ID v.s. Archaeology

[Sideline]

Amazingly, I have some thoughts on Intelligent Design that don’t seem to fit into any of the 900 or so threads on the topic. :whacky:

One poster claimed that those that study ID use the same tools archaeologists use to determine whether something is designed. I’ve been pondering this for awhile now, and seems an excellent way to contrast ID with an actual science. When one looks at the two side-by-side the contrast is striking.

IDers state that complex systems require a designer. Of course, they also claim that the universe has been fine tuned and therefor everything is designed.

Archaeologists look for “culturally modified objects”. These are objects that have been modified from their original state by humans. There is a clear distinction between what is culturally modified and what isn’t.

IDers, not wanting to be branded a religion, don’t specifically name the designer, nor do they try test hypotheses of how certain designs came about.

Archaeologists know who created the CMO’s. We know the limitations and capabilities. We know their needs and their desires. We can also replicate the work of these creators to try and understand both the tools and the tool users better.

Other than trying to prove that what exists couldn’t have existed without intervention, IDers don’t have much they can test or observe.

Archaeologists use the principles of provenance and context to help understand CMO’s. For instance, when trying to determine whether a piece of obsidian is a tool or just a naturally occurring shard of obsidian, it helps to know that there is no obsidian occurring naturally for miles around.

 

[Asuno]

Amazingly, I have some thoughts on Intelligent Design that don’t seem to fit into any of the 900 or so threads on the topic. :whacky:

One poster claimed that those that study ID use the same tools archaeologists use to determine whether something is designed. I’ve been pondering this for awhile now, and seems an excellent way to contrast ID with an actual science. When one looks at the two side-by-side the contrast is striking.

IDers state that complex systems require a designer. Of course, they also claim that the universe has been fine tuned and therefor everything is designed.

Archaeologists look for “culturally modified objects”. These are objects that have been modified from their original state by humans. There is a clear distinction between what is culturally modified and what isn’t.

IDers, not wanting to be branded a religion, don’t specifically name the designer, nor do they try test hypotheses of how certain designs came about.

Archaeologists know who created the CMO’s. We know the limitations and capabilities. We know their needs and their desires. We can also replicate the work of these creators to try and understand both the tools and the tool users better.

Other than trying to prove that what exists couldn’t have existed without intervention, IDers don’t have much they can test or observe.

Archaeologists use the principles of provenance and context to help understand CMO’s. For instance, when trying to determine whether a piece of obsidian is a tool or just a naturally occurring shard of obsidian, it helps to know that there is no obsidian occurring naturally for miles around.

Your point, please? Besides, I’m not one of those people who ever said such a thing. I would have chosen comparing it to the analyzing of mathemetical probabilities, not forensics or archeology…though I know an archeologist who’s admitted to me that, in his line of work, it’s mostly guesswork. Educated guesswork, yes, but still a guess, as in direct quote: "There’s not a whole lot we really know for certain.
By the way, not all those who believe in Intelligent Design are necessarily Creationists. Intelligent Design actually means just that: the universe is very precisely ordered on a vastly complex scale, too much so for it to be “accidental”; hence, the design needs a Grand Designer.
Again, duh.

 

[Asuno]

Oh, and I forgot…HAPPY NEW YEAR!:dancing: :bounce: :clapping: :grouphug: :hug3: :extrahappy:

 

[wildleafblower]

The only design found in archaeology is this example:

The Pompeii Forum Project. CSA participates in this on-going project, Directed by Prof. John J. Dobbins (University of Virginia), to study the Forum of ancient Pompeii. **A computer-aided design model is being constructed of the forum. **

• The Older Propylon Project. An on-going research project of CSA Director Harrison Eiteljorg, II. Although the results of this project have been published, it continues to serve as a “test bed” **for computer-aided design work. **
• Lerna Database. A CSA experiment, in cooperation with Prof. Jeremy B. Rutter (Dartmouth College) and the publications office of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, to transform a portion of the catalog of Lerna pottery (Lerna, Volume III, The Pottery of Lerna IV, Jeremy B. Rutter, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1995) into a database. The work has been completed, and the database is used regularly **to illustrate issues in database design. **
  (CSA, the Center for the Study of Architecture, is devoted to
  advancing the use of computers, computer technologies, and digital information technologies in the service of architectural history, archaeology, and related disciplines that explore our common heritage.)
  csanet.org/
  http://csanet.org/

Happy New Year to all God’s critters! Bless ya Joy to the world.

