Creationism / Evolution / Intelligent Design???

Oddly wrote:I find it rather disgusting you felt that you needed to remind me not to read only Christian literature...disgusting me with a comment directly about me is not an easy thing to do, especially online. Ugh.

Guten Nacht, Laura! *it is lovely to finally know your name, fellow L-named gal.*

Ah, I've known Prom long enough to know he didn't mean anything insulting by it. He's a good lad.





*I'm gonna bump up my last post... I think it is informative to understand the Interpretive Philosophy behind ID.*


Here's the three primary principles used in Intelligent Design, when analyzing data.



Contingency, Complexity and Specification


1 Contingency .. concerns whether or not a product or event was the
automatic result of some unintelligent cause. An event which did not
have to happen, but did, is said to be contingent. In the sky over a
beach, for example, clouds in the sky are not contingent. Due to the
dynamics of air currents, temperature, and moisture, that has to
happen. But seeing a cloud in the shape of a perfect "V" would be
contingent. Nothing about the physics of air or moisture necessitate
the generation of perfectly symetrical cloud shapes of consistent
thickness.

2 Complexity ... concerns the probability of the event in question to
have happened by chance or by some other non-intelligent cause. William
Dembski states, "Complexity and probability therefore vary inversely:
the greater the complexity, the smaller the probability." 102

If we only saw that "V" in the sky, it could have been the result
of two jet trails randomly crossing. But if by now we see a perfect "T"
right next to it (of the same general length and width), it becomes
less likely that random condensation trails are forming what appear to
be nicely spaced alphabetic characters. The more recognizable
characters we start to see, the less likely we are watching accidental
cloud formations or con-trails.

3 Specification.... lastly, refers to any inherent pattern which
might indicate intelligence. Suppose the letter-like clouds in the sky
appear as "VTOE". Initially this might seem to be vacant of
specification. In other words, a sky writer just practicing his craft
could have chosen those letters at random. But now consider how one
might interpret "VTOE" if today also happened to be national election
day.

Oddly wrote:I find it rather disgusting you felt that you needed to remind me not to read only Christian literature...disgusting me with a comment directly about me is not an easy thing to do, especially online. Ugh.

Guten Nacht, Laura! *it is lovely to finally know your name, fellow L-named gal.*

I'm very sorry. This was not my intention. Now when I read it afterwards I see I shouldn't have written that. I only meant that it's necessary to look at the arguments from both sides.

Ash wrote:*I'm gonna bump up my last post... I think it is informative to understand the Interpretive Philosophy behind ID.*


Here's the three primary principles used in Intelligent Design, when analyzing data.



Contingency, Complexity and Specification


1 Contingency .. concerns whether or not a product or event was the
automatic result of some unintelligent cause. An event which did not
have to happen, but did, is said to be contingent. In the sky over a
beach, for example, clouds in the sky are not contingent. Due to the
dynamics of air currents, temperature, and moisture, that has to
happen. But seeing a cloud in the shape of a perfect "V" would be
contingent. Nothing about the physics of air or moisture necessitate
the generation of perfectly symetrical cloud shapes of consistent
thickness.

2 Complexity ... concerns the probability of the event in question to
have happened by chance or by some other non-intelligent cause. William
Dembski states, "Complexity and probability therefore vary inversely:
the greater the complexity, the smaller the probability." 102

If we only saw that "V" in the sky, it could have been the result
of two jet trails randomly crossing. But if by now we see a perfect "T"
right next to it (of the same general length and width), it becomes
less likely that random condensation trails are forming what appear to
be nicely spaced alphabetic characters. The more recognizable
characters we start to see, the less likely we are watching accidental
cloud formations or con-trails.

3 Specification.... lastly, refers to any inherent pattern which
might indicate intelligence. Suppose the letter-like clouds in the sky
appear as "VTOE". Initially this might seem to be vacant of
specification. In other words, a sky writer just practicing his craft
could have chosen those letters at random. But now consider how one
might interpret "VTOE" if today also happened to be national election
day.

