Argument for the Argument of ID

[Thorn]

Dixie, Mottley and I are both scientists. Real ones. We both conduct research as a part of our daily lives. We're intimately familiar with the criteria for scientific theory and practice, and what you're trying to include as a science, i.e. ID, falls far short. I'm not going to reiterate what Mottley has already said very well. If you choose to disregard that then that's your loss, not ours.

Psychology is a social science, which differs from the biological sciences in important ways. If you have an undergraduate degree in Psych, regardless of how articulate you may be, you're qualified to work in a bagel shop or to go on to higher studies, and not much else. I realized that about a third of the way into my Psych degree when it was apparent that too many conclusions were based on nothing more substantial than conjecture and opinion, and took physiology. Suddenly I was "home" and I never looked back. My point is that I'm very familiar with the whole field of Psych, even worked with Psych patients for a while. It has its place but cannot really be called a science. Social science, yes, but the criteria are different.

 

[Cancel7]

Dixie, Mottley and I are both scientists. Real ones. We both conduct research as a part of our daily lives. We're intimately familiar with the criteria for scientific theory and practice, and what you're trying to include as a science, i.e. ID, falls far short. I'm not going to reiterate what Mottley has already said very well. If you choose to disregard that then that's your loss, not ours.

Psychology is a social science, which differs from the biological sciences in important ways. If you have an undergraduate degree in Psych, regardless of how articulate you may be, you're qualified to work in a bagel shop or to go on to higher studies, and not much else. I realized that about a third of the way into my Psych degree when it was apparent that too many conclusions were based on nothing more substantial than conjecture and opinion, and took physiology. Suddenly I was "home" and I never looked back. My point is that I'm very familiar with the whole field of Psych, even worked with Psych patients for a while. It has its place but cannot really be called a science. Social science, yes, but the criteria are different.

You’re still pinheads to Dixie, Thorn. He's a bit of a turnip.

 

[Damocles]

The problem is how many people believe that it is some kind of attack to simply state that it cannot be tested and therefore cannot fall within scientific method. It isn't an attack on your beliefs to state such, it is in fact what "faith" means, nor does the fact that it is not capable of being tested prove that it is incorrect in any way.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, Mottley and I are both scientists. Real ones. We both conduct research as a part of our daily lives. We're intimately familiar with the criteria for scientific theory and practice, and what you're trying to include as a science, i.e. ID, falls far short. I'm not going to reiterate what Mottley has already said very well. If you choose to disregard that then that's your loss, not ours.

Psychology is a social science, which differs from the biological sciences in important ways. If you have an undergraduate degree in Psych, regardless of how articulate you may be, you're qualified to work in a bagel shop or to go on to higher studies, and not much else. I realized that about a third of the way into my Psych degree when it was apparent that too many conclusions were based on nothing more substantial than conjecture and opinion, and took physiology. Suddenly I was "home" and I never looked back. My point is that I'm very familiar with the whole field of Psych, even worked with Psych patients for a while. It has its place but cannot really be called a science. Social science, yes, but the criteria are different.

I find it difficult to believe you are Scientists, especially you, Mr. Hollow Earth! Scientists know and understand, there is a difference between a FACT and a THEORY. They also know the difference between evolution of life and origin of life. While there may be clinical lab testing you can do to 'observe' evolutionary processes, there is not a test you can do to observe origin. A good example of what I am trying to get through to you, is the theories regarding black holes. We've never been inside a black hole, and have no way of replicating the conditions of a black hole here on earth, therefore, we can't test theories regarding black holes, we can't show any practical use for black holes, and we must accept there is much we will never know about them. Still, we know black holes exist, and many have "theories" of how it might be possible to time travel through black holes! Can they PROVE time travel is possible through a black hole? If so, how? If not, how can it be a theory, according to what you've defined a theory to be?

I have presented logical scientific evidence to suggest (I repeat, SUGGEST) that intelligence played a role in the design and creation of life. The evidence contradicts virtually any possibility of life originating through randomness. It doesn't matter how much you belittle me or call my credentials into question, or refuse to accept known definitions of words we commonly use, it doesn't change the evidence.

Psychology is the science which deals with human behaviors, and it is as much a science as Biology or Physics, it just deals with a different area. I presented a valid piece of scientific evidence from the field of Science related to human behavior, and instead of accepting the evidence presented, you attack the "science" of Psychology! It doesn't make the evidence invalid, it makes you stupid and unable to refute the evidence.

