With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Is Intelligent Design Science?
- From Jay W Richards PhD
By Jay W. Richards, Ph.D. - The Acton Institute
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Incoherent
--Jay--
That means that anyone who dares speak of purpose or design within science or when discussing scientific evidence ceases to be a scientist.
---
And yet ID also claims that historical sciences deal succesfully in detecting design, so in fact purpose or design can, as ID argues, be established using methodological naturalism. So why is ID different? Because they want to replace or extend MN by something 'supernatural', however since the supernatural lacks as an explanation, they have to confuse the issue by making flawed claims about science rejecting design and purpose at all cost.
Jay's argument fails even worse when discussing Newton or Keppler stating
--Methodological naturalism, for instance, would exclude most of the founders of modern science, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton. That should strike you as fishy.--
And yet, these people were following methodological naturalism, except in the case when Newton believed that his inability to understand the stability of orbits of planets was best explained by an Intelligent Designer interfering regularly to correct their orbits. It took half a decade or so for LaPlace to correct this flawed 'design inference'.
Openmindedness does not mean that one should accept any argument that's more closer to a concept better know as gullibility. Is there evidence for ID in nature. Surely ID does not really tell, all they do is call our ignorance 'design' and then conflate the terminology with how people more commonly interpret this terminology. Bait and switch. Lacking any foundation that constrains their hypothesis, ID is doomed to scientific irrelevance, and anyone openminded would have to admit this. In fact, several ID proponents have admitted to the lack of a foundation for ID.
So it is clear that Jay is wrong to argue that science rejects design a-priori, After all, the Discovery Institute argues that ID must be science because other sciences also infer design. So, for science to reject ID, it must be because it fails to contribute. Not because it is wrong, it is not even that, it's just vacuous.
Is intelligent design science? Does it matter? ID lacks any non trivial scientific contribution, other than perhaps making the flawed claim that science and methodological naturalism somehow deny purpose and design or that MN would reject Newton and Keppler. Anyone familiar with these people would realize that they did not let their faith distort their science, although in the case of Newton he did show why a design inference based on ignorance is unreliable.
We can only thank Newton for his contributions to science while also showing us why ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Incoherent response from you
Months later and I think we can agree Pandas did not advocate religion.
"And yet ID also claims that historical sciences deal succesfully in detecting design, so in fact purpose or design can, as ID argues, be established using methodological naturalism."
Pretty sure naturalism refers to the whole matter and energy/chance and necessity way of explaining everything. And yes, I agree that design has been successful in the historical sciences. ;)
"So why is ID different?"
It's not, at least WE AS ID'ERS don't think so. Do you beg to differ though?
"Because they want to replace or extend MN by something 'supernatural', however since the supernatural lacks as an explanation, they have to confuse the issue by making flawed claims about science rejecting design and purpose at all cost."
How is this the case? Didn't seem like they were trying to extrapolate the supernatural in those early drafts you people keep complaining about.
"And yet, these people were following methodological naturalism,"
PvM, if you want to spam several hundred comments onto this discussion then at least take the time to know what you're talking about. Richards was referring to Newton's view that if fine tuning exists, there's probably a fine-tuner.
"It took half a decade or so for LaPlace to correct this flawed 'design inference'."
I've studied the design inference for almost a year now whether through Dembski's works or other ID paraphernalia. How was Newton's flawed view a design inference?
"Openmindedness does not mean that one should accept any argument that's more closer to a concept better know as gullibility."
Breathe easy PvM, no one is advocating holocaust denial here. (just make sure Eugenie Scott is aware...)
"Is there evidence for ID in nature."
May I suggest you ask that question on an article that actually deals with nature and not the whole issue of whether or not it qualifies as science?
"Surely ID does not really tell, all they do is call our ignorance 'design' and then conflate the terminology with how people more commonly interpret this terminology."
Suggesting that design and information does not originate via blind, purposeless material processes sounds less like an argument from ignorance and more like an argument from experience to me. :/
"Bait and switch."
What's ID's bait and what does it switch to?
"Lacking any foundation that constrains their hypothesis, ID is doomed to scientific irrelevance, and anyone openminded would have to admit this."
Surely any open-minded individual would agree that ID has more then enough hypothetical constraints, otherwise you wouldn't be able to argue the evidence for it was wrong in the first place.