The problem with this philosophy is that it's bound to find a higher designer. That is why it is used. ID uses the teleological argument (this article was pretty good) in the same way Cicero (c. 106–c. 43 B.C.) or William Paley (1743-1805) used it hundreds or thousands of years ago. One of Darwin's favourite books as a young adult was Paley's Natural Theology. The thing is that because of Darwin, along came an explanation to why the world looks designed even though it might not be.

Well, all evidence of the cell points to a higher designer. It has nothing to do with religion.

I think also ID isn't based on finding a designer, it's based on finding whatever the evidence shows, and that is just how the evidence has been interpreted by ID scientists.

And they are very much scientists.

You can argue their interpretation of the evidence forever if you want to, but their interpretation is not unscientific at all.

People will always seek after truth, just as people will certainly be uncomfortable and even violent when the staus quo be challenged.

I have studied both ID and Darwin and my opinion is that ID will take the place of Darwin within time. It is modern and based on a greater understanding of data than Darwin. That is just my opinion.

It is silly to say the Darwinism can be taught in school and ID cannot.

Blixi wrote:Well, all evidence of the cell points to a higher designer. It has nothing to do with religion.

I think also ID isn't based on finding a designer, it's based on finding whatever the evidence shows, and that is just how the evidence has been interpreted by ID scientists.

And they are very much scientists.

You can argue their interpretation of the evidence forever if you want to, but their interpretation is not unscientific at all.

People will always seek after truth, just as people will certainly be uncomfortable and even violent when the staus quo be challenged.

I have studied both ID and Darwin and my opinion is that ID will take the place of Darwin within time. It is modern and based on a greater understanding of data than Darwin. That is just my opinion.

It is silly to say the Darwinism can be taught in school and ID cannot.

I agree, mostly. I think you can argue or study the idea of ID without being attached to religion specifically. The "creator" can be anything or anyone. For anyone to act as though they know the truth about any of this, is absurd. Until someone or something comes out of the sky or from the depths of the oceans and tells us the truth, nobody knows. I do think we can prove simple theories and facts within the "meaning of life". Who knows, perhaps millions of years of study will eventually show us the meaning of it all.

As for Darwin. I still think it is possible that his theory can work along with ID. Someone/something created life as we know it and then it evolved over time.

Perhaps I am too open minded on this and are missing out on some "fact" that I should be getting from one of the two theories.

I do think all ideas should be taught or offered in school, when discussing these ideas. I don't understand why we cannot discuss all of the ideas in school. Neither theory can be proven at the moment, so why not just teach ALL theories?

Blixi wrote:Well, all evidence of the cell points to a higher designer. It has nothing to do with religion.

It all boils down to the teleologic argument. Following the philosophy of the teleologic argument you will find a designer. You are bound to be. That's what the teleologic argument is all about. The scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution explains what the teleologic argument/ID does not, ie how something happened. ID never explains how.

Blixi wrote:I think also ID isn't based on finding a designer, it's based on finding whatever the evidence shows, and that is just how the evidence has been interpreted by ID scientists.

Have you seen the documentaries about the Dover trial? Creationist textbooks were changed into ID-textbooks, even leaving words like cdesign proponentsists. I sure looks like what they are doing is trying to get "God back into schools".

Blixi wrote:You can argue their interpretation of the evidence forever if you want to, but their interpretation is not unscientific at all.

Not that much. Where they DO are very unscientific is when it comes to what they are doing with their interpretation. What they should be doing is finding more data that supports their hypothesis, publish papers for peer-review. If they don't do that, they are unscientific, no matter how good the theory would be.

Blixi wrote:I have studied both ID and Darwin and my opinion is that ID will take the place of Darwin within time. It is modern and based on a greater understanding of data than Darwin. That is just my opinion.
It is silly to say the Darwinism can be taught in school and ID cannot.

ID can be taught in school if it wins the scientific concensus. Just like the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics.

Now let me ask a question: What will the ID-proponents teach in school? On a timeline from the origin of life about 4 billion years ago to present: What will you teach the kids? What did the Intelligent (?) Designer create? Just DNA? The first cell? Three dozen bacteria? Every single species of animals (including all parasites)? What did it create?

I think you confuse Science with the interpretation of Science.