 

[Sideline]

Your point, please?

Why would you bother posting to a thread you thought was pointless?

Oh, wait. You’re the one that thinks I’m a terrible person that is just trying to start fights aren’t you?

Besides, I’m not one of those people who ever said such a thing.
I would have chosen comparing it to the analyzing of mathemetical probabilities, not forensics or archeology…though I know an archeologist who’s admitted to me that, in his line of work, it’s mostly guesswork.
Educated guesswork, yes, but still a guess, as in direct quote: "There’s not a whole lot we really know for certain.

It is a little like trying to assemble a jigsaw without knowing how many pieces there are and having no picture on the box. But being uncertain isn’t the same as saying it’s just guesswork.

By the way, not all those who believe in Intelligent Design are necessarily Creationists. Intelligent Design actually means just that: the universe is very precisely ordered on a vastly complex scale, too much so for it to be “accidental”; hence, the design needs a Grand Designer.
Again, duh.

If you read the post you will notice that I don’t use the word creationism in it at all. I give a definition of Intelligent Design fits exactly with what you just listed.

That being said, exactly is your point?

 

[Asuno]

Why would you bother posting to a thread you thought was pointless?

I like to keep you on your toes. It fills my life with some spice.

Oh, wait. You’re the one that thinks I’m a terrible person that is just trying to start fights aren’t you?

No, not terrible, not really. I do think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing, though. But that’s all right–it gets my blood pumping sometimes, yes, but sometimes it’s kinda fun too.

It is a little like trying to assemble a jigsaw without knowing how many pieces there are and having no picture on the box. But being uncertain isn’t the same as saying it’s just guesswork.

Yes, it is like a jigsaw puzzle, and I’m certain there’s a lot more pieces than we imagine; and the box has no picture because this picture is way too big for any box any of us could conceive. Kinda makes my point, actually.

If you read the post you will notice that I don’t use the word creationism in it at all. I give a definition of Intelligent Design fits exactly with what you just listed.

That being said, exactly is your point?

That Intelligent Design does exist, and the fact you can’t see it is funny to me. Oh, and that there will never be any Grand Unified Super-Theory of Existential Reality (that means reality as it actually is, by the way, it’s a new little phrase I picked from my chemistry-major-at-Kansas-State nephew) Answer without a Grand Designer in the picture.

Actually my nephew–Kevin–calls it “the G.U.S.T.E.R. Answer” for short. As you can probably tell, I’m pretty proud of him.

So what are you doing online on New Years Day? Stuck at home with a bad head-n-chest cold like me? If not, go out and have some fun! (Unless it’s just eighteen degrees out with 20 mph winds like it is here. Then you probably should stay in.)


My New Year’s resolution is to mellow out a little. Let me know if it’s over the top, though.

 

[reggieM]

For instance, when trying to determine whether a piece of obsidian is a tool or just a naturally occurring shard of obsidian, it helps to know that there is no obsidian occurring naturally for miles around.

I think you’re misunderstanding part of the argument.

What you’re doing in archeology is observing nature and applying rules or defintions about design. When nature corresponds to your definition of design, you conclude that the object was designed. In this case, you’re evaluating evidence of design by measuring the condiditions (probabilities) of the environment. If there is no obsidian occurring naturally, then the probability is very small that the shard was a natural occurrence. This is clearly evidence of intelligent design – it’s exactly the same process. Scientific and testable. How to test? Either something matches your definition (probability) or it doesn’t.

I used the example of a hole in the ground. It could have been caused by intelligence (animal or human) or it could have been caused naturally.

