[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[Jayls5]

Alright so in summary:

1) Spokesperson for ID itself admits that astrology would be science based on his definition of science.
2) Their internal memos obviously establish them as a religion
3) ID lacks several portions of the scientific method as described in this thread


I think we can definitively say that ID is not science. Great! Now we don't have to bother with these stupid arguments about those poor "ID" people being fired from their scientific jobs for not doing science. :-D

Now we don't have to argue all of these "he said, she said" ridiculous insignificant details about what happened to the ID person or if/when they had a position, etc. We can now simply say that Ben Stein's stupid movie about ID people being "expelled" from the scientific community is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED, if not NECESSARY for scientific progress! 8-)

Glad we got that cleared up guys. The forums will be a lot cleaner now without the ID 'scientist' persecution babble.

 

[John]

i am in the dark here, why is astrology not science ?

 

[Dunzo]

i am in the dark here, why is astrology not science ?

Oh dear. Astrology != Astronomy.

 

[John]

I have not really touched on Astronomy. enlighten me. lol

 

[Jayls5]

I have not really touched on Astronomy. enlighten me. lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

Enjoy.

 

[jmm9683]

I think we've established that ID is not science. Even though the courts have already effectively done that.

 

[BobRyan]

I'll get straight to the point: My opinion is no.

One cannot hypothesize that something is too complex to have been created by some form of natural means and then test this hypothesis.

I already addressed that fallacy.

In the Atheist Darwinist model "there is no god" --- "there is no designer". So in a world full of cars when the ant-like atheist darwinist finds a car on the beach HE MUST conclude "my my...the sand has produced a car over billions and billions of years".

When an I.D scientist sees the car he is FREE to say "I will go where the data leads me EVEN if it leads to Detroit".

For the believer in atheist darwinism "there is no Detroit" and even if there is - you can't "detect it".

Given sticks arranged in the shape of an arrow (pointing exactly due West) on the beach of an island the I.D scientist is free to "go where the data leads" EVEN if it means concluding that a "PERSON might have done this" or in fact " a person most certainly did this" if enough associated data supports it.

The ant believers in atheist darwinism (as the OP points out) simply can not "allow themselves" to go there). For them the sticks washed up on the beach that way and that is the "ONLY solution ALLOWED" since for these ants "there is no PERSON".

Sadly - they compound that compromised and irrational method with their subsequent attempt at censorship of all other solutions -- calling it "Academic freedom".

In his book "Darwin on Trial" Philip Johnson addresses the attempt to "redefine science" under the moniker "There is no god". Believers in atheist darwinism need to START with the definition of science being "there is no designer -- anyting that points to the existence of a design can not be science" just as the OP proposes to do.

But that OP approach is closer to a blindfaith religious statement than it is to science.

Science is perfectly capable of "evaluating foreign technology" and reverse engineering it for our use. Science has no problem with DESIGN of it's own instrumentation and even FOLLOWING the design of that which it is observing and documenting.

But atheist darwinists have and those who follow after them -- have a huge problem with such simple concepts in the real world.

But look at the junk-science methods used to promote the doctrines and dogmas of atheist darwinism -- (another thread is available for that) -- can anyone doubt the religious fervor in those methods?

Consider the evidence on this thread alone - notice how those who seek to promote athiest darwinism spin-doctor I.D science into "politics" and "an organization" they attempt to solve problems with a-factual findings "in court" by non-science experts who preside over the case and make dark-ages style pronouncements that students in science class CAN NOT be given a one paragraph statement at the start of class saying "A book in the library EXISTS call of Pandas and People" -- students must not be told that there are challengers to doctrines and dogmas of blind faith darwinist evolutionism.

Those methods are in keeping with the religion that claims "There is no god". And yes that is ONE thing the courts HAVE decided - that humanism IS a religion.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What quantitative (hell, even qualitative) substantiative empirical data would show that something was "intelligently designed" ???

Furthermore, what predictions could be made from this theory?

In the search for life outside of earth -- some in NASA search for molecules, water and microbes but other scientists "listen for signals" AS IF they know what a radio signal "IS" and as IF they know that intelligent radio transmissions would "indicate" something beyond "nature and randomness".

In fact (dont tell the darwinists this) we actually HAVE TV and Radio -- as IF we KNEW that pattern and design and function are embedded in the electromagnetic waves hitting our homes.

But in the blindfaith dogma of atheist darwinism there is "no way to tell" if electromagnetic waves show "intelligence" or not.

after all -- HOW (curse-swear) could you possibly know!!!

