a self-occuring, but indisputable ID? We tried - but could find no evidence of a self-occuring ID - so what other reasonings are available?

ID represents a path in the gap left at the topside of science - which has come as far as it does at the present time. A leap was needed, and thus did ID emerge out of the disprovable dead end. There is no reason to reject, because of any paranoia.

Equally, if ID is to become a bona fide science, it will have to do more than just say that there is ID - we all know there is. This science will have to delve into other areas, while incorporating science, and staying well clear of Theology. I'm not aware how this will proceed, I have not invested enough energy on the subject. But I do know this - unless we run far away from a self-occuring ID - we are at the ultimate dead end. Science as we know it will cease - there will be nothing to look for anymore. And that dead end is not one which has answered any questions for humanity at all. We will deflect all science as the car analogy: its the water in the radiator which fell from the sky in a zillion to one occurence - there is no car manufacturer; the ID is a mirage derived only from a subjective view. Really - would you deal that way with your family or business?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2005, 04:23 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by imn2caves
None of you mentioned the one living example of why ID is a falsehood....George W Bush. I mean really, would a loving, living God make such a Festus?

Someone had to deal with terror regimes! Say thank you - and fist up Eurabia!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2005, 04:24 AM
The EyE's Avatar
The EyE The EyE is offline
I see everything
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mud
We take water out of its radiator, and say this fell from the sky - when it is heated, there is energy resultant, which seeks its own path and races to the engine - and the car moves.
Er....how do you think a car works?
__________________
Rimmer: Knowledge is power. Who said that?
Lister: Dunno.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-29-2005, 04:36 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by The EyE
Er....how do you think a car works?
Not from water. From ID.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-29-2005, 05:34 AM
imn2caves imn2caves is offline
general knox
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: here
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Quote:
There are two: Creation - or Self-Evolving. Of note here, there is NO proof for either.
What about the Mountain Goat? Did God put them up there, or as common sense dictates, did they develop a survival skill?
Quote:
The glitch is that we are testing only a sub-plot of Creation, not the factor of Creation itself.
Yes by all means lets test Creation itself. But in order to do this we must teach the history of religion. You don't want to go there do you Joe?
__________________
Someone give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him!!

If you don't like abortions, then don't have one.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-29-2005, 07:03 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by imn2caves
Originally Posted by IamJosephWhat about the Mountain Goat? Did God put them up there, or as common sense dictates, did they develop a survival skill?
What about those animals who cannot climb mountains - what negated their survival skills? - and what stopped goats from being able to fly like birds, was that a lack of survival skills? You see - the matter is not such a simple and naive scientific equation!

Quote:
Yes by all means lets test Creation itself. But in order to do this we must teach the history of religion. You don't want to go there do you Joe?
Creationism and religion are two seperate phenomenons. Let not paranoia rule. This is not about Left Secularists VS Republican Religionists. There's a bigger picture here?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-29-2005, 07:06 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Once and for all - there IS Intelligent Design - wherever one looks. And it is not subject to dispute or debate.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-29-2005, 10:50 AM
Grey Area's Avatar
Grey Area Grey Area is offline
Its Life Jim!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Birmingham, England
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
What about those animals who cannot climb mountains - what negated their survival skills? - and what stopped goats from being able to fly like birds, was that a lack of survival skills? You see - the matter is not such a simple and naive scientific equation!
Well, animals that cant climb mountains probably live in the sea. Most land dwelling animals would be able to traversehilly mountainous terrain, just that some would find it harder than others.

The haggis for example has two powerful hind legs and two short stumpy fore-legs which allows it to climb mountains easily- genius!

so are you seriously saying that we should all believe in divine creation because there are no flying goats? Yeah right, and pigs might fly!


Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Creationism and religion are two seperate phenomenons. Let not paranoia rule. This is not about Left Secularists VS Republican Religionists. There's a bigger picture here?
what? Creationism and religion are intrinsically linked, the idea that the universe was created has been the building blocks of religion for millenia! Creationism is categorized as a theological premise, and as I have said before, religion is the profound belief in something! If you believe in creationism it is a religion!
__________________
Life is a cruel teacher! She gives the test first and the lessons after!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-29-2005, 10:55 AM
*Yawn*...God?'s Avatar
*Yawn*...God? *Yawn*...God? is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rua: Cons. Cunha e Sousa n:12
Posts: 8,344
[QUOTE Zhavric]From another thread, Joseph stated

"Correct accreditisation is never off-topic. ID is not dogmatic but blatant. It seeks to become a new sector of science - it may contribute to the current vacuums. Its rejection is a dogmatic premise. If it does not or cannot verify its scientific merit - it will fall by the wayside on its own. No need for extra measures."

So, let's examine ID and understand why it cannot be considered part of science.