There is no guarantee that archeologists will be able to determine for certain if the hole was created by nature or by intelligence. Archeologists will also not necessarily know who created the hole. But it can be tested against a definition. If the hole is tested and found to match the definition of a designed system, then the conclusion is that it was designed.

This is obviously true when looking at features on other planets. Scientists look for signs of purpose or intelligence, based on definitions of the same.

Those definitions are created by measures of probability. If it is shown to be improbable that a geologic feature is created by a natural, random, unguided, blind process – then it can be concluded that the feature was designed by intelligence.

Stonehenge is an example of this.

This merely shows that the process used in ID is scientific and testable. One does not need to know the identity of the creator to determine if there was intelligence involved.

The Catholic Church has taught that the divine work of God can be found by looking at nature. This is taught infallibly and affirmed in Scripture.

Observations of nature (science) give evidence of the existence of God (intelligence versus random, blind chance).

 

[Sideline]

I think you’re misunderstanding part of the argument.

There was nothing worth responding to in this post. Nothing even remotely like fact. If you don’t want to accept that the truth doesn’t correspond to what you believe, I’m not going to argue further with you.

 

[Sideline]

I like to keep you on your toes. It fills my life with some spice.

I’m glad someone enjoys it.

No, not terrible, not really. I do think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing, though. But that’s all right–it gets my blood pumping sometimes, yes, but sometimes it’s kinda fun too.

No I don’t. Not even a little. Do you want to know why I post? Because I see people who are willing to completely distort, pervert, and ignore the truth to promote their ideology. We live in an age of opportunity and insight, and I see it being whittled away by ideology and superstition. I hope, in my completely useless and ineffectual way, to try and slow it down. Unfortunately, I can’t. No one seems to be able to.

Yes, it is like a jigsaw puzzle, and I’m certain there’s a lot more pieces than we imagine; and the box has no picture because this picture is way too big for any box any of us could conceive. Kinda makes my point, actually.

That Intelligent Design does exist, and the fact you can’t see it is funny to me.

Again, I’m glad you are having a good time. I find it sad and annoying that you know that there “is no picture on the box”, but then claim that it proves there is a painter.

Oh, and that there will never be any Grand Unified Super-Theory of Existential Reality (that means reality as it actually is, by the way, it’s a new little phrase I picked from my chemistry-major-at-Kansas-State nephew) Answer without a Grand Designer in the picture.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

So what are you doing online on New Years Day?

It’s a very long story.

 

[Asuno]

I’m glad someone enjoys it.

No I don’t. Not even a little. Do you want to know why I post? Because I see people who are willing to completely distort, pervert, and ignore the truth to promote their ideology. We live in an age of opportunity and insight, and I see it being whittled away by ideology and superstition. I hope, in my completely useless and ineffectual way, to try and slow it down. Unfortunately, I can’t. No one seems to be able to.

Again, I’m glad you are having a good time. I find it sad and annoying that you know that there “is no picture on the box”, but then claim that it proves there is a painter.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

It’s a very long story.

Well. This is different. I hate to burst your bubble, but the “truth” isn’t what you preach. And you’re right, your message is completely ineffectual. But that’s just because of the message you’re trying to deliver, not necessarily you. Insight is of the spirit, my friend. And spirit is of the Designer you dismiss as superstition. And I did not mean there was nothing on the box, just bits and pieces of a huge picture–like the jigsaw puzzle mentioned earlier–a picture too big for any man or woman to ever completely see on this side of the veil.

I am not trying to be mean, I’m trying to get you to see the truth. But if all I’m doing is annoying you, then I have failed. I’ll leave you to your sadness, and also, I think, your hate. But know that what you hate is the truth. I only pray that someday you see it.

 

[Sideline]

Insight is of the spirit, my friend.

That doesn’t even mean anything.

I am not trying to be mean, I’m trying to get you to see the truth. But if all I’m doing is annoying you, then I have failed. I’ll leave you to your sadness, and also, I think, your hate. But know that what you hate is the truth. I only pray that someday you see it.

