|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 09/22/2005 : 08:06:11 [Permalink]
|
| I figured "spontaneous" meant the disease disappeared for for reasons unknown (not necessarily by supernatural intervention). |
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. |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 10:22:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I figured "spontaneous" meant the disease disappeared for for reasons unknown (not necessarily by supernatural intervention).
I assumed that since the thread is about perverting science with religous superstition then spontaneous healing referred to god making disease (like a chronically sore hip or back) go away supernaturally. If that's not the case, then I'm a little confused about the point of this sub-thread. "I had chronic pain for a while but then it got better and no one knows why?" Ok . . . . so? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/22/2005 10:23:23 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 12:23:22 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, I view 'spontaneous healing' like, say, 'spontaneous remission' of cancer. We might not know much about how such things occur, but they do. We could call it 'remarkable'. It is remarkable as well that life exists in the first place. Guys like Behe regard the molecular machinery of the cell to be so remarkable that in his estimation it would require an intelligence beyond the mere physical-chemical laws we are aware of. I personally agree with him on that, but however with some modifications.
Now, it is clear to me that science is simply out of its depth to claim that there is no intelligence behind the origin and evolution of life. Science simply doesn't know enough to claim such. So science should dispense with such useless assertions. Such assertions are just that, *until* it can be demonstrated from first principles that mechanistic processes like mutation and natural selection and *sufficient* for life to evolve.
I still vividly recall in my cell biology and genetics classes (in the early 80s) how certain professors would so confidently and superficially describe, say, the transciption process *as if* they had it explained and figured out. My God, they didn't even know about micro RNAs and many other things which are involved in the process, but they knew *enough* to make it sound like they knew. That's lazy, slipshod, propagandist thinking, exactly what the Behe crowd is accused of with its appeal to intelligent design.
In summary, my personal hope is that the ID controversy would bring this to the fore: Unproven assertions of intelligent design are as useless to science as are the unproven assertions that life is an entirely mechanistic process. Just as US military imperialism has naturally produced a counter reaction in the world, so scientific materialism imperialism has produced that which is antithetical to it. The solution is clear to me.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 12:47:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now, it is clear to me that science is simply out of its depth to claim that there is no intelligence behind the origin and evolution of life. Science simply doesn't know enough to claim such. So science should dispense with such useless assertions. Such assertions are just that, *until* it can be demonstrated from first principles that mechanistic processes like mutation and natural selection and *sufficient* for life to evolve.
But you see markie, no responsible scientist makes that claim. A 'greater' intelligence cannot be either proven nor debunked.
Science only deals with evidence in support of or against a given subject. As there is no emperical evidence one way or another for this intelligence, science simply doesn't deal with it.
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 13:06:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
So science should dispense with such useless assertions. Such assertions are just that, *until* it can be demonstrated from first principles that mechanistic processes like mutation and natural selection and *sufficient* for life to evolve.
Aside from what filthy said, science is involved right now in attempting to demonstrate that evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient for life to evolve. What would you have scientists do? Not research anything unless they can prove it on paper first? Science would stop.quote:
I still vividly recall in my cell biology and genetics classes (in the early 80s) how certain professors would so confidently and superficially describe, say, the transciption process *as if* they had it explained and figured out. My God, they didn't even know about micro RNAs and many other things which are involved in the process, but they knew *enough* to make it sound like they knew. That's lazy, slipshod, propagandist thinking, exactly what the Behe crowd is accused of with its appeal to intelligent design.
No, it isn't, unless those same professors of yours are still teaching what they taught 25 years ago. Behe's crowd is still preaching what they preached 25 years ago.
Plus, if they're still teaching, it's likely that they're still offering only a superficial treatment of a subject in low-level classes. The details of these subjects are often only offered in graduate-level courses.quote:
In summary, my personal hope is that the ID controversy would bring this to the fore: Unproven assertions of intelligent design are as useless to science as are the unproven assertions that life is an entirely mechanistic process.
Here, you're just mistaken in what the point of science is. It is in collecting knowledge. Even if abiogenesis is a "pure" science (knowledge for the sake of knowledge) and has no practical value - which I doubt - it's still a science. Intelligent design isn't.quote:
Just as US military imperialism has naturally produced a counter reaction in the world, so scientific materialism imperialism has produced that which is antithetical to it.
Oh, please.  The only people who feel threatened by knowledge are those who have a vested interest in keeping people ignorant. Like the church. Or a tyrant.quote:
The solution is clear to me.
Yes? Don't keep us waiting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 13:12:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Now, it is clear to me that science is simply out of its depth to claim that there is no intelligence behind the origin and evolution of life. Science simply doesn't know enough to claim such. So science should dispense with such useless assertions. Such assertions are just that, *until* it can be demonstrated from first principles that mechanistic processes like mutation and natural selection and *sufficient* for life to evolve.