"In fact, several ID proponents have admitted to the lack of a foundation for ID."
Gonna quote-mine Paul Nelson on this one? I'm sure Barbara Forrest will sleep easy at night with that one.
"So it is clear that Jay is wrong to argue that science rejects design a-priori, After all, the Discovery Institute argues that ID must be science because other sciences also infer design."
You're joking, do you want me to find you ID critics who say design is not a part of science (or more specifically biology, physics, etc)?
"So, for science to reject ID, it must be because it fails to contribute."
What do you define as contributing?
"Not because it is wrong, it is not even that, it's just vacuous."
Should we move beyond the rhetorical sand in the face arguments of "It's not science, it's religious" and onto the actual evidence that has been presented in it's favor?
"Is intelligent design science?"
Most definitely yes, otherwise no one could argue it was wrong in the first place.
"Does it matter?"
If it didn't then you wouldn't be wasting your time injecting as much commentary on the topic as you already have.
"ID lacks any non trivial scientific contribution,"
Even the prediction that a function would exist for a pseudo gene? Any comment on the stuff on Research ID?
http://www.researchid.org/wiki/Main_Page
"...other than perhaps making the flawed claim that science and methodological naturalism somehow deny purpose and design or that MN would reject Newton and Keppler."
See the previous points.
"Anyone familiar with these people would realize that they did not let their faith distort their science,"
Agreed, instead they used it as their motivation.
"although in the case of Newton he did show why a design inference based on ignorance is unreliable."
How what you described of him would even be considered a design inference is beyond me, but I agree that such inferences cannot be formed on the basis of what we don't know.
"We can only thank Newton for his contributions to science while also showing us why ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous."
Never mind, I'll just let the explicit irony of that statement speak for itself.
- F2XL
February 11, 2009 9:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not even wrong
["Is intelligent design science?"]
"Most definitely yes, otherwise no one could argue it was wrong in the first place."
But we are not arguing that it is wrong.
We are arguing that it is not right or wrong, it's "not even wrong".
There is no definition of "intelligent design" that would allow a scientist to determine if it's right or wrong.
There is only the "I know it when I see it" interpretation of the "evidence" of the "natural world". But if "interpretations" are personal and cannot be agreed upon, then it's not science.
"If it didn't [matter] then you wouldn't be wasting your time injecting as much commentary on the topic as you already have."
Non sequitur. The creationists of the Texas State Board of Education wish to claim that there are "weaknesses" in evolution. "Intelligent design" attempts to provide support for such opinions. Therefore "intelligent design" should be properly smacked down as non-science nonsense. That's why it "matters".
- onein6billion
March 11, 2009 8:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Then what's the problem?
"But we are not arguing that it is wrong."
Okay then, so what the heck was PvM talking about his entire visit on here anyways?
"We are arguing that it is not right or wrong, it's "not even wrong"."
How exactly is that possible? Oh, are you beating that non-existant horse of "It's not science" again?
"There is no definition of " intelligent design " that would allow a scientist to determine if it's right or wrong."
So what's wrong with this one:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Sounds clear enough to me.
"There is only the "I know it when I see it" interpretation of the "evidence" of the "natural world". But if "interpretations" are personal and cannot be agreed upon, then it's not science."
Hey onein6billion, William Paley is dead. Try the modern theory of ID. ;)
brb my good man.
- F2XL
March 11, 2009 11:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nonsense as usual
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"
Fine. And that's why this "theory" is not science. Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined. Its powers, limitations, method, time frame, etc. are completely undefined. Are you going to make "predictions" (as to where Tiktaalik will be found)? And, of course, the "features" you claim you are trying to explain can be easily explained by completely natural causes. You are trying to prove a negative. You wish to prove that evolution cannot explain this. Fail.
So, who is going to decide on the "best explanation"? A scientist? Or a theologian? What criteria will be used? I know it when I see it? Some nonsense about "irreducible complexity" or "specified information"? LOL.
- onein6billion
April 9, 2009 8:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Truth hurts as usual
"Fine. And that's why this "theory" is not science . Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined."
