Another Fool Judge

[Guest]

Science would be so much "smarter" if it understood the constraints placed on it within the realm of creation. When science refuses to accept that possibility it is led astray by other philosophies and hypothesis that can never be.

Many scientists see the ridiculous hope of evolution being true.

Science can't be 'led astray' and it doesn't listen to anybody's philosphies or untestables. It requires hard testable evidence, which both religiouse beliefs and ID is not. Therfore ID has no more reason to be taught in science than it does in maths or art.

 

[Drew]

Therfore ID has no more reason to be taught in science than it does in maths or art.

If what you are saying is true, presumably you will be able to counterargue against the content of my previous post, where I provide specific reasons why ID (at least the more sophisticated versions) indeed involves scientific elements. Please feel free to counterargue, but please deal with my specific points - let's not argue "past each other".

 

[Guest]

If what you are saying is true, presumably you will be able to counterargue against the content of my previous post, where I provide specific reasons why ID (at least the more sophisticated versions) indeed involves scientific elements. Please feel free to counterargue, but please deal with my specific points - let's not argue "past each other"

It's not scientific because its not a testable theory and has no evidence. There is evidence for protons and electrons that can be refuted if it's inncorrect but not for ID.

 

[Drew]

If what you are saying is true, presumably you will be able to counterargue against the content of my previous post, where I provide specific reasons why ID (at least the more sophisticated versions) indeed involves scientific elements. Please feel free to counterargue, but please deal with my specific points - let's not argue "past each other"

It's not scientific because its not a testable theory and has no evidence. There is evidence for protons and electrons that can be refuted if it's inncorrect but not for ID.

You did not counterargue against my specific points. I will attempt to restate briefy as well as to address what you have said:

Regarding what you say above: A theory that includes an intelligent agent as one of the fundamental consituents of the world is indeed testable. I am going to give a bit of a ridiculous example to illustrate. Suppose that we discover that the home team always wins the coin flip at the beginning of each NFL football game. This correlation is always observed - the home team always wins the toss. Extensive studies are done on the coin and the "flipper" it becomes clear that the coin flips "randomly" except when flipped at the beginning of an NFL game.

This is, of course, not the case. Presumably, if we looked at the history of coin flips, we would find that, more or less, the home team wins the flip 50 % of the time. However, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the bizarre situation I have described is indeed a possible state of affairs - it is conceivable that this "home-field effect on coin flips" holds true in some universe.

In such a circumstance, proposing that some "intelligent agent" exists who "rigs" the coin flip is a valid hypothesis to explain the observations. It is also a valid and testable hypothesis - as soon as we observe one case where the home team loses the flip, the intelligent agent theory is discredited. And remember, the scientific enterprise does indeed include making hypotheses about fundamental entities that are the building blocks of our universe - things like electrons and protons.

It just so happen that up to this point in time, these kind of "non-intelligent" building blocks (electrons and protons) work perfectly well to explain the world and are indeed testable. However, there is nothing about the scientific method, as I see it anyway, that say "there cannot be one or more intelligent agents at work in the world, causing observations that are based explained in terms a kind of "directedness" or "agency".

It may well be the case the kind of ID flouted widely in America does not make testable predictions. If so, such versions of ID do not belong in the science classroom - I agree. However, as a matter of principle, there is nothing unscientific about coming to the conclusion that the best theory to explain the evidence and make falsfifiable predictions is one what proposes that an intelligent agent is at work in the world.

Perhaps we are ultimately agreeing - at present, I know of no version of ID that qualifies as "science". However, we do not fully understand our world. Perhaps an a testable ID theory will emerge some day.

 

[Guest]

If what you are saying is true, presumably you will be able to counterargue against the content of my previous post, where I provide specific reasons why ID (at least the more sophisticated versions) indeed involves scientific elements. Please feel free to counterargue, but please deal with my specific points - let's not argue "past each other"

It's not scientific because its not a testable theory and has no evidence. There is evidence for protons and electrons that can be refuted if it's inncorrect but not for ID.

snip

So you're claiming that ID is not science, but science does not disprove ID and the two are not mutualy exclusive. If so yes I agree with you and I would be happy for ID to be taught in the American equivalent of RS (as I believe it already is in the sylabus over here)

 

[Drew]

So you're claiming that ID is not science, but science does not disprove ID and the two are not mutualy exclusive. If so yes I agree with you and I would be happy for ID to be taught in the American equivalent of RS (as I believe it already is in the sylabus over here)

I am not aware of any present version of ID that qualifies as science.

It is entirely possible that someday, someone will come up with a form of ID that makes falsifiable predictions. If so, the merits of such a version of ID should be part of a science curriculum.

If "RS" means "Religious Studies", I would disagree with you. If a form of ID is proposed that explains observations and makes falsifiable predictions, it belongs in the science classroom.

 

[pfilmtech]

If what you are saying is true, presumably you will be able to counterargue against the content of my previous post, where I provide specific reasons why ID (at least the more sophisticated versions) indeed involves scientific elements. Please feel free to counterargue, but please deal with my specific points - let's not argue "past each other"

It's not scientific because its not a testable theory and has no evidence. There is evidence for protons and electrons that can be refuted if it's inncorrect but not for ID.

snip

So you're claiming that ID is not science, but science does not disprove ID and the two are not mutualy exclusive. If so yes I agree with you and I would be happy for ID to be taught in the American equivalent of RS (as I believe it already is in the sylabus over here)

Anyone is yet to provide any documentation at all that defines ID as even remotely scientific.