All I have said is, there is a possibility we were created by some intelligence. A legitimate scientist would admit this is true, there is a possibility. Here, you have refused to accept possibility, which means you have concluded there is no possibility of creation by intelligence. You've not presented one shred of evidence to support this argument, and the only possible evidence you could base such an assumption on, is an evolution theory which doesn't even deal with origin of life at all. Mott argues this very point when he corrects me, but the fact remains, many people assume ET explains origin as well. It doesn't!

We have no answer as to how life originated. No theory we form can be tested, but theories do not have to be tested to be valid theory. This is where I seem to lose you and Mott, you assume a theory must be tested, and when it's tested, and the results published in some journal, it becomes a fact, not a theory. That isn't a realistic viewpoint, and it amounts to nothing more than "faith" in what you have theorized. So essentially, we have Dixie making a scientifically valid argument to support the possibility of intelligent design, and we have you, the people of faith, refuting it. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Thorn]

Dixie: ThorN, not Thor (who is really only Brent, anyway).

As Damocles said, nobody is attacking your beliefs. But it is erroneous to call them science. That's all.

This has been discussed to death. You persist in defending what you want to believe instead of reading and learning something. Sorry but that's your problem, not ours.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie: ThorN, not Thor (who is really only Brent, anyway).

As Damocles said, nobody is attacking your beliefs. But it is erroneous to call them science. That's all.

This has been discussed to death. You persist in defending what you want to believe instead of reading and learning something. Sorry but that's your problem, not ours.

Who said anything about my "beliefs?" What I presented was valid scientific evidence to support an idea, aka: a theory, about the origins of life. I have no idea if this is true or false, it is merely a possibility. You guys keep refuting something that has not been concluded, which flies in the face of Science, and has more to do with "faith" than anything I've stated.

I have read, and I have learned, because I keep my mind open to possibility, unlike you and Mott. In your view, there is no possibility that life was created by intelligence, you will not allow such a possibility to even be considered. That is about as "closed-minded" as you can get. The reasoning, is your "faith" in what you've studied regarding evolution theory, which doesn't even deal with origin. Never mind it is only a theory of evolution and not a proven fact of life, you just accept it as fact and move on, because you have faith in the tests and studies published in some journal of Science. I have no problems with ET, in fact, I accept the theory as valid and legitimate and maintain it is further evidence of intelligence in design of life. I do recognize it is a theory and not a fact, but so is my theory of intelligent design. You want me to somehow "prove" my theory to be a fact, and that can't be done with ANY theory. You want me to tell you what kinds of tests or experiments you can run on ID, and again, no theory on origin is predicated on any test or experiment.

The evidence is all around us, from the vast diversity of different and unique life forms, to the inherent role various life forms play in supporting and making possible many other life forms, in the environmental conditions enabling the life forms to exist, and in the very laws of physics and nature we comprehend. None of it can be concluded to be the result of "randomness" yet without ID, that is precisely what you are claiming. It's absurd.

I go back to the analogy of the cavemen who have discovered a computer. Did the computer originate from randomness because they can't explain how it originated? Do they have to know and understand the practical purposes of a computer, for it to be the product of intelligent design? Do they have to know how to use it and understand how it works, in order for it to not be some random anomaly that "just so happened" out the sheer blue? Because they do not fully understand the capabilities and potential of such a device, does that mean it wasn't made by someone, that it just 'evolved' into existence one day, out of random circumstance?


All I have presented is the logical argument that if we do not KNOW everything, and there are things we can't really explain through Science, there is indeed the possibility that life was the product of intelligent design. Now, I want you to stop your Atheistic reactionary glands from responding to that for a moment and consider this... Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean "A God." Maybe we are the product of long-ago extinct life forms from another solar system? Maybe we are the product of an intelligent energy force in another dimension we haven't discovered or aren't aware of? There are all sorts of possibilities for the "source" of Intelligence, it doesn't have to be concluded it is "A God" or the "God of Abraham" or anything even related to religious beliefs. The evidence to suggest intelligence in our design is there, regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

[Kamala Trump]

refudiate the 1/3rd!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dixie, Mottley and I are both scientists. Real ones. We both conduct research as a part of our daily lives. We're intimately familiar with the criteria for scientific theory and practice, and what you're trying to include as a science, i.e. ID, falls far short. I'm not going to reiterate what Mottley has already said very well. If you choose to disregard that then that's your loss, not ours.

Psychology is a social science, which differs from the biological sciences in important ways. If you have an undergraduate degree in Psych, regardless of how articulate you may be, you're qualified to work in a bagel shop or to go on to higher studies, and not much else. I realized that about a third of the way into my Psych degree when it was apparent that too many conclusions were based on nothing more substantial than conjecture and opinion, and took physiology. Suddenly I was "home" and I never looked back. My point is that I'm very familiar with the whole field of Psych, even worked with Psych patients for a while. It has its place but cannot really be called a science. Social science, yes, but the criteria are different.