Very well than. By the same logic the following theories have some explaining to do and thus are not qualified as science by your definition:
1. Theories involving dark matter/ energy (since they cannot explain what they each consist of)
2. The Big-Bang theory (since they cannot explain what caused that first bang in the first place)
3. Much of archeology (because they cannot always "define" who produced the artifact in question)
4. SETI (because according to you, we would have to "see" the aliens in question to confirm that it actually was from an intelligent source)
5. Any theory which involves explaining matter/energy interactions (since they cannot explain the very origin of that matter)
...and the list goes on.
"Its powers, limitations, method, time frame, etc. are completely undefined."
They don't need to be.
"Are you going to make "predictions" (as to where Tiktaalik will be found)?"
Perhaps, but we can most definitely predict limitations to what malaria can become resistant to and possibly wipe it out altogether by creating antibiotics which are beyond the reach of chance when it comes to mutant resistance. That by itself is a lot more benefit to medicine in a single project then what 150 years of Darwin's theory has given us.
"And, of course, the "features" you claim you are trying to explain can be easily explained by completely natural causes."
In that case I'm really interested as to how you believe abiogenesis was accomplished (without intelligent intervention).
"You are trying to prove a negative. You wish to prove that evolution cannot explain this. Fail."
Sure seems like the cell is designed to me....
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html
"So, who is going to decide on the "best explanation"? A scientist? Or a theologian?"
Generally it will be mostly scientists with a handful of philosophers here and there (just like with any other theory).
"What criteria will be used? I know it when I see it?"
Probably this one:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1203
"Some nonsense about "irreducible complexity" or "specified information"? LOL."
Those do play a role, but it really depends on the feature in question.
- F2XL
April 13, 2009 11:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That mysterious agent again
"Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined."
There is a little difference between COMPLETELY undefined and those other theories you are trying to disparage.
"We detect design by looking for the tell-tale signs that an intelligent agent acted."
Hilarious nonsense. As usual - "intelligent agent" is a completely undefined term. So "tell-tale" signs means "I know it when I see it and I see it" as usual.
"Sure seems like the cell is designed to me...."
Yes. For you, "I know it when I see it" works fine because you are an idiot.
"Those do play a role"
No. Such nonsense has been refuted. Fail.
- onein6billion
May 5, 2009 9:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Or is it right?
"Non sequitur. The creationists of the Texas State Board of Education wish to claim that there are "weaknesses" in evolution ."
I don't think anyone who feels limitations should be brought to light about a theory is a "creationist."
""Intelligent design" attempts to provide support for such opinions. Therefore "intelligent design" should be properly smacked down as non-science nonsense. That's why it "matters"."
Just for further clarification, your reasoning is as follows.....
"1. Texas school board consists of creationists
2. They support critical analysis of evolution
3. ID supports the second goal
4. Thus ID is not science"
...correct?
- F2XL
March 11, 2009 1:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, you idiot
"I don't think anyone who feels limitations should be brought to light about a theory is a " creationist ."
The actual "limitations" that creationists try to "bring to light" are nonsense. So your sentence is backwards of course.
"1. Texas State Board of Education consists of creationists"
They are 7 out of 15 minority. But they trick some of the others into voting for what seems like a "reasonable compromise". But "strengths and weaknesses" was defeated by an 8 to 7 vote. Then other nonsense was introduced.
"2. They support critical analysis of evolution "
No. They support putting the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" and other weasel words into the ninth grade biology science standards. But they know that "weaknesses" is a cover for introducing ridiculous creationist claims. But fundamentally, there is no valid "critical analysis" of evolution that could possibly be understood by ninth graders.
"3. ID supports the second goal"
Irrelevant. Creationist birds of a feather. So what?
"4. Thus ID is not science"
Completely illogical of course you idiot.
- onein6billion
April 9, 2009 8:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here we go... [again]
"The actual "limitations" that creationists try to "bring to light" are nonsense. So your sentence is backwards of course."
Like what?
"They are 7 out of 15 minority."
Okay, then just how would this make teach the controversy a religious idea at all?
"But they trick some of the others into voting for what seems like a "reasonable compromise". But "strengths and weaknesses" was defeated by an 8 to 7 vote. Then other nonsense was introduced.""
So what would you call a "reasonable compromise?"
"No. They support putting the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" and other weasel words into the ninth grade biology science standards."
...Which is pretty much the exact same thing as critical analysis of evolution. BFD.
"But they know that "weaknesses" is a cover for introducing ridiculous creationist claims."
Such as?
