Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: Ask Questions & Think for Yourself: Science Is Not a Voting Contest
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Ask Questions & Think for Yourself: Science Is Not a Voting Contest
- From Discovery Institute
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
good job!
I appreciate he way you have taken time to methodically object. Too much misinformation is out there, and if you don't answer it, people will believe it.
- sologos
September 21, 2008 8:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Sure there is misinformation
But most of it seems to be in the response
Such as
-- Because the NCSE thinks science should be a voting contest--
That's just plain silly, it's the Dissent from Darwinism which attempts to create a controversy where there is none. Even the list does not address the fact of evolution, but rather the explanation of evolution, Darwinian theory. Just because some people believe there to be more than just Darwinism, a position even Darwin would agree with, does not show support that there exist meaningful controversies in evolution let alone neo-Darwinian evolution.
The DI is attempting to create a controversy where there is really none.
- PvM
September 21, 2008 9:39PM
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.
major controversy
I do not wish to begin to defend the DI as I am not familiar enough with their theory. I am glad that someone is trying to oppose the paradigm of undirected chance/non-intelligent necessity as the chief paradigm for everything from cosmogony to the origin of biological diversity, but I appreciate that we are all just scratching the surface of this awesome creation with little more than leaps in the dark. I am not certain that naturalistic methodology has been sufficiently refined to detect or tease out intelligence.
As to your characterization of the controversy as "none", I assume you are using hyperbole to make a point, but I think that there remains quite a lot of controversy which originated long before ID was even a term. The list helps people who are not scientifically inclined to at least consider that Darwinism is not necessarily.
I also have seen a lot of controversy ( how meaningful, only time will tell) even within the Neo-Darwinist camp. Controversy, however, is good for science.
- sologos
September 21, 2008 11:16PM
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.
Ignorance is no excuse
"I am glad that someone is trying to oppose the paradigm of undirected chance/non-intelligent necessity."
Why are you so ignorant about science that you are "glad"? Because your religious sensibilities are offended?
"As to your characterization of the controversy as "none", I assume you are using hyperbole to make a point"
Nope. It is quite true that there is no scientific controversy. There is science and there is anti-science religious nonsense and that does not make a "controversy".
"The list helps people who are not scientifically inclined to at least consider that Darwinism is not necessarily."
In other words, people who do not really understand this non-scientific public relations campaign may be fooled into considering that the scientific Theory of Evolution is not true? Yes, that is the purpose of their public relations campaign.
- onein6billion
September 27, 2008 8:35AM
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.
Open your mind
There is more than naturalism can engage.
Greetings onein6billion:
"Why are you so ignorant about science that you are "glad"? Because your religious sensibilities are offended?"
Religious sensitivities may have accelerated my interest in the debate, but since I have arrived, there appears to be more from both scientific and philosophical perspective that has caught my interest. The naturalistic methodology, like carpentry works fine for what it views. The problem is that doesn't view all of reality. By narrowing its vision, unfortunately, it negates the essence of scientific inquiry. Causality is what we are interested in, wherever the evidence takes us. If we state, de facto, that everything metaphysical is out of bounds, then we shouldn't call it science, or at the very least, we shouldn't deceive ourselves that we are really getting at reality. Perhaps Methodological Naturalism would be the correct name for that type of inquiry, and that is fine as long a we understand its limitations.
"Nope. It is quite true that there is no scientific controversy. There is science and there is anti-science religious nonsense and that does not make a "controversy"."
I don't believe that there is a significant controversy about the concept of natural selection. Darwin deserves a lot of credit for that. There is quite a lot more controversy in the ranks when it comes to the supply of the fittest for the filtering process. Consider for example, the chill from the Neo- Darwinist community when the exclusive role of mutation was questioned, when Lynn Margulis first introduced endosymbiosis.
The truth is that neither the "Chance" involved in the supply, nor the "Necessity" of the filtering process get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both. God simply allows us, believers and non-believers alike to exercise the methodology to our benefit. Quite compassionate of Him, wouldn't you say?
"In other words, people who do not really understand this non-scientific public relations campaign may be fooled into considering that the scientific Theory of Evolution is not true? Yes, that is the purpose of their public relations campaign."
Well yes, but I would hardly call what the NCSE puts out as neutral in the matter of public relations. In the end, good science will acknowledge its limitations and try to address them. IN the meanwhile, the process needs considerable refinement.
