Yeah, it’s a post with just a link. You’re allowed to have one of those every now and then.
Nope, no disagreements, it’s all good. Note there are a couple places where they qualify their statements, like, “rarely published” instead of “never”.
Nice score Lausten, I’ve been looking for something that organized it as well as concisely as this does.
Uses testable ideas? Scientific ideas generate specific expectations about observations of the natural world that would support or refute the idea. However, because Intelligent Design doesn't specify what the Designer is or how the Designer operates, it cannot generate expectations specific enough to help us figure out whether the basic premises of Intelligent Design are correct or incorrect. Intelligent Design is untestable.I liked this one because Holmes took me to task once for asking "What's ID good for, how does it help us understand?" and as I remember I was dismissed with some derision tossed in.
Leads to ongoing research? So far, there are no documented cases of Intelligent Design research contributing to a new scientific discovery. Intelligent Design proponents, of course, continue to write about the idea, but this work is not generative — that is, it tends to repeat itself and does not help build new, more detailed explanations. ...I think that's very well said. Holmes, looks like your turn. We have a chance for a fresh clean start to this discussion.
I’ve been looking for something that organized it as well as concisely as this does.Yeah, lucky hit. I know Berkeley has a good site on the fossil record and good tools for educators, so when I saw their name on pg 1 of Google, I was pretty sure it would be good. Sherlock's responses really confirm everything we've found out about him. The points kind of build on each other, so by dismissing the first few, it's easier to dismiss the rest. He does his usual word play, like focusing on how organizations can go about their business however they want, ignoring the point that they don't act like scientific organizations. Later he talks about prejudices within science, which of course exist, but they don't discredit 3,000 years of improvements in the scientific methods. But to him, science is dogmatic, so he can dismiss it as he pleases. Of course, when he wants to claim authority, like in the last point, he quickly returns to saying ID proponents are credentialed. Unless he's willing to talk about what "credentialed" means or how you evaluate science when you aren't an expert in that specialty, there's no basis for talking to him.
“… ID cannot be considered a scientific discipline because it does not follow the basic requirements for scientific research. First, it is a supernatural explanation. Second, it cannot be used to make predictions. Third, it relies on argumentation rather than on data and the testing of hypotheses…”
http://americanhumanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/hafer_2015.pdf
you really do seem to be totally unaware that you are a terrible debating opponentWell, one of us is. I've been wrong a couple times in my life but I listen to reason. I have not considered most of our conversations a debate. In the above, I am discussing generalizations about you. I'm sure they do come across as personal attacks to you. You didn't convince me that there is anything wrong with the linked post. I don't see any reason to attempt to answer any of your questions or clarify anything raised here since I've already responded to all of it throughout your other threads.
Edit: Although, out of curiosity, how is “Unless he’s willing to talk about what “credentialed” means” an attack?
ID is scientific if the “I” is something that can be investigated by science.
ID is not scientific if the “I” is something that can’t be investigated by science.
The term ‘irreducible complexity’ is a huge sticking point. If there is a theory for how something complex came into existence, then the term ‘irreducible complexity’ isn’t warranted, and since we have a theory for everything that was once considered irreducibly complex, the term is not warranted.
According to Science Council, science is:
Scientific methodology includes the following:As you can see, although repeatable experiments are an important part of the methodology, they aren't the only method of doing science. Often repeatable experiments form the basis of induction, analysis and verification.
- Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence
- Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
- Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
- Repetition
- Critical analysis
- Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
We can use the methodology above to see if ID is the best explanation for something. If there are other explanations that don’t require an unknown, (and likely unimaginably powerful and intelligent) entity, Occam’s Razor will be used leaving naturalistic explanations as the only reasonably likely options.
This really sucks!
My expectations were honestly pretty high when I saw this thread and the other one you just started. I thought “Nice! A clean slate where we can all be adults.” But when you flat out ignore all scientific explanations of the Cambrian Explosion and just say you don’t understand how it happened, I lose all hope.
Your posts feel a lot more like a psychology experiment than honest inquiry.
How and why do you do that? What does it accomplish? How do you imagine it helps you in any way at all? Do you do this all the time or only in online discussions? Can you stop? Is it intentional or are you not even aware you’re doing it? Do you derive pleasure from being like this or is it a way of venting your frustrations from other areas of your life?
Real discussions are fun. Attempts to communicate with you are not.
I’ve mentioned before how the Cambrian explosion seems – to me – to be very strong evidence of an intelligent agency operating in the past.But that conviction, on your part, requires you to ignore all the evidence presented about the Ediacaran Periods and Cambrian Periods - and replace it with misinformation. How can that be considered fair in any society?
Incoming evidence reveals there was no instantaneous anything during some impossibly short period.
And unless you can provide some evidence for this assumption that you keep presenting as though it were fact -
than all you have is vapid hearsay BECAUSE IT IGNORES a wealth of available evidence.
