R
reggieM
Guest
Interesting. If ID is not science, then attempted refutations of ID are not scientific.
Additionally, the claim that “ID is not science” is not science either.
- Status
Additionally, the claim that “ID is not science” is not science either.
R
rossum
Guest
Learn some cosmology please. Explaining the origin of matter is precisely what cosmology does.
For the purposes of abiogenesis and evolution I do not need to explain the origin of matter; all I need to show is that matter was present at the required times. Astronomical and earth based observations show that matter was present 4.5 billion years ago when the earth initially formed. They also show that matter was present 3.5 billion years ago when life originated. Given that matter already existed it is perfectly reasoanble to allow the existence of matter during the time of abiogenesis and subsequent evolution. Cosmology is a separate discussion and covers a time long before the start of abiogenesis.
That is what I said, I told you to look to history or to human psychology to explain them. Science does not explain everything; as a Buddhist how could I believe otherwise? What we are arguing about is not what science can and cannot explain, but whether ID is valid as science. Currently it is not.
Your argument seems to be bacause theory A cannot explain phenomemon X then theory B must be correct. That is a false logic: spherical earthism cannot explain the origin of the matter from which the earth is made, therefore flat earthism must be correct.
Science has no problems with automobiles and planes being intelligently designed because we can observe the intelligent designers. ID has no observations of its proposed designers.
Evidence please. If you want your designer to be taught in science classes then you need scientific evidence to support your statements about the designer. What you say may be commonplace in philosophy class or theology class, but it is insufficient for a science class. The rules of science are not the same as the rules of philosophy or theology.
ID is not a plausible scientific theory, and you have produced no evidence to show thaat it is. Philosophical or theological arguments and opinions alone are insufficient. You need to have scientific data to back them up. So far ID has none.
This is not your fault, it is the fault of the Discovery Institute and other ID propagandists. They claim that ID deserves a place in science classes but have failed to provide you with any ammunition to support your case. I have many thousands of scientific papers providing me with data to support evolution, the DI has given you nothing.
rossum
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Michaelo & rossum
Neither of you has answered this objection:
How on earth would you or anyone else know those early earth conditions that were supposed to be replicated in the laboratory? That’s science? Sounds darned speculative to me!
Still waiting for an answer! :yup:
Neither of you has answered this objection:
How on earth would you or anyone else know those early earth conditions that were supposed to be replicated in the laboratory? That’s science? Sounds darned speculative to me!
Still waiting for an answer! :yup:
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
Every Christmas one of my local churches has a crib outside. In that crib is an intelligently designed model of God. By your argument God is also intelligently designed.
You’re reaching for a false analogy. If I believe that God designed me, how can I believe that I designed God? You’re the one who is arguing that it is theoretically possible that the doll in the manger appeared accidentally, even though someone clearly designed it.
What I can believe is that God designed me to understand some measure of His power and love that appeared first in the manger and last on the cross. :bible1:
Every Christmas one of my local churches has a crib outside. In that crib is an intelligently designed model of God. By your argument God is also intelligently designed.
You’re reaching for a false analogy. If I believe that God designed me, how can I believe that I designed God? You’re the one who is arguing that it is theoretically possible that the doll in the manger appeared accidentally, even though someone clearly designed it.
What I can believe is that God designed me to understand some measure of His power and love that appeared first in the manger and last on the cross. :bible1:
L
liquidpele
Guest
Michaelo & rossum,
You might consider following my lead and abandoning this thread, as you are now being asked questions a child in middle school could look up. Not once is there a concession on their side, not once is there a thankful response for new information given. I don’t think they are interested in learning anything regarding this particular topic.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
liquidpele
*You might consider following my lead and abandoning this thread, as you are now being asked questions a child in middle school could look up. Not once is there a concession on their side, not once is there a thankful response for new information given. I don’t think they are interested in learning anything regarding this particular topic. *
Abandoning the thread because you have no answer to my question?
you are now being asked questions a child in middle school could look up
Doubtful! This is the usual atheist attack, that people of faith have no intelligence. Dawkins has made that charge numerous times, and apparently you are following his lead.