But you see markie, no responsible scientist makes that claim. A 'greater' intelligence cannot be either proven nor debunked.
Science only deals with evidence in support of or against a given subject. As there is no emperical evidence one way or another for this intelligence, science simply doesn't deal with it.
And just to take that a step further... Since Intelligent Design cannot be falisified it is therefore NOT science. And since it is NOT science, it should not be taught as though it were. The concept of ID belongs in a philosophy or comparative religion class, not in a biology/geology/chemistry/astronomy class.
The danger with ID is not that people will learn and discuss it, but that people will mistake it for accepted science and that it will then influence the direction/conclusions of scientific inquiry and all that that implies for the realm of understanding & practical applications. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/22/2005 13:12:59 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 09:08:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthyBut you see markie, no responsible scientist makes that claim. A 'greater' intelligence cannot be either proven nor debunked.
I agree, responsible science does not claim the universe is purely mechanism.
quote:
Originally posted by filthy Science only deals with evidence in support of or against a given subject. As there is no emperical evidence one way or another for this intelligence, science simply doesn't deal with it.
Is there empirical evidence for the intelligence of man? Of course, and one way to show this is what man has made. Now, the living cell far surpasses the capability of man to create thus far. Thus it is not *unreasonable* to hypothesize a greater intelligence beyond man. So there *is* evidence of sorts, but I will agree with you that it is not evidence that would stand up in a scientific courtroom so to speak.
Mark |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 09:33:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.Aside from what filthy said, science is involved right now in attempting to demonstrate that evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient for life to evolve. What would you have scientists do? Not research anything unless they can prove it on paper first? Science would stop.
Of course, science should always be pressing the envelope for detecting discernable mechanism. That will keep science busy for a long, long while. But that is a far different thing that claiming that everything is purely a result of materialistic mechanism.
quote:
I still vividly recall in my cell biology and genetics classes (in the early 80s) how certain professors would so confidently and superficially describe, say, the transciption process *as if* they had it explained and figured out. My God, they didn't even know about micro RNAs and many other things which are involved in the process, but they knew *enough* to make it sound like they knew. That's lazy, slipshod, propagandist thinking, exactly what the Behe crowd is accused of with its appeal to intelligent design.quote:
No, it isn't, unless those same professors of yours are still teaching what they taught 25 years ago. Behe's crowd is still preaching what they preached 25 years ago.
??? We're not talking about the (very commendable) *adaptability* of science over time, we're talking about the dishonesty of some scientists *now* who want to convey the impression that everything is *just about how we would expect* by entirely mechanistic processes.
quote:
In summary, my personal hope is that the ID controversy would bring this to the fore: Unproven assertions of intelligent design are as useless to science as are the unproven assertions that life is an entirely mechanistic process.quote:
Here, you're just mistaken in what the point of science is. It is in collecting knowledge.
You know that I know what the point of science is. I'm merely saying that some scientists go *beyond* the scope of science by implying it is *all* mechanism, while skeptics look the other way. Yet when a Behe comes along and tries to similarly mix science with a different metaphysical opinion, you cry foul.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.Even if abiogenesis is a "pure" science (knowledge for the sake of knowledge) and has no practical value - which I doubt - it's still a science. Intelligent design isn't.
Hey, I agree!
quote:
Just as US military imperialism has naturally produced a counter reaction in the world, so scientific materialism imperialism has produced that which is antithetical to it.quote:
Oh, please.
Hehe, I thought you'd like that one. The point is, some professors get away with mixing metaphysical belief of pure mechanism in with their science, so why should skeptics be so indignant when another belief attempts to balance the picture?
quote:
The solution is clear to me.quote:
Yes? Don't keep us waiting.
Of course, the solution is to disallow *both* pure-mechanism propaganda and not-pure-mechanism propaganda, or allow both. That's fair play. Neither really concerns the strictly scientific enterprise.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 09:52:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi And just to take that a step further... Since Intelligent Design cannot be falisified it is therefore NOT science. And since it is NOT science, it should not be taught as though it were. The concept of ID belongs in a philosophy or comparative religion class, not in a biology/geology/chemistry/astronomy class.
May I disagree somewhat. Certain propositions of ID *can* be falsified. For instance, if abiogenesis research actually produces a life form, we can *at least* conclude that a *superhuman* intelligence is not *necessary* to formulate life. Also, if a future quantum computer can successfully simulate the evolution of life from one celled organisms to self conscious creatures like man, from mechanistic first principles, then much, very much of ID would have been falsified. It would not falsify that God exists, (as you may be getting at), but it would falisfy particular beliefs regarding how God might work.