All of science follows the scientific method. It is a common thread that links all aspects & branches of science together. In it's MOST BASIC form, it looks something like this:


Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Theory -> Law


Observation - A scientist will begin his inquirey by observing some characteristic of the natural world. It's important to point out that this phase has no assumption to it (that's a hypothesis). "Lightning can be seen before it is heard" is an example of an observation. We haven't made any assumptions as to the nature of lightning: we are only stating what is plain.

Hypothesis - An assumption with a testable conclusion.

Experiment - A method of testing the hypothesis that involves a control group.

Theory - If an experiment turns out to validate a hypothesis on numerous occasions, it becomes a theory. NOTE: many hypothesis never make it past the point of experimentation and never actually becomes theories.

Law - A law is a very simple theory that ALWAYS performs in a certain manner. NOTE: Very few theories become laws.

A note on theories vs. laws: If we make the analogy to machines, then a law would be a slingshot. It is a very simple mechanism with only one moving part that always performs in the same manner. Pull a slingshot back so far with a one pound sphere of metal in it and the sphere will always travel the same distance. A theory, on the other hand, is like an automobile. We know that when we put the key in and turn it, the car will drive and that's the basic ideas behind it, but the inner workings are subject to revision. Perhaps we can "tweak" the engine to run on ethanol or install a new fuel injector. We still know that the car drives, but the reasoning behind it can be refined over time as our technoology and understanding increases.

Now, ID does not follow the scientific method.

At the core of ID is the ASSUMPTION that life or aspects of life are too complex to have occured naturally. Can we plug that into the scientific method? Let's try:

Observation - "Life is too complex to have occured naturally". Nope. Doesn't work. We've made an assumption rather than an pure observation. We've observed speciations / macro-evolution / mutation in labs and thus know that life can change. So leaping to the assumption that something is too complex to have occured naturally is an assumption. The only tenable observation we can possibly make is "Such & such is complex" but even this is flawed as "complex" is an arbitrary distinction and still smacks of assumption.

Hypothesis - How would we ever test wether or not something is too complex to have occured naturally? The answer is that we cannot. Even if we could, this line of reasoning is flawed as it offers no actual explanation; it does not tell us how the organism developed / how it was designed / how it came about / etc. It's a dead end.

Experiment - What would be used as a control group? How would one examine the hypothesis? It's folly.


Furthermore, we see just how inane ID becomes when we apply it to other aspects of science that don't apply to life. Consider the following:

The concepts of electricity as we know it is just a "theory". Has anyone ever SEEN an electron? Scientists cannot agree on the structure of atoms and even now there is great contraversy about how electrons behave. Electricity is too complex / awesome & powerful to have occured naturally. Therefor, we should examine the possibility that electricity is caused by a designer...

... and that designer might be Zeus.

So we see that ID is simply a branch of theistic folklore and has ZERO to do with science.[/quote]
Excellent.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-29-2005, 02:00 PM
Zhavric's Avatar
Zhavric Zhavric is offline
The one and only...
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Agenda
Can't add much to that. The interesting thing is that evolution has intelligent design built into it, organisms are designed to fit their habitat by the combination of random variation and natural selection. It is conscious design by means other than variation and selection that fails to meet the criteria of a scientific theory.
An organism isn't "designed" to fit into its enviroment any more than a quantity of spilled water is "designed" to fit into a small glass that happens to be on the ground under the spill.

"Design" is a word that both biologists and theists are guilty of mis-using.

It's important to note that for every living species we see today there are DOZENS that weren't up to the challenge of survival. "Design" enthusiasts see the grandeur of the trees of a forest; what they should do is look down under the blanket of fallen leaves and dirt to find the remains of all the dead plants & animals that couldn't find enough food to survive.
__________________
All of you are retarded.

ZHAVRIC
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-29-2005, 02:06 PM
Zhavric's Avatar
Zhavric Zhavric is offline
The one and only...
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericho
Observation: childbirth

Hypothesis: wow, that's incredible. It is intelligently designed. Especially if it's your first grandchild.
Sorry, gramps, but "wow, that's incredible" isn't a valid hypothesis. It's how you feel about the situation. Why don't you have a nice sit down, curl up with a blanket & some "ensure" and watch Wheel of Fortune?

Quote:
Experiment: next child is different. same ingredients.
What a silly assertion. It's clear to me that in your time they weren't teaching science... or you weren't listening to your teacher. Setting aside your laughable excuse for a hypothesis (we'll assume it's valid (which it's not)), where's your control group? How do you know the ingredients are the same? What exactly are you looking to prove or test?

Quote:
ID doesn't have to follow the method. It's what allowed you to understand the method. Science validates the intelligence of the design. That's why you can have theories that become laws. Repeatable results. Order.
ID doesn't follow the scientific method. That's why it's NOT science. I'm glad we agree. I suggest you brush up on elementary scientific concepts, namely the scientific method: You've demonstrated a poor grasp of this subject as we don't use science to test how we feel about the birth of our grandchildren.
__________________
All of you are retarded.

ZHAVRIC
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network