- sologos
September 27, 2008 5:48PM
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.
Open your mind and your brains will fall out
"There is more than naturalism can engage."
And that's why it's called "supernatural". But there can never be any evidence that the supernatural actually affects reality.
"The problem is that doesn't view all of reality"
Riiiight. And just what part of reality is not in view? The supernatural? So what?
"If we state, de facto, that everything metaphysical is out of bounds, then we shouldn't call it science, or at the very least, we shouldn't deceive ourselves that we are really getting at reality."
You wish to change the definition of "science" to include the "metaphysical"? That's silly. The word "philosophy" comes to mind, but it's not science.
"get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both"
Your assertion is not supported by any evidence.
"God simply allows us"
Your assertion is not supported by any evidence.
"I would hardly call what the NCSE puts out as neutral in the matter of public relations."
Of course not - they are on the side of science, not religion.
"good science will acknowledge its limitations and try to address them"
Riiiight. And how can science do more to "address" its limitations, than by simply admitting them? Science is "materialistic" and perhaps that's a "limitation" and science admits it and you wish to change this in some way?
"IN the meanwhile, the process needs considerable refinement."
Nonsense. Science is the process. How do you wish to "refine" the process of science?
- onein6billion
September 28, 2008 9:49AM
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.
Which came first, the brain or the mind?
oi6b>>"Open your mind and your brains will fall out."
What value brains without mind?
sologos>>"There is more than naturalism can engage."
oi6b>>"And that's why it's called "supernatural". But there can never be any evidence that the supernatural actually affects reality."
This absolute statement is an excellent illustration of the mistake some naturalists make. Naturalism believes that by ridding itself of supernatural belief, it thereby becomes neutral, rendering its findings objective. Whenever naturalism goes beyond its methodology, it becomes an ideology, not unlike religion. This statement is a belief.
oi6b>>"You wish to change the definition of "science" to include the "metaphysical"? That's silly. The word "philosophy" comes to mind, but it's not science."
Science, it appears as many definitions. I like the original meaning, "knowledge". The experimental method is merely one of its methodologies. It works well, but it requires further refinements if it is to become a tool to discern "knowledge".
sologos>>"get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both"
oi6b>>"Your assertion is not supported by any evidence."
Only in the same sense that there is no evidence to the contrary. Unless of course there is no such thing as intelligence.
sologos>>"God simply allows us"
oi6b>>"Your assertion is not supported by any evidence."
Which assertion, God, or God allows. If you don't accept the first I am powerless to change your denial.
sologos>>"I would hardly call what the NCSE puts out as neutral in the matter of public relations."
oi6b>>"Of course not - they are on the side of science, not religion."
So non-neutrality is a good thing?
oi6b>>"Riiiight. And how can science do more to "address" its limitations, than by simply admitting them? Science is "materialistic" and perhaps that's a "limitation" and science admits it and you wish to change this in some way?"
Your first question is a good one. I believe that we are attempting to answer that very challenge, mostly prompted, curiously, by the incursion of naturalism into areas it is not yet honed to address. It's a healthy backlash though. As to your second question, I believe you meant to say that MN is materialistic.
oi6b>>"Nonsense. Science is the process. How do you wish to "refine" the process of science?"r
Science HAS processes that have continually been in evolution since its inception.
- sologos
October 1, 2008 7:00PM
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.
In the end it all about Faith isn't it
--Sologos
I don't believe that there is a significant controversy about the concept of natural selection. Darwin deserves a lot of credit for that. There is quite a lot more controversy in the ranks when it comes to the supply of the fittest for the filtering process. Consider for example, the chill from the Neo- Darwinist community when the exclusive role of mutation was questioned, when Lynn Margulis first introduced endosymbiosis.
--
Cool, now the claim is the arrival of variation. Yes, Margulis' claims were received with scepticism, and it was through hard scientific work that she managed to support her claims and science eventually accepted them. No similarities at all with ID which proposes nothing. As to the supply of the fittest, the issue of the 'arrival of the fittest' is of significant interest right now to science, what do you suggest has ID contributed to this?
The answer is simple: Nothing
--Sologis
The truth is that neither the "Chance" involved in the supply, nor the "Necessity" of the filtering process get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both. God simply allows us, believers and non-believers alike to exercise the methodology to our benefit. Quite compassionate of Him, wouldn't you say?