Let me conclude by replaying something you said, but replacing Intelligent Design ID theory with it's opposite, Purely Unintelligent Mechanism (PUM) theory.
"Since PUM cannot be falisified it is therefore NOT science. And since it is NOT science, it should not be taught as though it were. The concept of PUM belongs in a philosophy or comparative religion class, not in a biology/geology/chemistry/astronomy class."
Mark
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 10:03:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi And just to take that a step further... Since Intelligent Design cannot be falisified it is therefore NOT science. And since it is NOT science, it should not be taught as though it were. The concept of ID belongs in a philosophy or comparative religion class, not in a biology/geology/chemistry/astronomy class.
May I disagree somewhat. Certain propositions of ID *can* be falsified. For instance, if abiogenesis research actually produces a life form, we can *at least* conclude that a *superhuman* intelligence is not *necessary* to formulate life. Also, if a future quantum computer can successfully simulate the evolution of life from one celled organisms to self conscious creatures like man, from mechanistic first principles, then much, very much of ID would have been falsified. It would not falsify that God exists, (as you may be getting at), but it would falisfy particular beliefs regarding how God might work.
Let me conclude by replaying something you said, but replacing Intelligent Design ID theory with it's opposite, Purely Unintelligent Mechanism (PUM) theory.
"Since PUM cannot be falisified it is therefore NOT science. And since it is NOT science, it should not be taught as though it were. The concept of PUM belongs in a philosophy or comparative religion class, not in a biology/geology/chemistry/astronomy class."
Mark
If by PUM, you mean evolution, then you are wrong. It is testable and falsifiable. It just so happens that observation and experiment have upheld the overall theory of evolution to such a great extent that science accepts it as tantamount to fact. However, I'd like you to show me how you falisfy that a god created all life on earth in all its complexity. What experiment can you conduct to prove that god did not create the universe 6k years ago? No scientific observation made contradicting that point can get past the fact that god is omnipotent and could have set up the universe to appear that old, even though it is only 6k years old. God could also erase all evidence that the universe is a created thing and all evidence that god itself even exists. God could even reach into your mind and make you believe all the trash ID spouts and leave no trace behind that anything at all was done. And none of it is falsifiable at all. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 10:43:11 [Permalink]
|
Markie, in reply to all of your lastest posts, I can say that science doesn't depend on metaphysical naturalism. Most scientists working today are not philosophical naturalists. Science depends upon practical naturalism because nobody can propose any way to accurately test non-naturalistic hypotheses. Or maybe you can?
You think that a human-built life form will disprove ID, but it won't. ID proponents will say, "See? It took intelligence to make that life form, therefore it takes intelligence to make all life forms" (ID doesn't posit a "superhuman" intelligence). That's why ID is unfalsifiable: any data whatsoever can "support" ID.
A "theory" which explains everything really explains nothing at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 12:09:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is there empirical evidence for the intelligence of man? Of course, and one way to show this is what man has made. Now, the living cell far surpasses the capability of man to create thus far. Thus it is not *unreasonable* to hypothesize a greater intelligence beyond man. So there *is* evidence of sorts, but I will agree with you that it is not evidence that would stand up in a scientific courtroom so to speak.
But "evidence of sorts" is no evidence at all. Merely a place to start looking for real evidence. And an hypothisis is a conjecture with a little "evidence of sorts" behind it; see what I'm sayin'? Unfortunatly, real evidence for ID has yet to be forthcoming, so the hypothisis is back to being a conjecture. Or in this case, creationism (again), writ small.
|
"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 - 09/23/2005 : 15:18:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Is there empirical evidence for the intelligence of man? Of course, and one way to show this is what man has made. Now, the living cell far surpasses the capability of man to create thus far. Thus it is not *unreasonable* to hypothesize a greater intelligence beyond man.
A volcano far surpasses the capability of man to create thus far. This does not mean the volcano is created by an intelligence.
The crystal structure of any specific snowflake is currently impossible to recreate by man in the same scale. That this is beyond the capability of man does not necessarily mean an intelligent designer made it. Just because a cell is complex does not mean it has been created by a designer.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 15:26:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Of course, science should always be pressing the envelope for detecting discernable mechanism. That will keep science busy for a long, long while. But that is a far different thing that claiming that everything is purely a result of materialistic mechanism.
So, when it turns out that materialistic mechanisms explains many things previously thought to be supernatural, will you still cross the river to water your horse?
Why not let science try to figure out how stuff works before we place the blame on supernatural causes? Science has done a great job thus far in explaining many things, so I'm confident that it will eventually explain anything you throw at it. Eventually. If you're patient enough. Or you can take the easy way out and say God Did It. Personally I think that is lazy. |
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. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