 

[Guest]

So you're claiming that ID is not science, but science does not disprove ID and the two are not mutualy exclusive. If so yes I agree with you and I would be happy for ID to be taught in the American equivalent of RS (as I believe it already is in the sylabus over here)

I am not aware of any present version of ID that qualifies as science.

Thats what I said

It is entirely possible that someday, someone will come up with a form of ID that makes falsifiable predictions. If so, the merits of such a version of ID should be part of a science curriculum.

Yes

If "RS" means "Religious Studies", I would disagree with you. If a form of ID is proposed that explains observations and makes falsifiable predictions, it belongs in the science classroom.

I'm refering to the current non-science version of ID

 

[Drew]

You're yet to provide any documentation at all that defines ID as even remotely scientific.

Assuming that this statement is directed at moi, I will say that my previous posts show, in perhaps annoying detail, how it is indeed entirely possible that a future form of ID might be scientific. There is no principled reason why ID cannot be scientific.

 

[pfilmtech]

You're yet to provide any documentation at all that defines ID as even remotely scientific.

Assuming that this statement is directed at moi, I will say that my previous posts show, in perhaps annoying detail, how it is indeed entirely possible that a future form of ID might be scientific. There is no principled reason why ID cannot be scientific.

At which time it would be acceptable to teach ID is science class.

I could postulate that there is a scientific basis for Shakespeare's plays. you can't prove there isn't and maybe one day such a connection will be found. Does that mean I should teach shakespeare in science class now?

 

[Drew]

I could postulate that there is a scientific basis for Shakespeare's plays. you can't prove there isn't and maybe one day such a connection will be found. Does that mean I should teach shakespeare in science class now?

I am not sure what you mean when you say there could be a "scientific basis" for Shakespeare's plays. I suspect that a typical "nobody here but us atoms" phyiscalist would be forced to conclude that the actions of Shakespeare must be the result of the "blind" forces of nature playing themselves out in his brain. If elementary particles and the fundamental forces of nature are the only fundamental building blocks in the world, then Shakespeare's plays are merely the consequence of interactions between such particles and forces - every phenomena in the universe from the photo-electric effect to the works of Shakespeare would, of course, have a "scientific basis".

My argument is much stronger than your characterization of it. I have done more than simply say "you can't prove that some forms of ID are not science". I have shown precisely why some forms of ID would indeed be science.

 

[pfilmtech]

I could postulate that there is a scientific basis for Shakespeare's plays. you can't prove there isn't and maybe one day such a connection will be found. Does that mean I should teach shakespeare in science class now?

I am not sure what you mean when you say there could be a "scientific basis" for Shakespeare's plays. I suspect that a typical "nobody here but us atoms" phyiscalist would be forced to conclude that the actions of Shakespeare must be the result of the "blind" forces of nature playing themselves out in his brain. If elementary particles and the fundamental forces of nature are the only fundamental building blocks in the world, then Shakespeare's plays are merely the consequence of interactions between such particles and forces - every phenomena in the universe from the photo-electric effect to the works of Shakespeare would, of course, have a "scientific basis".

My argument is much stronger than your characterization of it. I have done more than simply say "you can't prove that some forms of ID are not science". I have shown precisely why some forms of ID would indeed be science.

Perhpas my example wasn't a perfect one.

I'm not talking about some possible furture form of ID. I'm talking about it's current form. There's no science behind it becasue it cannot be tested by any current scientific means. You can't observe it either. It's an idea totally outside of science which relies on the testing and observation of physical evidence.

 

[Drew]

I'm not talking about some possible furture form of ID. I'm talking about it's current form. There's no science behind it becasue it cannot be tested by any current scientific means. You can't observe it either. It's an idea totally outside of science which relies on the testing and observation of physical evidence.

I agree with you completely.

 

[Solo]

I could postulate that there is a scientific basis for Shakespeare's plays. you can't prove there isn't and maybe one day such a connection will be found. Does that mean I should teach shakespeare in science class now?

I am not sure what you mean when you say there could be a "scientific basis" for Shakespeare's plays. I suspect that a typical "nobody here but us atoms" phyiscalist would be forced to conclude that the actions of Shakespeare must be the result of the "blind" forces of nature playing themselves out in his brain. If elementary particles and the fundamental forces of nature are the only fundamental building blocks in the world, then Shakespeare's plays are merely the consequence of interactions between such particles and forces - every phenomena in the universe from the photo-electric effect to the works of Shakespeare would, of course, have a "scientific basis".

My argument is much stronger than your characterization of it. I have done more than simply say "you can't prove that some forms of ID are not science". I have shown precisely why some forms of ID would indeed be science.

Perhpas my example wasn't a perfect one.

I'm not talking about some possible furture form of ID. I'm talking about it's current form. There's no science behind it becasue it cannot be tested by any current scientific means. You can't observe it either. It's an idea totally outside of science which relies on the testing and observation of physical evidence.

Sounds just like evolution, doesn't it. :D