"But fundamentally, there is no valid "critical analysis" of evolution that could possibly be understood by ninth graders."
This seems like it could be....
http://www.discovery.org/a/4096
"Irrelevant. Creationist birds of a feather. So what?"
You've lost me, please rephrase.
"Completely illogical of course you idiot."
I hope you're aware, this cite does have a civility 101 set of rules, and if you plan on having the privilege of continuing this discussion then I suggest you follow them. ;D
- F2XL
April 13, 2009 10:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exploring Nonsense
From a review of "Explore Evolution":
"Counterclaims follow that seek to undermine the earlier conclusions, including the circular reasoning of the molecular clock, the potential fabrications of Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," how differing family trees are created via anatomical and molecular patterns of relationships and the meaning of gaps in fossil evidence."
Hilarious nonsense from the "institute" that will never "discover" anything.
Of course this has nothing to do with " intelligent design " or " creationism " - it just a stupid attempt to try to discredit evolution.
"So what would you call a "reasonable compromise?""
There can never be a "reasonable compromise" with creationist idiots.
- onein6billion
May 5, 2009 9:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scathing review and wise words
AC Grayling responds to Steve Fuller’s defence of his book Dissent over Descent. Steve Fuller was for some strange reasons, an expert witness for the defense, but most of his testimony served the plaintiffs quite well. In his response to Grayling's review of his book, Fuller, foolishly, argued that ID is an argument to the best explanation.
Grayling wastes not time putting to rest that myth. Enjoy
--.
I am, says Fuller, ignorant (sheerly so; this is the glaring deficiency in my case) of "ID's argument structure", which is - argument to the best explanation! Oh pul-eese! I ignored this bit in my review out of a kind of residual collegiality, for even among the toxicities that flow when members of the professoriate fall out, embarrassment on others" behalf is a restraint. But he asks for it. Argument to the best explanation! Look: there is a great deal we do not know about this world of ours, but what is beautiful about science is that its practitioners do not panic and say "cripes! we don't understand this, so we must grab something quick - attribute it to the intelligent designing activity of Fred (or Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or any arbitrary supernatural agency given ad hoc powers suitable to the task) because we can't at present think of a better explanation." They do not make a hasty grab for a lousy "best explanation" because they have serious thoughts about the kind of thing that can count as such. Instead of quick ad hoc fixes, they live with the open-ended nature of scientific enquiry, hypothesising and testing, trying to work things out rationally and conservatively on the basis of what is so far well-attested and secure. What looks like having a chance of being both an "explanation" and the "best" in a specific case turns on there being a well-disciplined idea of "best" for that specific case. But an hypothesis has no hope of becoming the best explanation (until a better comes along) unless it survives testing, is specific, and is consistent and conservative with respect to much else that is secure. This is a far cry from the gestural "best explanation" move that ID theorists attempt, which - and note this carefully - does not restrict itself to individual puzzles only, but applies to Life, the Universe and Everything. It has to, at risk of incoherence; and yet by doing so, it collapses into incoherence.
--
Read the rest at http://newhumanist.org.uk/1881
- PvM
September 12, 2008 10:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks Jay for a well written article.
I agree! One of the main purposes of science is to discover truth or should be anyway. To decide what that truth is or limit it as to what it can or cannot be before even beginning the search, defeats the purpose. That is strange. Why would anyone who is really interested in the truth want to do this? This point is as clear as day to most people and I believe this is why so many people favor open debate on the issue. Only Darwinists want to censor the debate.
If there can be evidence against design, then, certainly, like you said, there can be evidence for design.
We need to be open to follow the evidence where ever it leads and not predetermine where it can and cannot lead us. That is not true science. This kind of solid logic will resonate with a lot of people and help them see through the rhetoric of the evolutionists.
Good points!
tj
- tj10
September 12, 2008 9:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Evidence against design?
Seems to me like Dawkins and Weinberg were claiming that there is no evidence FOR design (at least according to Richards). It, therefore, seems illogical to claim that there exists evidence AGAINST it. I would be interested to know what the evidence against design could be.
- Hawks September 17, 2008 8:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Think about it
Could evidence against design perhaps be evidence against the case brought in favor of it?
- F2XL
February 11, 2009 9:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whose definition of science?
"the universe is under no obligation to conform to anyone’s definition of science."
