|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/30/2005 : 03:23:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Don't forget, filthy, we are,(or at least I am), not trying to change fundamentalists. There are kids who read those stickers and who have not yet formed opinions. We, (as in skeptics and others of like mind), have been screaming, (rhetorically), what a theory is and is not, with very little progress. It's time to re-evaluate and adjust. Maybe instead of trying to explain why evolutionary theory is not an hypothesis, we should try explaining why creation and ID are.
I'll give you creation as speculation if you give me ID as hypothesis.  Mind you I think ID is a failed hypothesis, but I'm going to start calling it an hypothesis from now on to make a point. In fact, now that I have thought of this, I'm going to start a campaign!!!
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Sad is it not, B'gal? That so many minds refuse to see even the least of the world around them except in the context of religious dogma.
Tell me about it.
Sure, porky no, eh? ID as an hypothesis of sorts will work, at least until abiogenesis is better understood (if and when). The only problem I see is that it is not feasable, nor perhaps even possible, to accumulate evidence either pro or con, nor in any way test it. It is not falsifiable. And no one has ever produced this 'designer' and likely never will.
But, we can have fun making speculations as to the identity of the designer. I myself, propose that the designer was the Celestial Dung Beetle, who rolled the universe into being from a road apple left behind by the Eternal Jackass, and why not? 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2005 : 04:38:34 [Permalink]
|
| I'm still in favour of the invisible pink Unicorn. Especially since I can hear him on the radio sometimes. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2005 : 05:27:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I'm still in favour of the invisible pink Unicorn. Especially since I can hear him on the radio sometimes.
"Mystery is like the unicorn
There but never seen.
It skips around like fairy wings
But never can be caught.
It lives in a world of dreams and myths
Where few are able to enter,
For when it's sought it's never found
But when not is all around."
Amy Anderson
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 04:31:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Sure, porky no, eh?
Are you trying to say por que' no? Hablo Espanol pero no hablo pig latin. Or should I say pig Spanish?
quote:
ID as an hypothesis of sorts will work, at least until abiogenesis is better understood (if and when). The only problem I see is that it is not feasable, nor perhaps even possible, to accumulate evidence either pro or con, nor in any way test it. It is not falsifiable. And no one has ever produced this 'designer' and likely never will.
There's no question there are big problems with the ID hypothesis. I believe the argument doesn't try to prove who the designer is. Only that the random natural interaction of the primordial soup could not have resulted in a beginner organism. And they also hypothesize organs like eyes could not have evolved.
On that second part, the evidence eyes evolved is conclusive. I'm not even going to say overwhelming, it is conclusive. IDers don't bother to look into how eyes evolve so they are just poorly informed.
On the first part, there's some pretty good progress including some experimental research coming close to recreating the steps it takes to go from inorganic molecules known in to exist in nature to RNA molecules capable of self replicating.
So there is no question ID is a failed hypothesis. I still think we are not helping matters when we ourselves use terms like creation theory and ID theory. I'm not saying any particular individual uses such terms. But as an aggregate, evolutionists use the term creation theory quite often. My new idea, as of a day or so ago, is to quit doing that. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 11:12:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe the argument doesn't try to prove who the designer is. Only that the random natural interaction of the primordial soup could not have resulted in a beginner organism. And they also hypothesize organs like eyes could not have evolved.
The inevitable conclusion of the ID argument must be a supernatural designer. They SAY they don't argue for a designer, but they totally reject the idea that any life could arise from random chance. So, if they try to give you the line about aliens or some other designer, the question then is, who designed the aliens? Follow the logic out and the ONLY possible original designer is a supernatural one.
ID is religious creationism.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 13:05:33 [Permalink]
|
| ID is nothing more than an assertion. It doesn't rise to the level of "hypothesis" as its proponents put forth nothing which can be tested which isn't a simple denial of scientific propositions (which is the premise, making the 'hypothesis' circular), and/or a horrific abuse of mathematics (which demonstrates the inability to use proper premises). Granting it (or creationism) the label "hypothesis" does a disservice to all well-formed hypotheses throughout the ages. "Theory" even more so, of course. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 13:14:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I'm still in favour of the invisible pink Unicorn. Especially since I can hear him on the radio sometimes.
The IPU was something I used to use on the long-defunct forums of the Daily Oklahoman to antagonize the rabid Christians there. (One of them, a guy who posted under the name Vic Eagle, was so much like our own dear verlch that for awhile I thought they were the same person-- indeed, I'm still not convinced that they aren't.)