Oh yea! Physiology rocks! That was my favorite subject in college. I try not to be overly harsh of the short comings of the social sciences. Though I majored in bio and minored in chemistry I took what they call "an emphasis" in psychology and education, mainly with the notion that some day I may wish to teach. So I do certainly see the value of the social sciences but as biologist I'm all to aware of their weaknesses, not that the natural sciences don't have weaknesses too.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I try not to be overly harsh of the short comings of the social sciences.

Sounds pretty fucking harsh when you claim it's not a science. It is indeed the science which studies human behavior. If you wish to call it "social" in an attempt to minimize it, or downplay the importance of it, that just shows your narrow-mindedness. There is no other classification for Psychological study, other than science. The same methods and principles apply to Psychology as any other science, it simply deals with a different aspect than other sciences. Would a physicist claim that biological science is not really a science because it doesn't deal in physics? Would a chemist claim a geologist really wasn't a scientist because his field didn't pertain to chemistry? I think not. You have made an outrageously erroneous statement in an attempt to dismiss the science you don't want to accept. If that is your approach to things, your own science fails and can't support any theory you may have.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Sounds pretty fucking harsh when you claim it's not a science. It is indeed the science which studies human behavior.

Human behavior isn't something that's easily defined. The biggest problem with psychology is that way to much is left up to conjecture, simply because it's difficult to do meaningful experiments.

If you wish to call it "social" in an attempt to minimize it, or downplay the importance of it, that just shows your narrow-mindedness.

We call it social because it studies society.

There is no other classification for Psychological study, other than science. The same methods and principles apply to Psychology as any other science, it simply deals with a different aspect than other sciences. Would a physicist claim that biological science is not really a science because it doesn't deal in physics? Would a chemist claim a geologist really wasn't a scientist because his field didn't pertain to chemistry? I think not. You have made an outrageously erroneous statement in an attempt to dismiss the science you don't want to accept. If that is your approach to things, your own science fails and can't support any theory you may have.

Psychology has always been on the teetering brink of science. It, along with sociology and economics, tries to study society in a scientific way, but fails miserably 90% of the time. The psychoanalysis that psychology has become famous for is pure quackery. The drugs that they dispense are usually shotgun blasts at problems we barely understand. It's not pretty at all, and anyone who has even basic knowledge of the field understands that.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, science can prove everything

Technically they can but they're never going to.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Human behavior isn't something that's easily defined. The biggest problem with psychology is that way to much is left up to conjecture, simply because it's difficult to do meaningful experiments.

Not true. Meaningful psychological experiments are done all the time. I do them routinely here, you just aren't aware of it.

We call it social because it studies society.

No, that would be Sociology. The scientific study of human behavior is Psychology.

Psychology has always been on the teetering brink of science. It, along with sociology and economics, tries to study society in a scientific way, but fails miserably 90% of the time. The psychoanalysis that psychology has become famous for is pure quackery. The drugs that they dispense are usually shotgun blasts at problems we barely understand. It's not pretty at all, and anyone who has even basic knowledge of the field understands that.

There are quacks in every field of Science. If having nutballs in your midst disqualifies you from scientific legitimacy, we have no legitimate sciences.

Somehow, this got turned into a debate on whether Psychology is a legitimate science, but that is not the topic of the thread. Some of the evidence I provided, has nothing to do with Psychology, in fact, only one point I made was related to human behavior. But this is typical from mindless people who don't have the intellectual ability to be objective.

The topic is; The Argument for The Argument of ID. Not to be confused with an argument for ID, which would be an entirely different debate. I am merely proposing an argument for making the argument. In order to refute the argument for the argument, you must draw conclusions and make assumptions which fly in the face of Science, wisdom, and knowledge, as well as common sense reasoning and logic. Mott has done an outstanding job of this, and has proven his inability to be open minded in the process. Several have joined him, and you are welcome to as well. It was precisely why I framed the argument for the argument the way I did.

 

[Minister of Truth]

No, that would be Sociology. The scientific study of human behavior is Psychology.

Technically, psychology is hard to place, but for the time-being it is placed in the field of social sciences. Some see it as a bridge between the two.

Natural Sciences: Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, etc.
Social Sciences: History, Sociology, Criminology, Philosophy, Theology, etc.