--
This is a misleading statement, there is no scientific issue of intelligence operative within both, in fact, science does allow God to be hidden behind these natural processes, it remains silent on such. Let's not pretend though that this is a scientific position.
- PvM
September 28, 2008 10:26AM
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.
Faith does its part.
PvM>>"Cool, now the claim is the arrival of variation. Yes, Margulis' claims were received with scepticism, and it was through hard scientific work that she managed to support her claims and science eventually accepted them. No similarities at all with ID which proposes nothing. As to the supply of the fittest, the issue of the 'arrival of the fittest' is of significant interest right now to science, what do you suggest has ID contributed to this?
The answer is simple: Nothing"
Self-organizing systems reflect constraints, as well as the appearance of randomness. It is significant that the final product itself is intelligent. That a stochastic process can be so fruitful is, itself, a testimony to the intelligence that directs such randomness. I don't know what the DI has contributed to this because I have not thouroughly examined their work.
If I had to take a theoretical stab at it, perhaps this might be one approach. Look at intelligence and design where we can most likely identify it, It seems that in order to distinguish intelligence from "dumb" physical processes, one must first decide whether intelligence even exists in humans, and if so, what it is that distinguishes it from non-intelligence. Likewise for design. What characterizes or demonstrates premeditated intent from pure accident at the only level we can reliably distinguish it, the human level. As obvious as these questions sound, they are actually non-givens. Once that can be agreed upon, it would not be that hard (relatively speaking) to set up a prospective study with rapidly reproducing organisms showing detectable micro-evolution.
PvM>>"This is a misleading statement, there is no scientific issue of intelligence operative within both, in fact, science does allow God to be hidden behind these natural processes, it remains silent on such. Let's not pretend though that this is a scientific position."
Let's instead pretend that intelligence can never be detected? Is there a scientific issue that excludes the operation of intelligence? Your statement reflects your belief. You probably won't find it. Your methodology has infected your worldview. You are a good apologist for naturalism. I prefer to see reality, metaphysical and physical as related. Separate disciplines are certainly fruitful but both science and theology teach us that a bigger picture adds a new dimension. Is there no value to that? Theology and Science should talk again, neither fearing.
- sologos
October 1, 2008 8:38PM
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.
appreciate your effort
I appreciate that you are making attempts to answer all these issues. Apparently there is a lot of misinformation out there about your motives, and if they are left unanswered, people will simply believe them.
I can't say that I agree with the DI in all the details, but I certainly do believe that nature exhibits intelligence and design, not to mention beauty and love. Any one of these 4 alone lends credence to a Creator, as none are necessitated by the mere existence of a universe. In fact the mere fact that there is something rather than nothing, speaks for the hand of a Creator. The fact that all 4 of these coincide, adds momentum to the argument of a Creator.
- sologos
September 21, 2008 10:44PM
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.
Does intelligent design have scientific merit?
"but I certainly do believe that nature exhibits intelligence and design, not to mention beauty and love."
But the question is: does intelligent design have scientific merit?
If "nature exhibits intelligence", what does that mean for science? Nature picks living things to fill ecological niches? Survival of the fittest? 90% of all species are now extinct?
If "nature exhibits design", it is "apparent design" or "real design". How can you tell? If it is "real design", what does that mean for science? Science should not look for natural explanations when there might actually be a supernatural explanation?
I don't think "beauty and love" have much meaning for science.
"Any one of these 4 alone lends credence to a Creator"
Now science has certainly left the building. And I'm not much interested in philosophy as long as you don't try to teach it in science class.
- onein6billion
September 30, 2008 8:08PM
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.
Show us that "research" one more time!
Fundamental points:
"There are well-credentialed scientists who support intelligent design (ID)"
So what? There are many, many more well-credentialed scientists who say "intelligent design" is nonsense. Either way, this is irrelevant.
"... and are conducting scientific research into ID"
Riiiight. And the results are????
"and publishing it in mainstream scientific venues."
I don't believe it. The "intelligent design" proponents have 12 different? discussions and one of them says "promises to open up new avenues of research". Well, they've been promising for a decade or two and never delivered - enough is enough. Whenever they have really "published" their nonsense, it has been instantly ripped to shreds by knowledgeable scientists.
The rest of this "objection" seems to be directed towards the political processes used by the DI and their opponents. So it is irrelevant to the question "Does intelligent design have scientific merit".
- onein6billion
October 1, 2008 7:22PM
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.