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

What quantitative (hell, even qualitative) substantiative empirical data would show that something was "intelligently designed" ???

Furthermore, what predictions could be made from this theory?

In the search for life outside of earth -- some in NASA search for molecules, water and microbes but other scientists "listen for signals" AS IF they know what a radio signal "IS" and as IF they know that intelligent radio transmissions would "indicate" something beyond "nature and randomness".

In fact (dont tell the darwinists this) we actually HAVE TV and Radio -- as IF we KNEW that pattern and design and function are embedded in the electromagnetic waves hitting our homes.

But in the blindfaith dogma of atheist darwinism there is "no way to tell" if electromagnetic waves show "intelligence" or not.

after all -- HOW (curse-swear) could you possibly know!!!

Bob

Perhaps I should clarify. I was implying supernatural intelligent design.

We already clearly established that ID proponents are trying to lead to "God" by their argument and would regress infinitely without Him. There would be an endless requirement of more complex intelligent natural creatures. Obviously, we can hypothesize that a certain series of radio frequencies could be created from natural intelligent life, then attempt to communicate and/or decipher the message. That would lead to an actual conclusion (at least eventually) of intelligent life.

That wasn't my concern though. I was asking about testing supernatural intelligence.

The only way that ID could ever be considered science would be to say it only applied to testable/natural intelligent designers. And in that case, it would be scientifically arguing that there is an infinite series of more complex natural creatures. Tons of other (more supported) scientific theories already say that's not a viable option.

 

[BobRyan]

Perhaps I should clarify. I was implying supernatural intelligent design.

The ID argument is for "design" it does not go to "who when how or why".

The illustration about "design" detected as in the case of electromagetic waves remains. We ARE able to tell when a pattern is of sufficient complexity such that it will not "simply pop up on it's own via lab experiment" -- it has the attributes of "design".

Therefore we can filter out "the background noise" and just focus in on the wave patterns that show "design" to get a clear picture on the TV or a clear transmit on the Radio.

We already clearly established that ID proponents are trying to lead to "God"

Again -- this is politics and religion -- the religious jiihad being conducted by atheist darwinists against evolutionists -- actual scientists on the I.D side that are "free to follow where the data leads" -- scientist that simply STOP at the point of "design" -- science that in its argument does not THEN GO ON to scientifically try to define "the designer".

But coming from a distinctively atheist religiou POV -- ANYTHING in nature that spells "design" at a technology level beyond man Might as well be called "God of the bible" because to the atheist it is ALL devastating.

As you point out -- there can be religious and philosphical questions that would follow the discovery "this electromagnetic wave form appears to be manipulated -- designed" -- but that is the problem for the atheist to deal with. I.D scientists are free to simply "ADMIT to the existence of design" in what they see IN nature and are free to show the statistics the math the functional dependancy and complexity IN the design -- all day long. That part of the equation IS science. In fact it is much BETTER science because in cases where design CAN be seen it is better to simply "admit it" than to continually have to "invent stories" about why some of those designed functions never simply happen on their own in the lab NOR can theyt be artificially MADE to happen in the lab. The endless story telling of atheist darwinism each time it runs across a problem of design -- should never be confused for science.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

The ID argument is for "design" it does not go to "who when how or why".

That's why it's not science. It's just an unorthodox religion.

The illustration about "design" detected as in the case of electromagetic waves remains. We ARE able to tell when a pattern is of sufficient complexity such that it will not "simply pop up on it's own via lab experiment" -- it has the attributes of "design".

So far, we haven't found any. Nowhere in the universe so far as we can see, is there any intelligent design in nature. For good reason; God didn't "design" the universe.

Again -- this is politics and religion -- the religious jiihad being conducted by atheist darwinists against evolutionists

IDers may be a lot of things ,but atheist darwinists, they are not. They are just misguided people who think if they disguise God sufficiently, they can sneak Him into public schools.

actual scientists on the I.D side that are "free to follow where the data leads"

Unfortunately not. They are constrained by their rather odd conception of a miniature god who must "design." As IDer leader Jonathan Wells admitted, he had "a mission from Father" (Myung Sun Moon, who he thinks is an improvement on Jesus) to "destroy evolution."
Creationist/IDers are tightly constrained by their religion to avoid any evidence for God acting through nature.

 

[BobRyan]

Sadly you are mistaken.

the I.D scientists HAVE the liberity to "follow where the data leads" -- whereas the devoted faithful among believers atheist darwinisis are "stuck" on the "there is no god" model for science and thus "no design". For them the OPTION is removed.

When a ID scientist sees sticks on the beach he is free to "follow the data where it leads" but the ant-like atheist darwinist devotedly follows his religious dogma "there is no designer" and can only conclude "wind and water have arranged these sticks".

Sadly those Christian that innexplicably choose to follow such a thinly vieled religous doctrine - pigeonhole themselves into the same limited set of options.

In the mean time we SEE "pattern and design" in electromagnetic wave forms (TV anyone?) amidst all the random noise of "the natural background"

We see a hole in the ground and can "follow where the data leads" to see if it is a sink hole, a fox hole, a tunnel, a meteor strike etc - but in atheist darwinism -- there is "no design" no "purpose" in the complex structures and interdependant functions found in nature.

Sadly some Christians actually follow that atheist darwinist dogma "AS IF" it makes sense.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The illustration about "design" detected as in the case of electromagetic waves remains. We ARE able to tell when a pattern is of sufficient complexity such that it will not "simply pop up on it's own via lab experiment" -- it has the attributes of "design".

Barbarian
So far, we haven't found any

Hello!! {TV anyone????].

The deny-all approach some Christians take to their devotion to atheist darwinism is "astounding".

But beyond that obvious point -- HOW can you KNOW you have not found something if you keep claiming "you wouldn't know it if you found it" since you claim that you are UNNABLE to decode signals (detect design, information, patterns).

Clearly you have unwittingly exposed your own circular reasoning there.

For the atheist darwinist "there is no designer" means "There is no design" and in fact "no intelligence" in the atheist darwinist dogmas about "what they allow themselves to admit" about what they see in the world around them.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

the I.D scientists HAVE the liberity to "follow where the data leads" --

As you can see, that's not the truth. For example, ID leader Jonathan Wells had orders from his religious leader to "destroy evolution." He had no choice, since good IDer that he is, he considers Myung Son Moon to be God.

whereas the devoted faithful among believers atheist darwinisis are "stuck" on the "there is no god" model for science

Right. Science is too weak a method to shore up your faith. If Christianity isn't good enough for that, you're out of luck. Fortunately, that is enough for most Christians.

and thus "no design".

There could be, but we can't find any evidence for it.

For them the OPTION is removed.

Yep. Evidence is what counts in science.

When a ID scientist sees sticks on the beach he is free to "follow the data where it leads"

Unless it leads to forbidden things like evolution. Then he must ignore it.

Sadly those Christian that innexplicably choose to follow such a thinly vieled religous doctrine - pigeonhole themselves into the same limited set of options.

You don't have to. Once you accept the way God did it, there's no need to close your mind to evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

The ID argument is for "design" it does not go to "who when how or why".

That's why it's not science.

Wrong "again".

The SCIENCE is in observing the DATA NOT in "knowiing the DESIGNER" when viewing a car, or sticks on the beach, or a hole in the ground or ...

But for atheist darwinists -- this is a problem. They can not admit to design EVEN when it is clearly seen because "they fear a designer". Their devotion to religious dogma "there is no god" prevents them

I.D scientists "have no such fears" -- obviously.

they are the only ones that are "free to go where the data leads" EVEN if the data indicates "DESIGN".

The objective unbiased reader of course will see this point instantly -- but the "deny-all" defense proposed for atheist darwinist dogma will struggle on this point.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

the I.D scientists HAVE the liberity to "follow where the data leads" --

As you can see, that's not the truth.

Wrong "again".

I.D is not "a person" and is not an "organization".

The continual politicizing and religious-pogrom tactics of believers in atheist darwinism against the SCIENCE principle of "Following the data where it leads" will try to make the SCIENCE topic "Jonahan wells" instead of staying on topic

For example, ID leader Jonathan Wells had orders from his religious leader

See -- just as predicted.

Sadly those Christian that innexplicably choose to follow such a thinly vieled religous doctrine - pigeonhole themselves into the same limited set of options.

Barbarian said
You don't have to. Once you accept the way God did it, there's no need to close your mind to evolution.

Hmm the way God SAID He did it??

Is this the part where you "pretend" that the way atheist darwinists STATE their beliefs is in the form "FOR IN SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE The HEAVENS and the EARTH the sea and ALL that is in them"???

Or is this simply another blindfaith a-factual "deny all" position for atheist darwinism on your part?

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

The continual politicizing and religious-pogrom tactics of believers in atheist darwinism

You know, Bob, you sound like a Chinese student during the cultural revolution... "Down with the running dog lackeys of the imperialist Americans..."

against the SCIENCE principle of "Following the data where it leads" will try to make the SCIENCE topic "Jonahan wells" instead of staying on topic

Given that your ID leader got his orders on what he could and could not believe from Rev. Moon, that's surely on topic. He said (prior to getting a degree in biology) that he had a "mission from Father" to "destroy evolution." ID is the official doctrine of the unification Church, which honors Rev. Moon as Jesus's Big Brother. Wells, like his fellow IDers, cannot follow the truth, because it conflicts with his religious beliefs.

Sadly those Christian that innexplicably choose to follow such a thinly vieled religous doctrine - pigeonhole themselves into the same limited set of options.

I think it would be a bit of a stretch to call IDers, especially those like Wells, "Christian." Some may be. But they are not logically consistent in taking two mutually exclusive worldviews.

Barbarian suggests:
You don't have to. Once you accept the way God did it, there's no need to close your mind to evolution.

Hmm the way God SAID He did it??

Yes. He says that the earth brought forth living things. Creationist/IDers say He "designed" them. Not much of a choice, is it?

Is this the part where you "pretend" that the way atheist darwinists STATE their beliefs is in the form "FOR IN SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE The HEAVENS and the EARTH the sea and ALL that is in them"???

No, I think that's what you were saying. Christians accept that Genesis is true, but allegorical. It's been that way since before Augustine wrote about it, nearly 2000 years ago.

 

[Jayls5]

BobRyan, you pretty much ignored the majority of my argument and pulled a single quote from my post. Perhaps you'd like to try again.

Edit: For your convenience, you can respond to this in its entirety. The bolded parts are the sections you completely skipped. Notice how large they are:


"Perhaps I should clarify. I was implying supernatural intelligent design.

We already clearly established that ID proponents are trying to lead to "God" by their argument and would regress infinitely without Him. There would be an endless requirement of more complex intelligent natural creatures. Obviously, we can hypothesize that a certain series of radio frequencies could be created from natural intelligent life, then attempt to communicate and/or decipher the message. That would lead to an actual conclusion (at least eventually) of intelligent life.

That wasn't my concern though. I was asking about testing supernatural intelligence.

The only way that ID could ever be considered science would be to say it only applied to testable/natural intelligent designers. And in that case, it would be scientifically arguing that there is an infinite series of more complex natural creatures. Tons of other (more supported) scientific theories already say that's not a viable option."

 

[BobRyan]

We already clearly established that ID proponents are trying to lead to "God" by their argument and would regress infinitely without Him. There would be an endless requirement of more complex intelligent natural creatures.

There is no "intelligent natural creature" argument in I.D science. All there is the blatant admitting "to the obvious" that something shows design or it doesn't.

The atheist religionist argument must "worry" about where such a fact might lead on a more religious and philisophical level -- the I.D scientist is free to ignore it.

That wasn't my concern though. I was asking about testing supernatural intelligence.

I.D is not about "testing supernatural intelligence" it is about "admitting to pattern complexity and design".

The atheist religionist must then "worry" about the possibility that the intelligence behind a given disign "might be supernatural" but the I.D scientist does not have to worry about that at all when admitting to the obvious fact that something shows the characteristic of design.

I.D already IS science "by definition" but politics and atheist jiihad against "some facts" have orchestrated the censorship of academic freedom SUCH that admitting to these facts can not be "considered" in areas where they hold political or financial power.

WHAT IS Science -- apart from atheist religionist's "needs"??

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

NOTHING in the defintions says "UNLESS the source of the electromagnetic wave form is found to be intelligent" OR "unless the electromagnetic wave form is found to have a design, pattern, complexity -- carry information.." -- i.e. TV.

The only way that ID could ever be considered science would be to say it only applied to testable/natural intelligent designers.

Wrong.

The science effort to SEE or RECOGNIZE design as an attribute of something in nature has NOTHING to do with the atheist religionist's NEED to be assured that that any and all future analysis of the SOURCE of that design will always be constrained to fit his/her religious faith!

You continually mix in the stated "need" of the atheist religionist with the pure objective attributes of science AS IF such a mix "is another kinda valid science" -- it is not.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

We already clearly established that ID proponents are trying to lead to "God" by their argument and would regress infinitely without Him. There would be an endless requirement of more complex intelligent natural creatures.

There is no "intelligent natural creature" argument in I.D science. All there is the blatant admitting "to the obvious" that something shows design or it doesn't.

The atheist religionist argument must "worry" about where such a fact might lead on a more religious and philisophical level -- the I.D scientist is free to ignore it.

You seem to think that scientists don't extrapolate from their conclusions and investigate the consequences and application of them. If a scientist comes to a conclusion that appears to be empirically wrong based on other theories, doubt is immediately brought into question.

The moment you deem something to be too complex to have been created by more simple means, you necessarily are stating (by implication) that there is an infinite regress of more complex natural designers. This would completely contradict our scientific model of the universe, our concept of time, and basically a ton of theories. It's not just the philosopher's job to consider this. It's a scientist's job to investigate the practicality of a conclusion and its relationship to other standing scientific theories. ID theory is implicitly stating an infinite regress and we should question this as a viable explanation in light of other theories... that is assuming it's even science in the first place.

That wasn't my concern though. I was asking about testing supernatural intelligence.

I.D is not about "testing supernatural intelligence" it is about "admitting to pattern complexity and design".

The atheist religionist must then "worry" about the possibility that the intelligence behind a given disign "might be supernatural" but the I.D scientist does not have to worry about that at all when admitting to the obvious fact that something shows the characteristic of design.

I.D already IS science "by definition" but politics and atheist jiihad against "some facts" have orchestrated the censorship of academic freedom SUCH that admitting to these facts can not be "considered" in areas where they hold political or financial power.

WHAT IS Science -- apart from atheist religionist's "needs"??

I.D. isn't science by definition, unless you pick the definition that lets astrology be science too. You then realize you're horribly skewing the definition in your favor.

It's really hard to respond to you when you have so much loaded language. "orchestrated censorship," "jihad," and vague assertions that science is "atheist religionist's needs" are completely unsubstantiated by themselves, and each would need to be argued extensively to be even begin to use them in a debate without receiving ridicule.

So your premises state:

1) ID isn't about testing the supernatural
2) ID is about admitting pattern, complexity, and intelligent design
3) Atheists must worry that this intelligence could be supernatural.

You contradict yourself. If ID isn't about testing the supernatural, then atheists wouldn't need to worry about a supernatural intelligence. Since you say ID isn't about testing supernatural, you are necessarily stating that it's natural. Why should a scientist not consider the fact that the hypothesis of "ID" necessarily leads to infinite regress and contradict a bunch of other mainstream scientific theories and data?

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

NOTHING in the defintions says "UNLESS the source of the electromagnetic wave form is found to be intelligent" OR "unless the electromagnetic wave form is found to have a design, pattern, complexity -- carry information.." -- i.e. TV.

You're picking a definition that is SO vague it's laughable. I could say I study the "science" of driving a car, hammering a nail properly, tying my shoe, etc by that vague definition that's bolded. It's stupid. The one immediately following that that wasn't bolded (surprise!) is the one that mentions the scientific method. If you are arguing for naturalistic ID, then it might have elements of the scientific method. I'd need you to lay them out for me though, explain the criteria for something intelligently designed in the fossil record or the biological world. The astronomers searching for intelligent life have hypothesized precisely what algorithms could be considered intelligent, and that's why people have no problem calling it a scientific endeavor. If you have no criteria for determining intelligence, then you're only saying that "we don't understand the origin yet and that's evidence of design." That is not science... so please tell me what criteria determines "intelligent origin."

The only way that ID could ever be considered science would be to say it only applied to testable/natural intelligent designers.

Wrong.

The science effort to SEE or RECOGNIZE design as an attribute of something in nature has NOTHING to do with the atheist religionist's NEED to be assured that that any and all future analysis of the SOURCE of that design will always be constrained to fit his/her religious faith!

You continually mix in the stated "need" of the atheist religionist with the pure objective attributes of science AS IF such a mix "is another kinda valid science" -- it is not.

Bob

lol WHAT????

I say the theory must make testable claims about natural intelligent designers in order to be science, and you tell me "WRONG"?

Obviously, you must still agree that it must be TESTABLE. That's one of the most important things in science. If you want to strip the whole "natural" thing from the testing, then like I asked, explain how we can test a supernatural thing. If you cannot test a supernatural thing, then we necessarily state that it cannot be science (due to lack of testing). Now, the only alternative is a natural test. This would be the only one that could be science.

How does my argument not apply?