*You might consider following my lead and abandoning this thread, as you are now being asked questions a child in middle school could look up. Not once is there a concession on their side, not once is there a thankful response for new information given. I don’t think they are interested in learning anything regarding this particular topic. *
Abandoning the thread because you have no answer to my question?
you are now being asked questions a child in middle school could look up
Doubtful! This is the usual atheist attack, that people of faith have no intelligence. Dawkins has made that charge numerous times, and apparently you are following his lead.
R
rossum
Guest
By observation. Certain minerals can only be formed in the absence of free oxygen. Since we find those minerals in early rocks and not in later rocks, we know that free oxygen was not present on the early earth. Similar observations let us know something of the chemistry of the early atmosphere and the early oceans.
Yes, it is science. For an example of the kind of work that is done in this area have a look at the Oxygen Catastrophe. When science makes a statement about something, then it is almost always the case that there are scientific observations or measurements to back up the statement. This is just one such example. When I searched on “early atmosphere” in Google scholar I got about 1,200,000 hits, “early oceans” got me about 617,000 hits. Just as forensic science can tell us what happened before the police arrived, so ordinary sceince can tell us what happened before we arrived.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
How so? I was responding to your post #582 in this thread: “And don’t you get tired of waiting for evidence that’s never conclusive, even though when it hints at something, the something it hints at was always intelligently designed by the experimenters?” I agreed that experimental models are intelligently designed by scientists. That does not mean that what they are modelling was itself intelligently designed. I used the crib as an obvious example of an intelligently designed model of something that was not intelligently designed. It is a relevant analogy; you cannot jump from “this model of X was designed” to “X was designed”.rossum:
You’re reaching for a false analogy.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Having been at this for rather too many years, I know that I am almost never going to convince those I am directly talking to, see Morton’s Demon. My hope is that the lurkers reading this will notice the contrast between the two sides. One side generally answers questions, provides references and can back up their arguments with facts. The other side rarely answers question, relies on assertions rather than facts and can provide little beyond personal opinion in support of their views. To me the contrast is obvious.
By withdrawing I would not be able to show up those differences. I know that it is tedious repeatedly answering the same PRATTs and repeating stuff from school level science but I feel that it is worthwhile in the longer term.
rossum
L
liquidpele
Guest
That is very noble, and most of all patient, of you
M
Michaelo
Guest
Rossum, well done 
Charlemagne II and tonyrey,
In accordance with the topic of this thread, both of you are obligated to respond to questions that rossum, myself, and others have regarding its legitimacy. As advocates of ID, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate its merits in a scientific manner–positive evidence! Both your unwillingness to subject ID to the scrutiny that it deserves and your constant digressions that divert attention away from the actual topic reflect poorly on your “theory.”
Charlemagne II and tonyrey,
In accordance with the topic of this thread, both of you are obligated to respond to questions that rossum, myself, and others have regarding its legitimacy. As advocates of ID, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate its merits in a scientific manner–positive evidence! Both your unwillingness to subject ID to the scrutiny that it deserves and your constant digressions that divert attention away from the actual topic reflect poorly on your “theory.”
T
tonyrey
Guest
You do need to explain the origin of matter if you are attacking Design because the creation of matter is implicit in the Design explanation. To believe the Designer was working with preexisting material is a crude interpretation. Design explains not only rationality, personality, truth, goodness, freedom, purpose and love but also the existence of material and immaterial reality.
We are discussing whether intelligent Design is a plausible theory, not necessarily scientific in every aspect.
No. My argument is that because **A **is an adequate explanation and non-A is not, then A is superior to non-A.
Buddhism has no observations of its proposed immaterial elements.
No. Science should be taught in its proper context. In science classes teachers should explain the inadequacies of the evolution by Chance theory and students should be allowed to discuss the matter. If teachers do not refer to the Design explanation they are misrepresenting the scope of science and presenting a distorted view of human beings as “naked apes”.
I have pointed out several times that the scientific data exists within your own mind. Is psychology a science or not? Are you denying that your thoughts and intentions are subject to scientific observation, investigation and experiment?
To sum up the points you have omitted:
Design is the only adequate explanation of truth, goodness, beauty, personality, consciousness, morality, cosmic justice, human rights, free will, purpose and love. Non-Design, i.e. evolution by Chance explains none of these facts, nor does it explain nirodha and nirvana.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Michaelo
*As advocates of ID, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate its merits in a scientific manner–positive evidence! Both your unwillingness to subject ID to the scrutiny that it deserves and your constant digressions that divert attention away from the actual topic reflect poorly on your “theory.” *
Likewise, as advocates of abiogensis by accident the burden is on you to prove your own theory … which you have not. You have pointed to experiments that prove nothing of the sort … though you would have us believe that you are in the process of creating life in the laboratory, and as though you were able to simulate the exact conditions of earth and climate that prevailed several billions of years ago. Even the Miller-Urey experiment screwed up that one.
*Does it never occur to you *that all this is conjecture and nowhere near the real science that you insist must be generated by the ID advocates?
At least the ID advocates have mathematics on their side. Even atheists like Steven Weinberg have calculated that if the energy of the big bang were different by one part out of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, it would be impossible for life to exist anywhere in the universe. The universe was fine-tuned for life right from the start. That fine tuning continues with abiogenesis. How do you suppose it was that the first living cell contained within itself sufficient potential for producing a Mozart, a Shakespeare, or an Einstein? This drive toward higher and higher complexity, this instinct to one day discover truth and beauty and goodness, it was programmed right from the start in that first living cell, not to mention that first burst of cosmic energy in the Big Bang.
Even Dawkins, in a weak moment, admitted that life gives the appearance of being designed!
*As advocates of ID, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate its merits in a scientific manner–positive evidence! Both your unwillingness to subject ID to the scrutiny that it deserves and your constant digressions that divert attention away from the actual topic reflect poorly on your “theory.” *
Likewise, as advocates of abiogensis by accident the burden is on you to prove your own theory … which you have not. You have pointed to experiments that prove nothing of the sort … though you would have us believe that you are in the process of creating life in the laboratory, and as though you were able to simulate the exact conditions of earth and climate that prevailed several billions of years ago. Even the Miller-Urey experiment screwed up that one.
*Does it never occur to you *that all this is conjecture and nowhere near the real science that you insist must be generated by the ID advocates?
At least the ID advocates have mathematics on their side. Even atheists like Steven Weinberg have calculated that if the energy of the big bang were different by one part out of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, it would be impossible for life to exist anywhere in the universe. The universe was fine-tuned for life right from the start. That fine tuning continues with abiogenesis. How do you suppose it was that the first living cell contained within itself sufficient potential for producing a Mozart, a Shakespeare, or an Einstein? This drive toward higher and higher complexity, this instinct to one day discover truth and beauty and goodness, it was programmed right from the start in that first living cell, not to mention that first burst of cosmic energy in the Big Bang.
Even Dawkins, in a weak moment, admitted that life gives the appearance of being designed!
R
rossum
Guest
Newton’s theory of gravity does not explain the origin of matter either. Are you intending to replace the theory of gravity with a theory of Intelligent Falling? Chemistry does not explain the origin of matter, do you reject chemistry? A great deal of science does not explain the origin of matter. Abiogenesis gets us from non-living chemicals to a living organism. Evolution gets us from a single species to many species. Anything outside of that is another part of science.
In this thread I have been careful to say that ID is not a plausible scientific theory. I have said nothing of its plausibility as either theology or philosophy. It is not a plausible scientific theory and should not be taught in science classes. To quote Philip Johnson:I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove… No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006)
Unlike ID, Buddhism is not lobbying to be taught in science classes. It is content to remain in comparative religion or philosophy classes.
There is not such thing as a theory of “evolution by chance”. The scientific theory of evolution includes non-chance elements. Natural selection is not a chance process.
No. This whole discussion has shown that ID is not science, so by excluding it from science classes nothing is being omitted from the scope of science. I agree that some theology is being omitted from science classes, but I do not see that as a big problem. Theology does not have a legitimate place in the science classroom.
