Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George BushDrinking?

Duane Bozarth wrote: 
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" 

...

But how did that intelligent agent implement the design is the
problem...


We don't know how things would have happened naturally and
if we can't understand how it could have happened supernaturally
we have a problem? A bias is like a backpack, you can't see your own.


There are pretty good theories of how some things happened naturally and
continuing development of areas for which it isn't certain---that's what
science is about.


Science is clueless about origins and guesswork does abound. Why are
wild theories more impressive to you than a creator?


It's not about being "impressed" or not, it's about finding a rational,
natural causation that works in all times and places to explain what we
see. 


There's no rational or natural explanation for life and the universe
so I don't see anything irrational about design by intent.


>That there might have been a creator who set something in motion 
is one philosphical choice one can make, but it is truly immaterial
after that point.



It's material to the individual but not ID per se.



It doesn't make a whit of difference in the evolution
of the universe since.  If that isn't the assertion, then you have the
supernatural intervention again and the conclusion that there is no way
to ever understand the actual universe.



You've made that charge a number of times and ignore my
repeated point that many scientists are IDers and take their fields
seriously. You have a mind block going on.


That you bring in some supernatural agent is simply saying it's
unknowable and there is no point in studying it further


You've said that a number of times now and I've responded that
your assertion isn't true,  I've quoted leading scientists, linking to more,
that did and do study more than you will ever know. At this point you are
deliberately misrepresenting any opposing belief.



No, I'm simply illustrating a fallacy in the argument.  I'll say it yet
again--if there _was/is_ supernatural intervention, then by the
definition of supernatural there is no way to have a natural, scientific
methodology that satisfies the cosmological principle.



Only if you assume a unified theory of everything will be proven
and it disproves any intentional design. That an unscholarly
and close minded approach.


as you simply
say the external agent did it.  There had to have been a mechanism by
which it was done imo is the only bias I have.


No one has argued about there not being a mechanism. 


Then what role does the ID'er play?  If he/she/it is munging about doing
all sorts of things, then the basis for the mechanism must be, to
paraphrase Flip Wilson, "the whoever made me do it".  If not, and there
is a well-defined mechanism that is knowable (whether it is known yet or
not), then there is no need for the ID'er other than this philosophical
choice of prime progenitor.



To paraphrase Donald Rumsfield "we don't know what we don't know".


My whole difficulty in this discussion is that bringing in the
supernatural simply removes the subject from the realm of science
entirely.


Science isn't a set of dogma, it consists of fields of study. "Science"
doesn't include or exclude the supernatural.



Science <does> exclude the supernatural, _by definition_ because if it
is supernatural there is no scienfific basis for the explanation of any
phenomenon that relies on the supernatural--a tautology.



If there's no scientific basis for something that has happened
then it would be unscientific to pretend it didn't.



As I've noted before, if it turns out we can't ever figure it
out,

When would that be? Just before the last human dies?


Whenever...it's a description of the position with respect to how
science will/can advance--either it can continue to do so or it can't: so far, it has been able to continue but there's no guarantee (although
I certainly don't think that will happen). However, from the viewpoint
of requiring a supernatural intervening force to provide the
explanation, it is inevitable that at some point that becomes the only
explanation. 

That's where we are now. There's no scientific explanation
for intelligent designs that we are studying. If science can
prove that the universe and life started and evolved on it's own
it will still need to answer how matter got so smart to give us the
complete picture. If you want to wait for the dawn of civilization
that's fine with me.


then that's the same conclusion it seems to me the ID'ers have
already reached except they gave up the search by accepting the
supernatural, unknowable alternative.


Please name one scientist that gave up on research because
of ID. Maybe this will help you get started, it's a pdf page
that takes about 15 seconds with a dialup ...


See above...it's the end game. 


Hey, where's my link? Did you knock it out of the ballpark?


I'm done...finis.  If you care to answer the question of the role of the
ID'er in all this, fine.


Their role would be to better understand the universe and the
world we live in, just like regular folks.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Mechanical Light
    ... community has instead accepted light theories contradicting the science ... is the "particle wave" of neutrinos just like that sound is the ... anywhere in the universe. ... For example, scientists have found ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is a software engineer?
    ... provide any explanation of why the experiment "works", ... As to whether this is indicative of some correlation between its theoretical concepts and reality at some level, opinions are divided, from those who claim it gives 'strong evidence' that reality is in fact like science says it is, to those who claim it says nothing at all about the real nature of reality, Its only a means of foretelling how that will behave. ... The question is what is a software engineer? ... You should note that this is why computer *scientists* are such an infernal waste of space. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Texas: Board Set to Vote on Challenge to Evolution
    ... Science does the same thing. ... You clearly haven't been around scientists much. ... A pre-Big-Bang universe. ... Bang, you can't just say that there was no "before" and expect to be taken ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Journey from Blind-Faith to Conviction
    ... omnipotent creator of man, life and universe. ... basis of scientific theories explicating the birth of the universe. ... What is the difference in conviction in Science and Islam? ... Scientists will state how every ...
    (soc.culture.african.american)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]
    ... just wild speculations. ... scientists call theories. ... >> science is foreign to you but it still is what science is all about. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading