What is scientific about ID?

Post Reply New Topic

That is the crux of the issue - ID is a trojan horse designed to inject a particular interpretation of Genesis into the classrooms.

So-called "miracles" are simply events that haven't been explained yet, saying they are the doing of a higher power is a fallacious "God-of-the-gaps" argument.

If we get something, I am sure you can make up your own mind whether it's an argument or not, and so will everyone else.


They are the ones who objected to ID being called not scientific, so they must have felt qualified to judge this point. I still have hope that they have a reason for their objection. The thread has only been up since yesterday, and they might be away over the weekend. They might be busy, or preparing a thorough reply. Give them time.


Because it was (some) Aspie laymen here on WP who objected to ID being called non-scientific. Do you share my hope that they had reasons for their objections? And I have already asked one professional ID advocate for his best scientific prediction derived from ID. He predicted there would be things in biology that couldn't be explained from an evolutionary perspective. That was a pretty safe prediction, because there will always be something in biology where there is not enough data for an evolutionary analysis. But that also makes the prediction unimpressive. I felt like I was listening to an astrologer.

I think the ID proponents here should have at least a week or two to make their point. If there's still nothing then, I'll follow up on your suggestion. Perhaps the people you listed have something better than the last one I asked. I can't guarantee that they will take the time to reply, so I don't know whether I'll have anything to report back here.

By the way, I'm pleased to see you back. The offer of a public or private reply to your last two posts in "Darwin vs Genesis" is still open. Next weekend I might have time enough to write a reply thorough enough to deal with the points you raised. Just let me know at any time during the next week how you would like the reply. There's also the unresolved discussion over translating from natural language into logical statements. I had worked out three nice examples for you, but it's been so long, I have forgotten two of them. Would you like me to work on this again? Even if I can't recover the two lost examples, I could still set up a thread for you with the one example I remember.

Fallacious?

I strongly disagree. Any religious person would strongly disagree. The world is full of miracles and those whose lives have been changed by them. My God is not a God-of-the-gaps. Inevitably the scientific types will come up against things they can't explain. Science cannot explain everything. Human understanding goes only so far and then no further.

Prove to me that miracles are all mundane red herrings. If you can't do this, relinquish the subject.

I personally believe that you have already make up your mind,but thats only my opinion...

If you really want arguments for ID,you should ask proponents of ID who are qualified for this discussion,and not two Evangelical Christians who consider Bible literally.



And are you qualified to judge them?

Or will you be judge,jury and executioner at the same time?




Yes,but are you qualified to judge validity of their claims?
Or if you are truly interested if ID is really a science,it would be much convenient to ask actual architects of ID,instead of asking laymen on some Aspie forum?

Laymen surely cannot have the same knowledge as creator of same theory.



Really?How nice...

Although,I'm not exactly 'back',just passing by....




As I recall,your offer was in thread "On proving God",not in "Darwin vs.Genesis".

In "Darwin vs.Genesis" you have personally ended discussion in this manner:



Not to mention personal ad hominem accusations....

This thread remained inactive for months,and we had another debate in "On proving God",in which you accused me for distorting your thoughts:




So,our debates always end in same manner,by you accusing me for dishonesty and misinterpretation.

I haven't join this topic in order to debate with you,but to give you links to actual architects of ID.



What this have to do with this post?

Why would you want to write reply now,after few months,instead of then?

After all,you said that you don't want to debate further...



And,off course you will be the arbiter of resolving...

I'm not sure how can we 'resolve' this issue if you constantly accusing me of dishonesty.


I have already said that I have no intention to convince you into anything.
After all this is Autistic message board.

I have just provided links for you to qualified debaters on ID.

Last edited by Witt on 27 Apr 2008, 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's a place like that...in SEATTLE?!?!?! I thought that place was liberal central.

Proving God? Can't be done. Simply not possible. When it's a matter of faith and not knowledge, nothing can be rendered into hard data. Arguing Genesis vs. Darwin is a debate that will continue indefinitely, continuing as long as there are human beings to debate it. The strong intellects assembled here might have known better.

because one in the capacity that all our religions describe doesn't exist.



simplification of the above statement: that's cause there is no god.


can't prove what's not there.

Odin, I think slowmutant has a point. Here is a "God-of-the-gaps" argument that I have heard from Jehovah's witnesses: "Scientists don't know how insects got their wings. But we know! God gave them wings! And that is proof that God exists."

I probably haven't gotten their words exactly right, but that was about what they said. The argument assumes there are only two options, a scientific explanation or the intervention of the Christian God. It also seems to assume that if something hasn't got a scientific explanation yet, there will never be one. (Else, how could the lack of a scientific explanation be considered proof for the proposed alternative?) Those two assumptions are what makes the "God-of-the-gaps" argument wrong when used as a proof for the existence of God. That was not the context here. If my understanding is correct, an argument against the presence of miracles would have to be something else than an objection against a "God-of-the-gaps" argument.

that's why they're religious. because they take stuff they don't know and attribute it to god. god of the gaps is everyone's god.


and then there's the rest of us who want real answers.

But slowmutant said:

I will give my reasons, so anyone who wants to can judge me.


I told you, I did, and I explained why I ask here. You yourself have demonstrated an interest in upholding high standards of debate. I hope your interest is impartial.


The offer of a choice of private or public reply in "Darwin vs Genesis" was in private messages. The other offer is also still open.


You changed my mind. You have felt, in the past, that I tried to argue you into a ditch. That was never my intention, but I can see how my initial misunderstanding of your point about direct observation could have made you feel that way. In your last two posts in "Darwin vs Genesis" you provided a nice example where I think I can show you why you sometimes make me feel the same way about you. I wouldn't expect you to agree, but if you can merely see my point, the increased mutual understanding would increase the chances of the kind of discussion I hoped for when you first started debating me in "Darwin vs Genesis".


You weren't here. The reply is intended for you, I don't need an audience for it, which is why I asked whether you want it public or private. So why write it if you aren't here to read it?

Last edited by Gromit on 27 Apr 2008, 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

slowmutant lied. not intentionally or maliciously, but he did lie.


everybody lies.

Sometimes the real answers are not to be found. Much of this world is comprised of things that defeat logic and confound resaon. Science reflects mankind's limited nature.

You cannot compare an article of faith to science fact.

Science can't tell us eveyrthing about life & the human condition. If it could, we would be gods and not mere humans.

"I don't know," one of the wisest things anyone can say. Einstein warned us never to lose our sense of wonder. Wonder is the state of don't-know and is crucial to the human experience. If one day we had all the knowledge in the universe, what then?

You think that answers are finite, like cookies in a cookie-jar, but they are in fact endless. Answer one question and it triggers a cascade of questions. The Q/A cascade effect branches out in all directions. And this branching-off will never stop as long as more questions are asked. No end to scientific inquiry, ever. Therefore, science is finite.

I did not lie!! I do not lie, ever.

that's cute and romantic and all but it's wrong.

can't answer everything within any one person's lifetime but compared to how people lived even just 100 years ago, we are gods today. if i want to read an article on something, i'm there reading it. traveling hundreds of miles? no problem! can get it done in a few hours.


just because you lack any kind of forward thought to realize all god is simply god of the gaps doesn't mean that more things won't be discovered later and more innovations and more modern conveniences won't come along.

you're right, there normally is about a few hundred other questions...which i love. it's a perpetual goal and something we should always strive for making the next new goal and moving even farther ahead!!

faith and science cannot co-exist because they're essentially polar opposites. the best science is when the least faith is involved and the most skepticism is involved. conversely, the most effective religions are the ones with no skepticism and pure blind obedience. why? because religion is a giving up of your free will and of your mind and subjecting it to others. many do this willingly because of the god of the gaps. others are forced into it due to the psychotic faithful who force the beliefs on others.

I think this is one of the differences between people with a mystical vs. a scientific bent. I find my sense of wonder increases when I understand something with an interesting explanation. The attempt to understand is not a quest to destroy, but to increase wonder. I appreciate that it doesn't work that way for everyone.


If scientific inquiry never ends, doesn't that make science at least potentially infinite? I mean, at any one moment the amount of knowledge will be finite, but there would be no end to how much you can find out. Do you see science as what is known, rather than what can be known through scientific inquiry?