Darwinism and ID are ways to interpret data. That is why they are taught in Philosophy Classes here.

Microbiology and Genetics are the actual Science for finding data.

Darwinism and ID are of no use at all for uncovering data. But they both can be used for analysis about that data.

You can be a Darwinist or an Id Microbiologist, and neither of those philosophies for interpreting data will actually help in any matter to discover Anything. They are only used in creating hypothesis.

ear-sighted wrote:I agree, mostly. I think you can argue or study the idea of ID without being attached to religion specifically. The "creator" can be anything or anyone. For anyone to act as though they know the truth about any of this, is absurd. Until someone or something comes out of the sky or from the depths of the oceans and tells us the truth, nobody knows.

This depends on what you mean by ID. If you mean that life was planted here on earth you are absolutely right, there are no way of telling if it is the truth or not. That is one reason it should not be tought. Falsifiability is one of the cornerstones of science. A hypothesis HAVE TO BE testable.

ear-sighted wrote:I do think all ideas should be taught or offered in school, when discussing these ideas. I don't understand why we cannot discuss all of the ideas in school. Neither theory can be proven at the moment, so why not just teach ALL theories?

This is where the ID-movement have succeeded allready. There aren't two opposing theories, since the ID-movement have no theory. I say it again, they have no theory. They try to find holes in the theory of evolution, but have no theory of their own. Even Phillip Johnson have said this himself.
The theory of evolution can be proven correct and has been proven correct over the last 150 years!

Blixi wrote:I think you confuse Science with the interpretation of Science.

Darwinism and ID are ways to interpret data. That is why they are taught in Philosophy Classes here.

Microbiology and Genetics are the actual Science for finding data.

Darwinism and ID are of no use at all for uncovering data. But they both can be used to hypothesis unknowns about that data.

You can be a Darwinist or an Id Microbiologist, and neither of those philosophies for interpreting data will actually help in any matter to discover Anything. They are only used in creating hypothesis.

As I pointed out earlier, ID vs. Evolution is at the core the Teleologic argument vs. Natural selection. Do we agree this far? I think we do. The teleologic argument basically say: This look designed, so it must be designed. Natural selection says: This looks designed, but it can have happened with many small steps leading up to the same result. The big difference is that you can test if there can be any smaller steps, but you can't test if something is designed. Dembski's Complex Specified Information is the teleologic argument and cannot be tested. The extremely good idea that Behe came up with was something actually testable with ID: Irreversible Complexity. It failed. All things he said were i.c. were found to have smaller steps with individual functions.

Prometheus wrote:

ear-sighted wrote:I agree, mostly. I think you can argue or study the idea of ID without being attached to religion specifically. The "creator" can be anything or anyone. For anyone to act as though they know the truth about any of this, is absurd. Until someone or something comes out of the sky or from the depths of the oceans and tells us the truth, nobody knows.

This depends on what you mean by ID. If you mean that life was planted here on earth you are absolutely right, there are no way of telling if it is the truth or not. That is one reason it should not be tought. Falsifiability is one of the cornerstones of science. A hypothesis HAVE TO BE testable.

ear-sighted wrote:I do think all ideas should be taught or offered in school, when discussing these ideas. I don't understand why we cannot discuss all of the ideas in school. Neither theory can be proven at the moment, so why not just teach ALL theories?

This is where the ID-movement have succeeded allready. There aren't two opposing theories, since the ID-movement have no theory. I say it again, they have no theory. They try to find holes in the theory of evolution, but have no theory of their own. Even Phillip Johnson have said this himself.
The theory of evolution can be proven correct and has been proven correct over the last 150 years!

Again, I don't really agree with creationism...but science is nothing but theories, until at times, proven. Until we know the fact of any matter, all sides should be taught equally, as theories.

So people "assume" the earth is 4 billion years old (if this is true) but 150 years of study is expected to explain 4 billion years of existence? Really? Newton was the fact and truth until Einstein proved him wrong. I expect that type of discovery and proving "facts" wrong will continue.

ear-sighted wrote:Again, I don't really agree with creationism...but science is nothing but theories, until at times, proven. Until we know the fact of any matter, all sides should be taught equally, as theories.

