Re: Defending Intelligent Design (long)

DeadRat wrote...

>>>This isn't a bias. It's a methodological limitation. The
>>>reason for it isn't historical; it's empirical. Scientific
>>>methods are not equipped to deal with the supernatural.

Thought Provoker wrote...
>> Was Aristotle's teleological analysis not science?

Richard Forrest wrote...
>No

>> Was the "pagan" practices of Theon and his daughter,
>> Hypatia, not science?

>No

>> The existence of Black Holes was determined through
>> deductive means and accepted as sound science long
>> before any empirical evidence could be found.
>
>Yes, because the hypotheses which could be tested
>

The point was, it was accepted before evidence could be found.

>> Does String Theory fall under the rigorous definition
>> of a scientific theory, yet?

>Yes, because it makes predicitons which can be tested

It does?

And why is it a "Theory" instead of a "Hypothosis" if it hasn't been
tested yet?


>> We may have strict definitions for science, but they
>> change and we allow exceptions.
>
>Your examples have not demonstrated this.

Unfortunately, I have gotten myself confused on the double negatives.

I am not sure whether you agree or disagree that Aristotle's
teleological analysis is science.

If you agree it is science, then, I suggest, Intelligent Design could
be included in that definition.

If you think it is not science, then that is a case of something that
was once called "science" is no longer science.

The same goes with the pagans in the Library of Alexandria.

>> Currently, we are
>> biased about making exceptions to things that sound
>> like religious arguments.

>No, we are biased against assertions which cannot possibly be falsified

There is an assertion the Black Holes can "die".

How is that falsifiable?

<snip>
>> "Extra-dimensional", "extra-universal" and "supernatural"
>> are all words I used to try to convey a thought.

>Your thoughts seem so confused it is hard to work your what
>you are saying. Each of those words carries a different meaning.

They all relate to something we would have a very difficult time
understanding.

Would it be better if I called it
"something-that-will-never-be-understood-within-the-forseeable-future"


>> I realize if something effects us, it ceases to match any
>> of the above terms.

>So it can be investigated using the tools of science.

Maybe, someday, but unlikely anytime soon.


<snip>
>> Between Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Hawkin's
>> Black Hole radiation, Modern Science is ready to accept
>> that something can, indeed, be created from nothing.
>
>Quite so. But this is based hypotheses which are of
>predictive value and can therefore be tested against the evidence.

Intelligent Design predicts that we can find biological evidence
of a creator.

You can question the value, but it can be tested as well as some
of the other scientific hypotheses we have been discussing.


<snip>
>> I like your analogy, and it makes sense for a lot of
>> other issues in the ID/Evolution debate. However, the
>> issue of "What came before the Big Bang?" may be an
>> exception. It may be truly unknowable.
>
>Your claim to have an understanding of the physics involved
>will tell you that the question is meaningless. There was
>no "before". Space and time originated with the big bang.

As I indicated in my original post. It would have to be outside
our space-time continuum, i.e. "supernatural".

However, I thank you for stating the obvious. We probably can't
understand the idea of "before the Big Bang" any more than a two
dimensional creature could understand up and down.

Does the fact that it is unknown mean it is unknowable?

I grant you that it is unlikely that we will be able to solve
this in the forseeable future. Maybe, someday, they will be a
special field of study called "extra-universal".

<snip>
>>It is understandable, and logical that these organizations
>>would actively resist the fraudulent use of their discipline.
>
>Which is why scientific organisations are firmly opposed to ID

You and I agree on this point. I am not sure Deadrat does.


>> That is what they are doing, IMO. But as an old Engineering
>> Profession use to say "You risk throwing the baby out with
>> the bath water" when you do things like that.
>
>What baby? There is no evidence for ID, and no science behind
>the concept. Astrology has a better claim to be science than
>ID because it does at least make some sort of predictions.

Ok, so it is an ugly, unwanted baby.

<snip>
>> Fair enough, but how does anyone ever get past the
>> mantra "just because it is unknown, doesn't mean it
>> is unknowable"?
>
>Because to do so would be to abandon science.
>Why should we?

Would it require an abandonment of science to claim that
it is unknowable for the forseeable future?

<snip>

>>A belief in the existence of Black Holes was acceptable
>>inside labs for decades. Belief in 10 or 11 dimensions
>>of reality is ok now (except by those who still believe
>>in the Bosonic String Theory where 26 dimensions is the rule).
>
>>Why some beliefs and not others?

>Because those are not beliefs in the sense of religious belief,
>but predictions of the theories which can be tested against
>the evidence.

Intelligent Design proponents believe they can find evidence
of an intelligent creator.

SETI proponents believe they can find evidence of
extraterrestrial life.

Is one science and the other isn't?


>> Are we fooling ourselves by pretending we are constrained
>> by rules developed before advanced mathematics and
>> computer modeling?
>
>Who is pretending such a thing?

Scientists didn't wait for actual physical evidence of
Black Holes before presuming they existed. The math
and the computer models were solid. They used their
"existence" as foundation for more hypotheses long
before empirical evidence was found.

Constraint in this area was a pretense at best.

At the rate String Theories are being accepted, we
won't even have pretense. Empirical testing will
become as quaint as the slide rule.

>> More to the point, are we only constraining ourselves so
>> we can exclude certain areas of study?
>
>No, but unless a phenomenon can be observed and measured
>we have no way of studying it.

Tell that to the string theorists. When is the last time you
observed and measure something in 10th dimensional Hilbert space?


>> There you go with absolutes again. What is the supporting
>> evidence of the Superstring Theory?

>It makes predictions which can be tested, and provides an
>consitent and coherent model of the behaviour of matter and energy.

What would those Superstring Theory predictions be?

I suggest the state of Theory is more of a hypothesis where a
lot of people have a belief that it will eventually result in
something that has predictive value.

It's one of those beliefs the established science community
isn't biased against.

<snip>
>> Many (myself included) feel that
>> exploring the possibility of the supernatural would end up
>> wasting a lot of valuable resources just because it would
>> be popular to some in power who don't understand science.
>> Otherwise, we would just let ID proponents beg for funding
>> like everyone else and present papers that would document
>> their progress (or lack thereof).
>
>ID proponents have rather better funding than many research
>scientists, especially those in my field of vertebrate
>palaeontology. The fact that they have done no research,
>failed to produce any papers for scientific or academic
>journals, and continue to regurgitate utterly refuted
>assertions shows that it is or no scientific value.

I sympathize with your position. But from the sounds of it
you wouldn't even let them in the labs, much less publish
papers (even to have them shot down).

<snip>

Provoking Thought

Disclaimer: I am earnestly trying to present arguments for
a position I do not endorse. I am doing this in an attempt
to provoke meaningful discussions on the topic. If anyone
feels I am misrepresenting this position, please step up and
add to and/or modify my arguments.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... If it can be shown that evolution *cannot* ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... in science and rarely in religion. ... evidence may always change the explanation. ... No it could be included in science class. ... No, Calvin ball is an endeavour without rules, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... > "I am certainly well aware of the advances of science. ... The question is - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... > design and creationism, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Dawkins for president
    ... ergo your conception of intelligence ... That's all science is. ... A random decision is no evidence of intelligence. ... need to do is enumerate specific, testable predictions about ways your ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... Your claim that Romans talks about modern evolution is one. ... The writers of the Bible had no idea about that evidence, and I don't expect them to have anticipated it. ... Ray, I've explained many times why natural evolution means nothing of the sort. ... The writers of the Bible knew nothing about science, the scientific method, or how life works. ...
    (talk.origins)