Well, this forum is being conducted in English and I have a dictionary. So if you think the dictionary definition of "science" is not appropriate for this universe, I think you must be living is some other universe. Obviously supernatural miracles occur in your universe all the time and that's why you don't think "science" should be restricted to mere “methodological naturalism.” Well you just go and take your "intelligent design" and figure out the meaning and purpose behind all those miracles and come back with a good review paper next year. I'm waiting.....
"But if the universe can provide evidence against design,..."
If the designer is supernatural and science is restricted to the natural, then there could never be any scientific evidence against the supernatural designer. Therefore your premise is false. But in the absence of scientific evidence for a designer, the presumption is that no such designer is necessary.
"As long as a theory can be put in empirical harm’s way"
But for "intelligent design" "theory" (whatever that is), this premise is false. So there is no such theory.
"What if there is evidence of design"
Sorry, your personal opinion seems to be irrelevant in this discussion.
"We’re talking about the publicly available evidence of nature,"
Nope. You are talking about your opinion of what you see in nature. Same old same old, "I know design when I see it and I see design in nature." But that's just not good enough.
- onein6billion
September 25, 2008 7:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Intelligent Design" is a Fraud
Anybody that thinks there is currently a "healthy scientific debate" over "Intelligent Design" has missed the history of the last 150 years. It has been known scientifically and popularly since Charles Darwin's day that evolution truly happened, as surely as gravity.
Only the fools remain to discuss their contrived alternatives. Richards is a PhD? In what, I wonder. He would be an utter failure as a biologist.
- Ivar
December 8, 2008 8:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
la sigh
Theology, it says in his profile.
- Matthew Ackerman December 11, 2008 6:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
la cough
"Theology, it says in his profile."
So ID isn't religious but Richard's degree is?
- F2XL
December 11, 2008 6:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That comment was a Fraud
"Anybody that thinks there is currently a "healthy scientific debate" over "Intelligent Design" has missed the history of the last 150 years. It has been known scientifically and popularly since Charles Darwin's day that evolution truly happened, as surely as gravity."
So why aren't physicists saying gravity is as well established as the theory of evolution?
"Only the fools remain to discuss their contrived alternatives. Richards is a PhD? In what, I wonder. He would be an utter failure as a biologist."
Judging by the article he submitted you say he would be a failure as a biologist? How so?
- F2XL
December 11, 2008 6:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Evolution is to biology what vector mechanics is to engineering
F2XL wrote: "So why aren't physicists saying gravity is as well established as the theory of evolution ?"
It is obvious, isn't it? I hope not to be too snarky, but the Pope finally got around to admitting that Galileo was correct in teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun (get the gravity connection). With the Pope on board, whose going to argue against gravity now?
As simple as gravity appears, it holds deep fascination for today's scientists. Despite the accuracy with which we calculate orbits and such, systematic variations are observed that tell us that we don't know everything about it! The LIGO facility in Richland, WA is carrying out some of the most exquisite measurements ever made by man, hoping to learn more. We know not what will come out form the new data.
How would a PhD in Theology be a failure in biology? Such a silly question. Of what use is it to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or how hard it would be for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? There's not much work going on there. Better to know about proteins, enzymes, and how humans are related to bonobos (there is evolution in that).
Science is not a debate society where persuasion and apologetics matter. Truth always wins. Religion simply is not concerned with the truth of anything. "Gays should not marry because it says so in the Bible." Right. And we should have multiple wives (simultaneously, and not serially, as now practiced), and they would be men's property. That's the Bible for you, pretty messed up, don't you think?
- Ivar
December 11, 2008 9:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I have yet to see evidence of that
"It is obvious, isn't it? I hope not to be too snarky, but the Pope finally got around to admitting that Galileo was correct in teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun (get the gravity connection). With the Pope on board, whose going to argue against gravity now?"
1. Can you explain what the Copernican principle (Earth around sun) has to do with gravity?
2. You haven't answered my question, if Evolution (as Darwin and today's proponents describe it) is as solid a theory as gravity then why don't people who believe in gravity (that should be every sane individual) say that gravitational theory is as established as today's Neo-Darwinian synthesis?
3. If you admit that consensus has been wrong in the past are you open to the possibility that such a scenario may be possible today?
"As simple as gravity appears, it holds deep fascination for today's scientists."