Its not really "degrading" to refer to a field as "natural" or "social" sciences. After all, my dean of Social Sciences spoke very derogatively about the "natural" sciences to me on several occasions. In regard to our "Scholar's Day," he was urging my thesis class to submit our works to the program because those people in the natural sciences "wouldn't know scholarship if it bit them in the ass" (classic moment).

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Sounds pretty fucking harsh when you claim it's not a science. It is indeed the science which studies human behavior. If you wish to call it "social" in an attempt to minimize it, or downplay the importance of it, that just shows your narrow-mindedness. There is no other classification for Psychological study, other than science. The same methods and principles apply to Psychology as any other science, it simply deals with a different aspect than other sciences. Would a physicist claim that biological science is not really a science because it doesn't deal in physics? Would a chemist claim a geologist really wasn't a scientist because his field didn't pertain to chemistry? I think not. You have made an outrageously erroneous statement in an attempt to dismiss the science you don't want to accept. If that is your approach to things, your own science fails and can't support any theory you may have.

Dixie you don't even know what science is so how can I possibly explain to you the differences between the social sciences and the natural sciences?

 

[Kamala Trump]

Dixie. You're an ignorant rube. The mechanisms posited by most schools of psychology are not verifiable by experiments, for the most part. It's a lot of very nice conjecture, completely different than real, actual science with hypothesi which can be disproven or proven.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Technically, psychology is hard to place, but for the time-being it is placed in the field of social sciences. Some see it as a bridge between the two.

Natural Sciences: Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, etc.
Social Sciences: History, Sociology, Criminology, Philosophy, Theology, etc.

Its not really "degrading" to refer to a field as "natural" or "social" sciences. After all, my dean of Social Sciences spoke very derogatively about the "natural" sciences to me on several occasions. In regard to our "Scholar's Day," he was urging my thesis class to submit our works to the program because those people in the natural sciences "wouldn't know scholarship if it bit them in the ass" (classic moment).

I essentially agree though I would consider philosophy and theology as humanities and not social sciences.

I also see nothing derogatory about pointing out the differences between the natural and social sciences. One is not essentially better than the other, rather they are just different and serve different purposes.

But Dixie makes a good point. This discussion is supposed to be a defense of ID as science. Wether it's a natural science or a social science is a non-issue as ID meets the standards of neither.(IMHO)

Be that as it may, ID supporters have chosen to use ID to undermine Biology education and therefore it should be challenged by the standards of the natural sciences. In that respect Dixie's defense of ID has fallen incredibly short.

That's really the crux of this issue. ID supporters could care less if ID is sound science or not. Their intent is to undermine or rather redefine "what science is" to suite their own religious and political agendas.

If, for example, Dixie was to advocate teaching ID as an alternative concept of human origins in an anthropology, philosophy or comparative religion class he would have an unlikely ally in myself. I would support that as being a proper forum to teach ID.

But that is not the intent of ID supporters. Their intent is to undermine the foundational teachings of biology with non-science and that is why there is no place in the biology class room for ID other than to teach students, by example, what a pseudo-science is.

 

[Kamala Trump]

That's really the crux of this issue. ID supporters could care less if ID is sound science or not. Their intent is to undermine or rather redefine "what science is" to suite their own religious and political agendas..

Exactly correct. The illuminati controllers still strongly believe in irrationalities like religion to control behavior and thought. Ultimately they are opposed to education and seek a return to a dark ages, under the theocratic rule of the Noahide judges. Dixie is a new age/ noahide killbot.

 

[Onceler]

"The evidence is all around us, from the vast diversity of different and unique life forms, to the inherent role various life forms play in supporting and making possible many other life forms, in the environmental conditions enabling the life forms to exist, and in the very laws of physics and nature we comprehend. None of it can be concluded to be the result of "randomness" yet without ID, that is precisely what you are claiming. It's absurd. "

It's not absurd if you have studied evolution, and consider the vast periods of time involved for the changes that take place. It actually fits together in a pretty amazing way.

What is absurd is that you ignore the science behind that and argue how impossible it is, but seem to accept the automatic presence of an intelligent designer, who apparently popped out of nowhere, as something that is even remotely scientific.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Dixie. You're an ignorant rube. The mechanisms posited by most schools of psychology are not verifiable by experiments, for the most part. It's a lot of very nice conjecture, completely different than real, actual science with hypothesi which can be disproven or proven.

I think that psychology is still in its infancy. Like Alchemy turned into Chemistry, there's going to be a field that will spring up out of psychology that will explain things far more accurately. That doesn't mean the psychologists aren't useful right now. They've made a lot of important contributions.