Worth bringing to the top of the page
November 14, 2019 at 5:42 pm#313134 3point14rat This really sucks!My expectations were honestly pretty high when I saw this thread and the other one you just started. I thought “Nice! A clean slate where we can all be adults.” But when you flat out ignore all scientific explanations of the Cambrian Explosion and just say you don’t understand how it happened, I lose all hope.
Your posts feel a lot more like a psychology experiment than honest inquiry.
How and why do you do that? What does it accomplish? How do you imagine it helps you in any way at all? Do you do this all the time or only in online discussions? Can you stop? Is it intentional or are you not even aware you’re doing it? Do you derive pleasure from being like this or is it a way of venting your frustrations from other areas of your life?
Real discussions are fun. Attempts to communicate with you are not.
Put me down for “no.”
...there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science.… There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the Designer…
…ID does not offer any new explanation or observation about these complex structures that the Theory of Evolution does not already provide. The observation that some structures in organisms are too complex to have originated from gradual change will not help scientists to develop a better antibiotic, for example.
In fact, the idea that “some things are too complex” is anti-scientific, since it seems to suggest that we shouldn’t try to understand the origins of the complex structures. ID discourages us from looking and asking questions.* True science, however, moves on.
If it is later found to be the case that some structures in organisms do not have more primitive counterparts, science will observe and recognize this fact, and the new knowledge will be incorporated into evolutionary theory.
ID is not a scientific theory and should not be taught alongside the Theory of Evolution. It offers nothing to help students understand how science works. It is merely a statement of how complex life seems to be - not even worth an hour of classroom time.
https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/707
*Yes. Exactly my point in asking, What if we had decided this before? What scientific discoveries would never have been made?
Interestingly this question has already faced trial and it was ruled that no, ID is not a science.
@holmes
All of you posts are too long, so I only read the first sentence or two of the first post, but I can answer the question you posed in that little bit.
The way in which “ID fails” by not detailing how design was accomplished or who the designer might be is that it fails to be scientific. To be scientific you have to back up your claims by offering testable mechanism by which your claims could be accomplished. You cannot, for instance, simply say “The alignment of the planets on the day we are born affects our entire lives”. That is untestable. No mechanism was offered explaining how that can be, so no tests can be made to see if it is accurate. And that’s why ID and astrology are not sciences.
I simply disagree and I think most intelligent people would, determining something was created is what ID is concerned with. Why and how have no bearing on this.Okay, first, way to call me stupid without calling me stupid
Second, the question is “Is ID scientific?” That ID is not concerned with why and how is what MAKES it unscientific. Scientific method DEMANDS the why and how. If you don’t have that then it’s not science.
Actually you don’t. Newton scientifically described gravitation but had no idea how it operated, it just did.You're being obtuse. Scientific laws (simple descriptions) are completely unrelated to scientific theory (complex explanations of why and how).
...if I can predict that intermediate fossils do not exist, and that is correct and testable then I understand that too.WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! A scientific prediction predicts what IS, not what IS NOT. It is NOT testable to predict that something does not exist. If I tell you that no alien life exists in any galaxy but our own, failure to find that life DOES NOT prove that I am right. This is called "proving a negative" and it IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!
This is what understanding something means in science, being able to predict correctly. Exactly how or why play no role, you and several others here waffle on about science all the time but as I’ve pointed out recently you are naive.Again, completely wrong. You MUST know the how and why in order to make accurate predictions. How and why play no role in scientific law. They play EVERY role in scientific theory. The how and why are ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for a scientific theory. A scientific theory cannot even be PUBLISHED without a how and why, which is why ID has never made it into a scientific publication. They will tell you "Science is not done by committee". The reality is it simply CAN'T get published because most of its proponents have your level of scientific understanding.
Again how or why or who don’t matter, if I can reliably predict future observations then rest assured I understand that thing...Really? Then why isn't gravitational theory simply "See Newton's laws"?
@holmes
What I said above is not controversial Widders, science is what we use to gain understanding of the world around us. We understand something when we have some ability predict a future state and test that prediction.I do not believe for one second that you're an idiot. So why are you trying to make me think that you are by pretending to not grasp what I'm saying? There is "scientific law" and "scientific theory". You are stating the nature of scientific law and pretending that's all there is to scientific theory in your gross oversimplification of science. Controversial or not, what you stated was wrong.
If I predicted you’ll find an absence of fossil evidence for X wherever you look when you fully expect to find it, then do I or do I not have a better understanding?Don't be obtuse. I know you're not this ignorant. Your "prediction" is not a scientific prediction because it's not disprovable, and that's just for starters. To prove that "prediction" correct you literally have to sort through every grain of sand on the planet. That prediction is not proven correct UNTIL you have sorted through ever grain of sand on the planet. AND THEN you STILL haven't proven that this fossil never existed. And when you do that you STILL haven't proven that the animal didn't exist and just never got fossilized. Ultimately fossils are very rare. The only reason we have them is because of the great number of creatures which have lived and died on the planet. The fossils we have found represent an infinitesimally small percentage of all the creatures which have ever lived and died.
