The 'Science' of Intelligent Design

Solitary said:
For them to have evolved does not mean they had to have wisdom & knowledge. If you understand the principles of science, biology, and evolution (as you say you do), then you would know that.

They did not change their own functionality. The next generation was slightly (or more) different, giving them an advantage.
Click to expand...

Solitary, I fully realize they don't have wisdom or knowledge. I do understand the principles of science and biology. A photocell operates from simple stimulation of light on nerve receptors, a human eye works on a principle of projected images to the retina, through a cornea and lens, and regulated by the iris. They are two entirely different types of function. There is no "evolutionary" process which would have produced this result. Why? Because, evolution doesn't have knowledge and wisdom! The photocell eye doesn't "know" it needs a cornea, lens, retina, etc... evolution doesn't "know" it needs to develop these components! So, without "wisdom and knowledge" the eye couldn't have "evolved" from a primitive photocell to a complex human eye, it's not possible according to Darwin.

Evolution can explain mutations, it can explain adaptations, it can theorize how a flipper became a limb, or how a bear develops a white coat to adapt to the arctic conditions. These are things that could potentially change within a species as part of natural selection, through an evolution process, because there is a fundamental connection in functionality and a purpose for the adaptation, vital to the species existence. The theory you are presenting for the eye, doesn't meet this criteria, because the human eye is far more complex and operates completely different from a simple photocell eyespot, and the eyespot doesn't possess knowledge and understanding to be able to make the kinds of changes required for it to become a human eye. It's impossible!
 
Dixie said:
Solitary, I fully realize they don't have wisdom or knowledge. I do understand the principles of science and biology. A photocell operates from simple stimulation of light on nerve receptors, a human eye works on a principle of projected images to the retina, through a cornea and lens, and regulated by the iris. They are two entirely different types of function. There is no "evolutionary" process which would have produced this result. Why? Because, evolution doesn't have knowledge and wisdom! The photocell eye doesn't "know" it needs a cornea, lens, retina, etc... evolution doesn't "know" it needs to develop these components! So, without "wisdom and knowledge" the eye couldn't have "evolved" from a primitive photocell to a complex human eye, it's not possible according to Darwin.

Evolution can explain mutations, it can explain adaptations, it can theorize how a flipper became a limb, or how a bear develops a white coat to adapt to the arctic conditions. These are things that could potentially change within a species as part of natural selection, through an evolution process, because there is a fundamental connection in functionality and a purpose for the adaptation, vital to the species existence. The theory you are presenting for the eye, doesn't meet this criteria, because the human eye is far more complex and operates completely different from a simple photocell eyespot, and the eyespot doesn't possess knowledge and understanding to be able to make the kinds of changes required for it to become a human eye. It's impossible!
Click to expand...

In one paragraph you claim you understand, then in the next you show you do not by making statements that are false.

Watch the video. Each step in the process can easily be explained by evolution. No one has said that it went from an eyespot to a fully functioning complex eye. But the adaptations at each level work fine.

Your claims have been disproven. The eye is not the proof you want it to be.
 
Mottleydude said:
Dixie help us out here. In plain black and white, tell us what your definition of science is.
Click to expand...

It is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Science is also incomplete knowledge. You, like many arrogant humans, assume that what science currently knows and understands, is not only empirical, but all there is to know. If something doesn't conform to what science currently understands and knows, well, it's simply "not science" in your opinion. If something seems to contradict what science currently knows or understands, you claim it has been "refuted by science!"

This closed-minded and asinine approach, is completely contradictory to legitimate scientific theory. Yet, that doesn't seem to matter to you, as long as you can point to a peer review or something published in a pinhead science journal, that's all that matters. Science constantly continues to ask questions, it doesn't conclude, it doesn't disprove or prove anything.
 
Solitary said:
In one paragraph you claim you understand, then in the next you show you do not by making statements that are false.

Watch the video. Each step in the process can easily be explained by evolution. No one has said that it went from an eyespot to a fully functioning complex eye. But the adaptations at each level work fine.

Your claims have been disproven. The eye is not the proof you want it to be.
Click to expand...

What have I claimed that has been disproved? Proof? I haven't presented the eye as "proof" of anything. You seem to want to present it as "proof" of evolution, when it's inherently impossible to have evolved the way you claim.
 
Dixie said:
What have I claimed that has been disproved? Proof? I haven't presented the eye as "proof" of anything. You seem to want to present it as "proof" of evolution, when it's inherently impossible to have evolved the way you claim.
Click to expand...

What has been disproved is that idea that the eye could not have evolved. Your concept depends on the eye being irreducibly complex. And yet, as the video showed, it is not.
 
Dixie said:
It is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Science is also incomplete knowledge. You, like many arrogant humans, assume that what science currently knows and understands, is not only empirical, but all there is to know. If something doesn't conform to what science currently understands and knows, well, it's simply "not science" in your opinion. If something seems to contradict what science currently knows or understands, you claim it has been "refuted by science!"

This closed-minded and asinine approach, is completely contradictory to legitimate scientific theory. Yet, that doesn't seem to matter to you, as long as you can point to a peer review or something published in a pinhead science journal, that's all that matters. Science constantly continues to ask questions, it doesn't conclude, it doesn't disprove or prove anything.
Click to expand...