WRONG, not true. Sciences is nothing but hypotheses, until at times proven and turned into THEORIES. A theory is not a guessing, a theory is a collection of facts. The theory of evolution is just as much fact as the theory of relativity, the theory of electromagnetism or the theory of plate-tectonics. They are PROVEN TRUE.
I agree with you to the extent that different hypotheses should be taught in schools if there is enough time.

ear-sighted wrote:So people "assume" the earth is 4 billion years old (if this is true) but 150 years of study is expected to explain 4 billion years of existence? Really? Newton was the fact and truth until Einstein proved him wrong. I expect that type of discovery and proving "facts" wrong will continue.

What do you mean with the first sentence? Actually Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong. Einstein only said that Newtonian mechanics will only work in normal conditions like on earth. When things become too big or too small we have to use relativity theory or quantum mechanics. So in the same way, evolution will most likely not be proven totally wrong. There will be minor changes in the theory, that's for sure, but I'm positive that the basics of the theory of evolution will stay correct.
Yes, proving "facts" wrong is what science is based upon. But there are certain rules on how to do that. ID don't follow those rules.

[quote="Prometheus"]

ear-sighted wrote: The theory of evolution is just as much fact as the theory of relativity, the theory of electromagnetism or the theory of plate-tectonics. They are PROVEN TRUE.


[

No, it isn't. There is no comparison whatsoever.

You can build a space ship with Einstein or electromagnetism, you can find ways to study the stars with them. You can neither build anything or study anything to achieve data using Darwinism or ID, it is the actual sciences that achieve data.

They are only different ways to interpret what science yields.

The theory of evolution can be useful, even though it doesn't matter if it is or not.

Evolution is still a "theory", don't forget. And this is because science has evolved far beyond it.

Don't confuse a theory with a law or principal.

stefan wrote:Evolution is still a "theory", don't forget. And this is because science has evolved far beyond it.

Don't confuse a theory with a law or principal.

You are the one that should not confuse the word theory in the way we use it daily with the scientific use of the word theory. A scientific theory IS a law or principal, you just don't get to call it law or principal these days. If you were right, almost everything after Newton would be just guessings.

Blixi wrote:It is silly to say the Darwinism can be taught in school and ID cannot.

The theory of evolution is taught, mainly, because it is one of the only theories of the begining that both has enough scientific backing behind it and is also secular. Intelligent design, no matter what culture or religious background it is being taught under, implies the existance of unworldly things.
I believe in both, somewhat.

it's unfortunate ideas are so dangerous in this kingdom of death

Oddly, you are very right. Science per definition deals with natural explanations to natural phenomena. IF God had created the universe, what science would do is explain how (s)he did it, not just say that (s)he did it. The ID-movement would have to do the same to be of any scientific interest.

Ash, I have to ask you again: As an ID-proponent; what would you teach in schools? Give me a short "history of the world"...

Easy , teach the truth.

That we have no idea how old the earth is, but there are different ways to theorize how old it is. Also, that science does not know how the first cell or cells came into being.

That is the truth. Like the fact that Darwinian evolution has never been able to be reproduced on any level in a lab, over the last 150 years. And the ID is a theory based on mathematics, statistics and abundance of other logical scientific analysis.

Teach Micro-evolution.. which has been reproduced with a lab and found in fossil records and short term human history. It can be taught as fact, but is has found to be fact through he scientific method.

Could you elaborate this a little bit further? Sort of a short history of the world...what the ID created and when...

What the "ID created?"

Science does not know how the world came about. That's what should be taught. The Truth.

Instead of teaching this billions of years old stuff as Fact, when it is barely even a valid theory.

Instead of teaching this notion that we all evolved from a common ancestor as fact, when it is theory and has no solid evidence to support it after over 100 years of trying to find evidence.

That, being the truth, would actually encourage people to look into new ways of finding out how and when things did happen.

But we do know pretty good. Why don't you read the information on evolution that is out there?

I have, dude, I have. I've studied it in depth.

Your free to believe what you like, I have nothing against that.

Could you give me some examples on what books you've read and which you've found to be best? I'm just interested