However, I now read that neither I, nor likely any of the atheists who posted there, came up with the IPU.
Still, Mab bringing him up makes me smile... |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/01/2005 13:20:53 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 13:55:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ID is religious creationism.
Well I think we here all know that. But we are dealing with some non-religious people who think ID and creation are supported by some evidence. And explaining over and over that theory in science doesn't mean it isn't yet 'proved' for all practical purposes. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 14:21:00 [Permalink]
|
Interesting google search results:
creation theory
creation hypothesis
creation speculation
ID theory
ID hypothesis
ID speculation
Apparently there is agreement on the speculation label. I shall defer to those more knowledgeable in science that this is the correct term.
But, are we trying to communicate with the scientific community or the lay community? I will continue to use hypothesis as I think it emphasizes 'theory' and 'proved' are not incompatible and distinguishes evolution from the religious non-contenders.
In other words, the correct scientific language isn't being used by those with the religious agenda nor the guy on the street. The science community already knows theory doesn't equate with uncertainty. If you call creation and ID speculation, the message will be rationalized as closed minded scientists dismissing the ideas, which is correct, but won't open any minds as to the misuse of the term theory nor the false claims of evidence for ID and C. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 14:53:32 [Permalink]
|
H hypothesis must have two qualities. You must be able to formulate a null, and you must be able to TEST it.
Without that, and the "hypothesis" of ID does neither, you are left with only speculations.
Go back a little in this folder and read the thread by JerryB. He blasted us with all the major arguments for ID, so you can get a good idea of what these guys are really trying to sell.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 15:05:42 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I'm easy to get along with. Using language that everybody understands: pile o' crap until proven otherwise, pourqui passed?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/01/2005 16:14:28 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 16:37:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude wrote:
The inevitable conclusion of the ID argument must be a supernatural designer.
From what I've seen, the supernatural designer is more a basic assumption underlying the theory / hypothesis / pile o' crap (pick whatever term you prefer) than a conclusion. A conclusion is based on evidence and reason, both of which ID sorely lacks.
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 18:05:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
From what I've seen, the supernatural designer is more a basic assumption underlying the theory / hypothesis / pile o' crap (pick whatever term you prefer) than a conclusion. A conclusion is based on evidence and reason, both of which ID sorely lacks.
There are two types of predictions made by theories. The enumerated predictions (things specifically stated) and the implied (things which are a result of the enumerated).
If you state that life was designed and that life cannot arise from non-life due only to chance and the normal operation of physical laws, then the implication is that all life must be designed. Since the "aliens" who are so casually tossed out as a possible culprit for the "design" of life on earth must also have been designed, and their designer also designed (etc) then the only conclusion is that the original designer is a supernatural one.
This is why ID, as it is presented, is religious creationism. Don't think that the people who are advocates of ID aren't aware of this.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 22:44:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
From what I've seen, the supernatural designer is more a basic assumption underlying the theory / hypothesis / pile o' crap (pick whatever term you prefer) than a conclusion. A conclusion is based on evidence and reason, both of which ID sorely lacks.
There are two types of predictions made by theories. The enumerated predictions (things specifically stated) and the implied (things which are a result of the enumerated).
If you state that life was designed and that life cannot arise from non-life due only to chance and the normal operation of physical laws, then the implication is that all life must be designed. Since the "aliens" who are so casually tossed out as a possible culprit for the "design" of life on earth must also have been designed, and their designer also designed (etc) then the only conclusion is that the original designer is a supernatural one.
This is why ID, as it is presented, is religious creationism. Don't think that the people who are advocates of ID aren't aware of this.
I can see an option for ID (which I don't believe in) that would eliminate the need for a supernatural designer.
These things would have to be true:
1) The universe, made up of a series of big bangs each of which look and act like the current universe we are in.
2) We are the last in a line extending infinitely into the past of aliens who design the dominant intelligent life form of the next big bang universe.
3) At the death of a universe, before the big bang that brings the birth of the next universe, the dominant intelligent life form uses their technology and energy to shape the next universe.
4) The line which represents the timeline of the universe extends infinitely into both directions.
I think that leaves the room to have no supernatural designer at all. |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 23:17:48 [Permalink]
|
Isaiah, what you are suggesting is a supernatural creator.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