ID is not a plausible scientific theory.
rossum
M
Michaelo
Guest
Absolutely not. This thread concerns ID, and you have used abiogenesis as a red herring to divert attention away from ID’s inadequacies.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Michaelo
*Absolutely not. This thread concerns ID, and you have used abiogenesis as a red herring to divert attention away from ID’s inadequacies. *
On the contrary, you are so poorly familiar with ID that you do not realize its central focus is abiogenesis, which is the soft underbelly of evolution. Nowhere in this thread have I repudiated evolution as a process. What I have argued is that evolution had to follow abiogenesis, and that abiogenesis is not possible without ID. If you go back to the early part of the thread, you will see that abiogenesis quickly became the focus for ID, as it was for Michael Behe and William Dembski, two of the chief proponents for ID.
Part of the argument for ID is that it is the only alternate explanation to accidental abiogenesis, an event that has never been demonstrated in the laboratory to have been possible. Your constant presumption that accidental abiogenesis has been proven is patently absurd.
Show me where life has been created in a laboratory. It should be intensely significant for you that you can’t, and that all such attempts (even those intelligently designed) have failed miserably.
*Absolutely not. This thread concerns ID, and you have used abiogenesis as a red herring to divert attention away from ID’s inadequacies. *
On the contrary, you are so poorly familiar with ID that you do not realize its central focus is abiogenesis, which is the soft underbelly of evolution. Nowhere in this thread have I repudiated evolution as a process. What I have argued is that evolution had to follow abiogenesis, and that abiogenesis is not possible without ID. If you go back to the early part of the thread, you will see that abiogenesis quickly became the focus for ID, as it was for Michael Behe and William Dembski, two of the chief proponents for ID.
Part of the argument for ID is that it is the only alternate explanation to accidental abiogenesis, an event that has never been demonstrated in the laboratory to have been possible. Your constant presumption that accidental abiogenesis has been proven is patently absurd.
Show me where life has been created in a laboratory. It should be intensely significant for you that you can’t, and that all such attempts (even those intelligently designed) have failed miserably.
M
Michaelo
Guest
But you have never demonstrated why abiogenesis requires ID. As I said a few pages back, discrediting chemical evolution’s explanation for the origin of life does not simultaneously bolster ID.
Why is it the only alternative? More false dichotomy…
I continue to ask for scientifically positive evidence to help you avoid this serious logical fallacy.
R
rossum
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Michaelo
Why is it the only alternative? More false dichotomy…
What’s another possibility? Can’t think of one, can you, because there isn’t one?
rossum
Show me where life has been created in an ID laboratory.
Do the math. Then do the laboratory.
When the Big Bang theory first developed, it was nothing but mathematics. There was no telescope, no lab, nothing but math. If they had ignored the math, as Einstein did at first, they would have cancelled out the contribution of mathematics to this great discovery, a cancellation that was happily avoided by LeMaitre’s correction of Einstein’s math.
Mathematics is doing for intelligent design what it cannot possibly do for accidental abiogenesis. The lab done nothing for abiogenesis. So if you have the math, and that’s all you have, then you go with your best shot.
Why is it the only alternative? More false dichotomy…
What’s another possibility? Can’t think of one, can you, because there isn’t one?
rossum
Show me where life has been created in an ID laboratory.
Do the math. Then do the laboratory.
When the Big Bang theory first developed, it was nothing but mathematics. There was no telescope, no lab, nothing but math. If they had ignored the math, as Einstein did at first, they would have cancelled out the contribution of mathematics to this great discovery, a cancellation that was happily avoided by LeMaitre’s correction of Einstein’s math.
Mathematics is doing for intelligent design what it cannot possibly do for accidental abiogenesis. The lab done nothing for abiogenesis. So if you have the math, and that’s all you have, then you go with your best shot.
M
Michaelo
Guest
The burden of proof is on you to show that it is the only alternative because you made the claim. This situation is equivalent to you saying that unicorns exist, and when I challenge your claim, you demand that I am responsible for showing that they don’t exist.
Even if I were unable to conceive of another explanation, this absolutely does not mean that one doesn’t exist. Personal incredulity is another fallacy that has unfortunately pervaded this debate.
- Status