Re: Defending Intelligent Design (long)
- From: "Deadrat" <ephemera1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:09:53 GMT
"Thought Provoker" <dfcord@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1130721312.343185.55070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> DeadRat wrote...
>
<snip>
>
> There is an assertion the Black Holes can "die".
>
> How is that falsifiable?
That is, can disappear in time t, which is related to the mass M
of the black hole. Well, we find a black hole, and check the equation
t = 5120*pi*G^2*M^3/((h/2*pi)*c^4)
<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.
No, IDiocy *states* that we can find such evidence. They provide
no well-defined, testable way to confirm this.
>
> You can question the value, but it can be tested as well as some
> of the other scientific hypotheses we have been discussing.
It's true that something that cannot be tested in principle has the
same results as something that can be so tested but hasn't. Do
you think that matters?
> <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".
Things that are outside our four-dimensional space-time continuum
may be detectable. If so they are subject to scientific investigation;
if not, then not.
<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.
The ID movement has tried to push the notion that there are
actually two debates -- an intellectual debate within the science
community and a political debate focused (in the US) on public
pedagogy. The rallying cry for both is "teach the controversy."
The fact is that there is no scientific controversy. Science has dispensed
with ID, starting with Lyell and Darwin and proceeding through
modern genetics, plate tectonics, and paleontology. Of course,
back in the day, ID was called by its synonym, Biblical creationism.
In other words, religious belief. In spite of its claims, ID has produced
no scientific way to determine whether an Intelligent Designer (wink,wink)
has intervened. Scientific organizations are firmly opposed to ID because
it's not science.
Scientific and civic organizations in the US are opposed to ID as the
political movement that it is. A movement that wishes to breach the
separation of church and state.
> 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?
There is no reason to believe that life couldn't have originated
elsewhere. After all, it did so here. There is no reason to believe
that such life couldn't develop the ability to communicate. It did
here. In theory, it should be possible to find evidence of such
communication. If it exists and if it could communicate with us.
IDiots cannot even define design, let alone show us how to
determine that it's there.
> >> 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.
Constraint against what? Theorizing? Suggesting things to
look for? Mendeleev had his table, and he predicted new
elements and their properties. He didn't have QED to tell
him why his table worked. Wasn't he doing chemistry?
> At the rate String Theories are being accepted, we
> won't even have pretense. Empirical testing will
> become as quaint as the slide rule.
String theory isn't being accepted. It's a fad for investigation.
But no one is saying there's actual evidence.
> >> 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?
Isotopic spin. (Well, to be fair *I* haven't measured it.)
>
>
> >> 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.
Fine. And ID is a hypothesis where nobody has a belief that
it will eventually result in something with predictive value. Scientists
know it's not science, and IDiots only want their religion taught in
US public schools.
>
> 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).
Who's stopping them? Behe is a tenured professor.
Where's his work? Why doesn't he spend as much time
working on science as he does talking to church groups.
Deadrat
>
> <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.
>
.
- References:
- Re: Defending Intelligent Design (long)
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Defending Intelligent Design (long)
- From: Thought Provoker
- Re: Defending Intelligent Design (long)
- Prev by Date: Re: A Few Simple Questions for a Simple Mind
- Next by Date: Re: Discovery Institute & Dover
- Previous by thread: Re: Defending Intelligent Design (long)
- Next by thread: Re: Defending Intelligent Design (long)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