Don’t worry it’s not you, it’s your message. Oh wait, I forgot it is also you. I don’t like people who follow me around shouting insults. I’m kind of strange that way.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

There was nothing worth responding to in this post. Nothing even remotely like fact. If you don’t want to accept that the truth doesn’t correspond to what you believe, I’m not going to argue further with you.

I thought there was much to respond to but is mostly ignored.

For example, where he said…

The Catholic Church has taught that the divine work of God can be found by looking at nature. This is taught infallibly and affirmed in Scripture.

…this is correct.

It comes to Romans 1:20…
Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

And this same passage from Scriptures was indeed expounded on in the First Vatican Council too…

Chapter 2 On revelation

The same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things,

can be known

with certainty from the consideration of created things,

by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal

himself and

the eternal laws of his will

to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way.

This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.

It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God

which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason,
can, even in the present state of the human race, be known

by everyone

without difficulty,

with firm certitude and

with no intermingling of error.

Apparently people simply don’t like this part of our Catholic faith so they outright ignore it without responding to it.

 

[Mersenne]

I think you’re misunderstanding part of the argument.

What you’re doing in archeology is observing nature and applying rules or defintions about design. When nature corresponds to your definition of design, you conclude that the object was designed. In this case, you’re evaluating evidence of design by measuring the condiditions (probabilities) of the environment. If there is no obsidian occurring naturally, then the probability is very small that the shard was a natural occurrence. This is clearly evidence of intelligent design – it’s exactly the same process. Scientific and testable. How to test? Either something matches your definition (probability) or it doesn’t.

I used the example of a hole in the ground. It could have been caused by intelligence (animal or human) or it could have been caused naturally.

There is no guarantee that archeologists will be able to determine for certain if the hole was created by nature or by intelligence. Archeologists will also not necessarily know who created the hole. But it can be tested against a definition. If the hole is tested and found to match the definition of a designed system, then the conclusion is that it was designed.

This is obviously true when looking at features on other planets. Scientists look for signs of purpose or intelligence, based on definitions of the same.

Those definitions are created by measures of probability. If it is shown to be improbable that a geologic feature is created by a natural, random, unguided, blind process – then it can be concluded that the feature was designed by intelligence.

Stonehenge is an example of this.

This merely shows that the process used in ID is scientific and testable. One does not need to know the identity of the creator to determine if there was intelligence involved.

The Catholic Church has taught that the divine work of God can be found by looking at nature. This is taught infallibly and affirmed in Scripture.

Observations of nature (science) give evidence of the existence of God (intelligence versus random, blind chance).

wow, what a pile of made up nonsense. They don’t match it to a definition of a designed system, they match it to what we know about the designers. If you’re using the same proccess as archelogists then you have to know who the designer is and you have to know what the designer’s purpose and capabilities are. If you were really using archeologist’s methods, then, life isn’t designed. Hand an archeologist a bone sometime, unchanged by humans, and ask if it was designed. He would say, “no, that’s a natural object.” And showing that archelogists methods are scientific doesn’t proof that ID methods are scientific, which they are not, and can’t be, because their proposition is non-scientific. “Everything is designed” is not a testable hypothesis, it’s a non-starter, it predicts nothing.

 

[wildleafblower]

Very interesting article about archaeology from COSMOS entitiled Satellites build a picture of the past by Jacqui Haye on January 3, 2008. Here is a snippet of the article:

*Mayan cities
When NASA’s only archaeologist, Tom Sever, looked at an infrared satellite image of a Mayan city in Guatemala, he was intrigued to see the vegetation around the buildings showed up as much brighter than the vegetation in other areas. Following a hunch, Sever, based at the Marshall Space Flight Centre in Hunstville, Alabama, looked for other patches of bright vegetation on the U.S. space agency’s maps.

Sure enough, he found additional bright spots at sites not previously considered for archaeological digs.

Sever hypothesised that the limestone that the Maya used for building had leeched into the soil, altering vegetation at these sites. Since chlorophyll in plants glows brightly in the infrared range, NASA’s satellites were able to pick up the subtle difference in vegetation. With this new method in their toolkit, archaeologists went on to discover several previously unknown Mayan cities.

Spotting entire new cities is one thing, but these images can also provide intricate data about already well-known sites.

Payson Sheets, a professor of archaeology at the University of Colorado, has directed the Arenal Research Project in North-Western Costa Rica since the 1980’s. He has used similar infrared images from NASA satellites and aircraft to solve a long-standing mystery. *
cosmosmagazine.com/node/1764
cosmosmagazine.com/node/1764
Tom Sever further comments on Remote Sensing Archaeology at NASA:

*"The stereotype has archaeologists just digging up spearheads and pottery and anthropologists just writing down the words of primitive tribes. But we’re examining how people adapted to their environment throughout time, how they experienced environmental shift, why cultures come and go. Soils associated with artifacts are as important as the artifacts themselves–probably more relevant to us than the actual objects. Now more than ever, archaeological research is interdisciplinary: botany, forestry, soil science, hydrology–all of which contribute to a more complete understanding of the earth, climatic shifts, and how people adapt to large regions. This understanding is critical to future decision making affecting the planet.

In Costa Rica, the culture survived repeated volcanic explosions that repeatedly destroyed the environment, explosions equal to the force of a nuclear blast. Other cultures, like the advanced Maya societies, did not survive or recover from similar eruptions. Did it have to do with the size and violence of the eruption, the way they farmed their land over time, or territorial and political struggle?" *
weather.msfc.nasa.gov/archeology/
http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/archeology/

Thanks Tom!

.

 

[Sideline]

Very interesting article about archaeology from COSMOS entitiled Satellites build a picture of the past by Jacqui Haye on January 3, 2008. Here is a snippet of the article:

Mayan cities
When NASA’s only archaeologist, Tom Sever, looked at an infrared satellite image of a Mayan city in Guatemala, he was intrigued to see the vegetation around the buildings showed up as much brighter than the vegetation in other areas. Following a hunch, Sever, based at the Marshall Space Flight Centre in Hunstville, Alabama, looked for other patches of bright vegetation on the U.S. space agency’s maps.

Sure enough, he found additional bright spots at sites not previously considered for archaeological digs.

Sever hypothesised that the limestone that the Maya used for building had leeched into the soil, altering vegetation at these sites. Since chlorophyll in plants glows brightly in the infrared range, NASA’s satellites were able to pick up the subtle difference in vegetation. With this new method in their toolkit, archaeologists went on to discover several previously unknown Mayan cities.

This is amazing! This kind of insight makes me giddy. :bounce:
Spotting entire new cities is one thing, but these images can also provide intricate data about already well-known sites.

cosmosmagazine.com/node/1764

 

[Sideline]

I thought there was much to respond to but is mostly ignored.

This is a thread about how a real science archaeology, contrasts with intelligent design. His posts show that he has no knowledge of what archaeology, nor does he want to know. He then starts talking, as you do, about a particular religion’s take on the world.

I’m not Catholic. I think that should be fairly clear by now. I’m probably closest to a Deist. Why would I respond to one religion’s claims about nature? The whole reason people who promote I.D. say it should be in schools is because, they say, it isn’t a religion. So why should it bother you, or them, that I’m not talking about it on a religious level?

You want me to comment on Catholic Church teaching? Fine, it is irrelevant to this thread, but fine. I don’t believe in an activist God, so I think they are wrong about seeing what His works in nature. Does nature provide me with a sense of wonder? Absolutely, and that is why I call myself a kind-of deist, instead of an atheist. I stress the wonder instead of the absence of a planner. Can I see that you would call the wonder the work of God? Yes, and you are entitled to that… non-scientific… opinion. Just as I am free to have my… non-scientific… opinion that God does not exist.

We live in… well, we should live in… a world where we can have and express any opinion that we want. But our opinions are meaningless unless we can back them up. That’s why we have science and logic. Science provides the evidence, and logic allows us to examine the validity of the evidence. Personally, I find troubling the fact that there is a distortion of science rampant in society and on this board, that’s why I posted. I… mostly… don’t care what people believe. What I have a problem with is when they say, “Your evidence conflicts with my belief, so it must be wrong.”