In other words my understanding is that some profound creative agency intervened and with a huge input of intelligence produced very complex living creatures where before there had been nothing similar.That’s my “theory” and the test is that the expected fossil evidence (that must exist if a naturalistic process was at work) is never found.
What you are proposing is not a “test”. A “test” is something YOU do to show that you are right. It is not a claim you make that demands that OTHER PEOPLE prove you wrong. That’s a claim. The only way that even remotely resembles a “prediction” is that you are presuming to predict the future. It’s called “shifting the burden of proof”.
But science is not about proof Widders, this is often pointed out by others here too. Science is about developing an ability to predict, that’s really the core.I'm pretty sure you are doing this on purpose, confusing the conversation. You've certainly heard of a "scientific proof" before. Just because the ultimate goal of science is not to prove what is right does not mean that you don't have to prove anything ever in science. You do have to prove your predictions to be correct.
Forget proof, nothing in science is proven, not Newtonian Gravitation or Quantum Mechanics etc, instead we have theories that lead to predictions, as soon as a prediction fails the theory is sidelined and a better theory is sought.Do you really have this poor an understanding of science? Dude, didn't you get some high school science classes with your degrees? THEORIES in science are not proven. That doesn't mean you get to make wild claims and futuristic predictions and you never have to prove it. That ENTIRE peer review process is about proving your methodology.
This is all true, but if some fossils are fully expected to exist where others already exist yet are never every ever found then why should I believe they did exist?My god, you shift back and forth between "nothing is proven in science" and "you can't scientifically prove it to me" with the greatest of ease. NOBODY ever said that you need to believe that unfound fossils exist. The one making the prediction is saying that they likely exist. Fossils, as I have pointed out, are hit and miss. Nobody goes on a dig site "fully expecting" to absolutely, without question find a new fossil which is exactly what they predicted. They go on the dig site hoping to find that thing. Because IF they find that thing then their tiny, minuscule addition to the overall theory of evolution is confirmed (i.e. proved). If they do not then their addition to the theory of evolution is not confirmed.
You have a fundamentally limited, flawed and sometimes outright backward understanding of science. You seem to think that a theory can be easily described to you in a quick little blurb and if you can find one problem with one part of it you throw out the whole thing. I would describe to you what a theory really is but I’m afraid it would be long and technical and you would simply bitch about it instead of reading it.
My god, you shift back and forth between “nothing is proven in science” and “you can’t scientifically prove it to me” with the greatest of ease.Thanks for catching that Wid my good man. I'm just skimming Sherlock for now. That is exactly what I was trying to show him this week. He usually separates these things by a few posts or even in different threads.
@holmes
I know you won’t believe this, but it is you who is missing the point because you have pretty much zero knowledge about how science actually works. So I will just say this. The answer to the question, “Is ID scientific?”, is “No”.
This was proven in court in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial when the first book meant to introduce ID to school children, Of Pandas and People, was proved to have originated as a creationist book which was then changed to an ID book after creationism was banned from schools.
This is proven again by the fact that only a single scientist that I know of in all the world believes that it is a science and even he had to admit in those same court preceding that the method by which he could call ID scientific would also cause astrology to be classified as scientific.
This is proven again by the fact that ID makes no predictions and is not testable. And no, “You won’t find every single transitional fossil that I demand you find somewhere on the entirety of the planet” is neither prediction nor testable.
This is proven again by the fact that ID violates a basic tenant of scientific method, that only natural explanations can be given.
This is proven again by the fact that ID does not make so much as ONE SINGLE claim which is not an attack on evolution. Name ONE thing ID says which is not an attack on evolution. ID is a negative argument, not a theory.
This is proven again by the fact that the scientific community, through the established peer review process, has soundly rejected ID as a science.
ID is simply not science. In an earlier response to me you listed off your credentials as an electrical engineer and a program engineer to tell me that I had nothing to teach you in those fields. Yet here you’re ignoring the credentials of biologists and geneticists with far greater credentials than you have, and in relevant fields, to pretend you have something to teach them. And yet you don’t see how you move the goal posts all over the place to suit your needs. Seriously, man, you got that shit on wheels!
No I disagree. The legal conclusion may have included “ID is not science” but that doesn’t carry any weight with me, the findings of a court reflect many factors and objectively defining science is not really their remit.You can disagree all you want. It was proved in court that ID is creationism rebranded. ID IS creationism. There was absolute, undeniable evidence to this fact.
And objectively defining science is not really your bag either. That’s for scientists. And those scientists have ALSO determined that ID is not science.
Why do you accuse me of “ignoring” people’s credentials? I disagree with some of them that’s a very different thing altogether.Because you are ignoring people's credentials. The scientific community says definitively and with a unified voice that ID is not science. There is ONE scientists, in the tens of thousands of qualified professionals in the world, who disagrees and even THAT scientist admitted, under oath, that ID ONLY becomes a science if astrology also becomes a science. But you think you know better than literally every qualified professional in the word save one, who, again, admits that he has to redefine "science" to make ID a science. You have nothing to teach them here, yet here you are saying they're all wrong.