Regarding this sentence and the paragraph that followed, let me say that I agree it's still a source of research, investigation, and we will never know everything as is any pillar of scientific enterprise, but I'm still wondering why Neo-Darwinian theory is compared in terms of factual confirmation to gravity but not vice versa.
"How would a PhD in Theology be a failure in biology? Such a silly question. Of what use is it to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or how hard it would be for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? There's not much work going on there. Better to know about proteins, enzymes, and how humans are related to bonobos (there is evolution in that)."
Ivar, you've missed my point. Prior to the comment I'm replying to now, you said in the comment "Intelligent Design is a Fraud" the following:
"Richards is a PhD? In what, I wonder. He would be an utter failure as a biologist."
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the context I see in this line tells me you know Richards holds a doctorate degree, but you question what it may be because you insist he would be a failure in the biological sciences. My question in the comment that followed was what exactly in the following article it was that led you to conclude he would fail in the life sciences:
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/is-intelligent-design-science
Despite your insistence that he would fail as a biologist in your comment on ID being a "fraud," I see little in the article Richards submitted that precludes solely and directly to biology. Care to explain?
"Science is not a debate society where persuasion and apologetics matter. Truth always wins."
I agree with the latter of that description of the scientific process, but if you're saying that debate is excluded from it's methodology then I would have to disagree. Dissent and debate are what allow science to progress in the first place, if everyone approached a field of research with the same perspective then we wouldn't be anywhere near as far as we are today. Darwin's theory would've never even gained acceptance for all that matters; people would've used the fact that it was a "fringe" view and dismissed on those grounds alone.
"Religion simply is not concerned with the truth of anything."
What does religion have to do with this discussion? Or to the points I originally brought up here:
http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/that-comment-was-a-fraud
For most part, I'm not sure what to say about religion or your description of it's reasoning, but if religion is to be defined solely as anything that goes against the truth, then could one argue that views in science that are later falsified (but still held by many) are essentially religion by definition?
"Gays should not marry because it says so in the Bible."
I'm still not sure what relevance this has to discussion over ID, but now that you brought it up I would like to say that I don't agree with such a conclusion no matter how many fundamentalists hold it to be truth.
"Right. And we should have multiple wives (simultaneously, and not serially, as now practiced), and they would be men's property. That's the Bible for you, pretty messed up, don't you think?"
Still don't see the relevance, but I'm assuming you're referring to a recent Newsweek article in which someone insisted the Bible holds nothing against gay marriage? I was led to my (political) views as a consequentialist, but today I have nothing against gay marriage for both utilitarian and natural rights reasons. Despite my agreement with the Newsweek article's premise, I did not agree with the reasoning behind it. I'm not sure what to say about the historical accuracy of the Bible, and I'm even less certain as to whether or not it is genuinely the word of any all-knowing supernatural being, but it definitely does not condone polygamy in any form I'm aware of:
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR324.htm
- F2XL
December 12, 2008 7:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Atheist scientists promote God as scientifically testable
Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger argue that the existence of a creative super-intelligence or God are scientific questions.
"the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, p. 58-59.
"The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us. Various models will be assumed in which God has specific attributes that can be tested empirically. That is, if a God with such attributes exists, certain phenomena should be observable." - God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger, p. 17-18.
Do these scientists not understand the difference between science and non-science?
- ufcarazy
February 12, 2009 3:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
introductory biology
The first point stressed in my college biology class was in fact that we as scientists cannot ascribe purpose to chemical and biological functions. One can only observe and describe the complex functions that occur in biology.
I have heard theologists describe the human as a perfect being that could only be the result of an intelligent designer. The human body is far from perfect especially with regard to his physiology. The human lung is relatively inefficient and the lungs of birds are far superior in associating Oxygen with blood cells.
When ID attempts to account for observable biological complexity it falls back on a designer, but if beings are the result of intelligent design what created the designer? Evolution attempts to explain the origin of life and the process through which current species came to manifest themselves. ID excludes the designer from the explanation for life on earth. This implies that the designer be other worldly or supernatural/martian. ID doesn't offer new evidence it merely relies on the gaps in current evolutionary knowledge. Even worse is the fact that ID and so called "Creation Science" have their roots in the idiotic notion that evolution contradicts the second law of Thermodynamics.
- bschild
February 26, 2009 3:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.