If someone told you, “You need to believe it, it’s in the Koran”, how would you respond? That’s pretty much what happened here.

 

[Sideline]

Those definitions are created by measures of probability. If it is shown to be improbable that a geologic feature is created by a natural, random, unguided, blind process – then it can be concluded that the feature was designed by intelligence.

I was wrong, this part is worth responding to. In the early observations of Mars, someone describe the fact of the planet saying it looked like there were canals on it. No, as we all know, canals don’t appear randomly in nature. They are carved out by humans for a purpose. They need a canal builder, so obviously, there must be life on Mars.

We’ve known for quite awhile now that there is no civilization of canal builders on Mars. We know that “looks like” isn’t the same as “is”.

Scientists don’t enjoy looking like idiots, so they try and keep from making the same mistake twice. That’s why scientists, at least good scientists, are a lot more skeptical these days than they used to be. You still hear the odd, wild, unfounded claim from people with PhDs spouting of nonsense (like intelligent designers), but fortunately there are hundreds more that would quite happily make those people look like idiots. Science has actually gotten quite a bit more scientific.

I.D. may have flown 100 years ago, but it doesn’t anymore. There is no basis for thinking it is true. Complexity doesn’t equal a designer. The whole premise is faulty: “This looks like something designed, so it is. It is too complex to have arisen naturally.” If that is your opinion, fine. Just don’t call it science unless you have some ingenious way of testing it.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I want to be able to come back to this thread later, so I’m just going to post this comment:

If God wants to create an archeology that looks 10,000 years old or 10,000,000 years old, He can create fossils and strata to comply with His vision of what He wants for us to find.

God is Infinite. He has the power to do all that.

Certainly, though, the study of archaeology allows us to appreciate the history of the biblical regions, the arduous journeys through deserts and over the seas, the battles, the wars, the conflicts, the tribal “issues”, the cultural and the essentials of daily life of the people of the biblical times.

It is difficult for people who do not live in the desert to appreciate what kinds of conditions shepherds and goatherds had to put up with. Etc, etc, etc.

 

[Sideline]

If God wants to create an archeology that looks 10,000 years old or 10,000,000 years old, He can create fossils and strata to comply with His vision of what He wants for us to find.

Why would God plant false evidence? It’s funny, I don’t believe in a personal God, but even I don’t think he would stoop that low.

God is Infinite. He has the power to do all that.

Yes, but presumably God isn’t an idiot. There would have to be a really compelling reason to create a fraud of that magnitude.

Actually, there is one reason I can think of that would explain why he would want the universe to appear billions of years old: He did it over billions of years.

Certainly, though, the study of archaeology allows us to appreciate the history of the biblical regions, the arduous journeys through deserts and over the seas, the battles, the wars, the conflicts, the tribal “issues”, the cultural and the essentials of daily life of the people of the biblical times.

If archaeology is so wrong in its dating techniques then it certainly shouldn’t be trusted to give an accurate account of biblical regions. That would be downright silly. I mean if it can’t tell the difference between something billions over years old and thousands of years old, it shouldn’t be trusted at all. I mean, if I told you I was good at measuring things, and also told you that the distance between Los Angeles and New York was .2 millimetres, would you trust me to measure wood for your new cabinets?

 

[dessert]

I thought an intersesting fact I saw on TV was about the Jews.

God made gold right? It is a fact of nature. He designed something so beautiful.
But it is soft and doesn’t get real hard.

Well when they had uncovered all the bones from the hollacost, the graves and what they could find, alot of times only fragments.

They analyzed the gold that was not confiscated from the remains and found gold chuncks. They discovered that the gold had traces of a material that was used in fillings from dentists.
Their analysists was that was the only kind of hardener that was used in this manner so they had to be fillings, therefore the proof that the remains had abeen people who were killed by burnning.

So much was burned beyond recognition or thought to be destroyed all evidence but here I.D.(God’s design) of the gold leads to the discovery which is what archaeology is about.
Sorry I haven’t any site for it maybe someone can get one but I seen it on the history channel.