Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135631978.512156.199300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > On 2005-12-26, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Deadrat wrote:
> > >> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >> news:1135473070.598884.57870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>

>
> > You say it is testable. How can you make that claim without providing
> > a test?
>
> Even if it was not science, the Separation laws do not prohibit mixing
> of science and philosophy. I said this already, but your smart brain
> keeps forgetting.

In Dover, at least, separation requires that ID not be represented as
science. If you don't understand why *your* ID doesn't get special
dispensation, you need to read the Dover decision. It is perfectly fine
to teach ID in philosophy class; it is perfectly fine to dismiss it as
inapplicable philosophy in science class.

<snip>

> > >> > > > since Seperation laws don't interfere with the mixing of say
> > >> > > > philosophy and science, as long as religion is not present. And, your
> > >> > > > case for my version being "religion" is by nebulous association,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The overwhelming major of IDers are strongly fundamentalist and
> > >> > > strongly committed to religion.
> > >> >
> > >> > So? That's their problem.
> > >>
> > >> And they just poisoned your well.
> > >
> > > Perhaps. Humans are easily swayed by emotions and associations.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that Judge Jones acted emotionally in his ruling?
>
> Probably.

I'm afraid that that won't do. Have your read the ruling? If not,
please refrain from making igorant comments about it.

> > Perhaps you should try making that argument in court.
> >
> > >> > > I am well aware that there is no
> > >> > > necessary logical relationship between ID and religion but there is a
> > >> > > strong demonstrable sociological relationship and that is what the
> > >> > > judge in Dover documented.
> > >> >
> > >> > Well, it is a stupid metric.
> > >>
> > >> Chalk up first amendment law to the list of things you don't know.
> > >
> > > It is the courts that interpretret "seperation of church and state".
> > > There are other ways to interpret the same thing than what they have
> > > done.
> >
> > Yes, but they generally don't count. You can claim the first amendment
> > gives you the right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, causing a
> > stampede, but you'll find that your claim doesn't hold much water with
> > the courts.
>
> Crappy analogy. ID doesn't start fires, just insults.

Don't go all literal minded on us. You claim that there are "other ways to
intepret" the law. I'm sure there are, but they don't count any more than
say, a spurious interpretation of free speech law.

>
>
> > >> > The whole
> > >> > suppoter motivation thing is illogical. An idea does not become more or
> > >> > less scientific because of what supporters do.
> > >>
> > >> Try to pay attention. This is important. Supporter motivation has
> > >> nothing to do with the law. It's legislator motivation. One of the
> > >> rules for disallowing religious laws (or policies) is purpose. A law
> > >> may not have a religious purpose.
> > >
> > > Sounds like motivation to me. Ideas don't sing and dance and don't wear
> > > bluejeans. ID as printed on paper has no brain and no conscience.
> >
> > The courts have ruled otherwise, because in fact, it was transparent
> > that ID served no secular purpose, and that it's principle purpose
> > was to advance certain religious ideas.
>
> Ideas don't think. You idiots are anthropomorphising words like kids
> drawing elephants with smiles.

But ideas, *as implemented in laws and policies* have purpose and effect.
Or don't you agree?

<snip>

> > > 1. I propose criticising ID for being hard to test.
> >
> > Since you haven't told us what ID actually predicts (and, in fact, better
> > liars than you like Behe and Dembski haven't either) it's impossible to
> > test. I could try to get my idea that we are all brains in vats taught
> > in science, but seeing as it isn't actually testable either, perhaps we
> > shouldn't waste time in science class considering it.
>
> By the same reasoning, SETI is not science.

People have told you why it is science. What don't you agree with?
Why do you think that SETI isn't science?

> But you won't commit. You
> won't seperate the two with logic, yet classify them differently. You
> are apparently not smart enough to do that.
>
> >
<snip>

> >
> > > 3. I propose DNA pattern analysis as a potential test. Thus, it is
> > > testable. (Maybe not a great test, but that is not what is needed to
> > > qualify under CQ.)
> >
> > Brannigan: "Yes, comets. The icebergs of the sky. By jackknifing
> > from one to the next at breakneck speed, we might just get some
> > kinda gravity boost. Or something."
> >
> > Kif: *sigh*
> >
> > You haven't proposed a test at all. What patterns might be indicative
> > of design? SETI researchers have told you what patterns they think
> > might be indicative of intelligent origin, why can't you?
>
> MIGHT? I gave a list of MIGHTs. "Mights" are easy. Or did you forget
> that also?

The "might" here isn't part of the SETI program. They're looking for certain
signals. They can tell us when they find them.

<snip>

Deadrat

> > Mark
>
> -T-
>

.

Loading