Dixie, no one has made any claim that science knows everything. You keep saying we have, but we have not.

If something seems to contradict science, then scientists look at it more closely to see if it actually does. This is what happened to you "the eye cannot have evolved" idea. And you have been provided a link to a scientist explaining why it could have evolved and showing the various steps.

But you refuse to examine both sides of the argument. And then you have the audacity to claim WE are the ones ignoring the facts.
 
Dixie said:
As has been pointed out, nothing regarding origin is testable, because the condition of non-origin isn't replicable. So if you want to say that science can not examine the question of origin, I suppose that is a valid point. I happen to think "testability" isn't needed to be scientific. We can't "test" a black hole, dark matter, anti-matter, etc. None of these pinheads who believe we all "evolved" from a single-cell organism, can "test" that theory.

Now we can examine evidence. We see archeological evidence of species which changed with conditions and adapted to environment. We see no evidence that one species of life begat another totally different kind. We can also study attributes inherent in human beings... like spirituality. Mankind has had a connection with it since the dawn of civilization. We can "test" this against studies of other living organisms, all of which exhibit particular and specific behaviors with reason and purpose, none of which exhibit behaviors for no reason. What this "test" will conclude, is humans have a reason and purpose for their profound connection to spirituality and almost universal belief that something greater than man is responsible for our creation.

We can't pour some chemicals in a test tube and "confirm" or "deny" intelligent design, and if that is what needs to be done for the idea to be "scientific" it simply can't be. Neither can any other theory of origin, for that matter.
Click to expand...
Nah, some day we'll be able recreate the conditions, of course that is not the only way to test the theory. It is testable mathematically, the same as we tested with black holes and knew with a certainty they were there, so began looking.

It is simply incorrect to maintain that the only way to test a black hole is by being sucked into it, or the only way to test clay theory would be to sit for billions of years and watch.
 
They actually did tests back in the '80's that re-created the conditions of the primordial earth, and were able to "create" particles that resembled rudimentary single-celled organisms. The only thing they didn't do was replicate (which, of course, is necessary to be classified as life).

The thing they couldn't match for the experiment was the hundreds of millions of years that it might take for one of these things floating around to replicate itself.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Did you even watch the video? It explained a very good hypothesis for how replicating RNA came to be, and even how it came to get a formation of protective lipids surrounding it resembling a crude, replicating single cell.
Click to expand...
Yes I did. I also remember doing an experiment in HS with some chemicals in a broth and creating a micro-structure that looked like something you'd find in a cell. I said "so what?" back then too. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Then it can't be used to dispute the Theory of ID.
Click to expand...
It isn't. People dispute ID as a scientific theory, not as a possibility.

It is you who argue things like "irreducible complexity" makes it "science" to explain their philosophical theory and confuse the line.

Because you use something that can be shown incorrect using testable methods it is then proven wrong using what has already been tested.

The idea that God may have started the ball rolling isn't something they say is wrong, just that it is something that cannot be tested using the scientific method and because of that it cannot be a scientific theory.
 
Damocles said:
It isn't. People dispute ID as a scientific theory, not as a possibility.

It is you who argue things like "irreducible complexity" makes it "science" to explain their philosophical theory and confuse the line.

Because you use something that can be shown incorrect using testable methods it is then proven wrong using what has already been tested.

The idea that God may have started the ball rolling isn't something they say is wrong, just that it is something that cannot be tested using the scientific method and because of that it cannot be a scientific theory.
Click to expand...
ID theory explains the origin of life as well as its complexities. Evolution does not.

ID explains the gaps in the fossil record that, according to evolutionary theory, must exist.
 
Southern Man said:
ID theory explains the origin of life as well as its complexities. Evolution does not.

ID explains the gaps in the fossil record that, according to evolutionary theory, must exist.
Click to expand...
Whether it explains that or not does not make it any more testable and therefore the scientific method cannot be applied to it. There is no litmus that can show you the presence of God in how it was done. Since you cannot apply the scientific method to test it, it is not science even if it is the Truth.

BTW - There are other explanations for both the origin (different Theories) and for the "gaps" in the records.
 
Southern Man said:
ID theory explains the origin of life as well as its complexities. Evolution does not.

ID explains the gaps in the fossil record that, according to evolutionary theory, must exist.
Click to expand...

But it does it without being scientific. That the theory of intelligent design explains things evolution does not has not been argued at all.

The argument has centered around whether ID is scientific, and whether evolution has been disproven. The answer is no on both counts.
 
Damocles said:
Whether it explains that or not does not make it any more testable and therefore the scientific method cannot be applied to it. There is no litmus that can show you the presence of God in how it was done. Since you cannot apply the scientific method to test it, it is not science even if it is the Truth.

BTW - There are other explanations for both the origin (different Theories) and for the "gaps" in the records.
Click to expand...

You sold probably broaden your definition of science [m-w.com]:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

There's a whole school of spiritual science in Germany. http://www.goetheanum.org/hochschule.html?&L=1
 
And you should learn what the Scientific Method is, then you will understand what the topic of the conversation.

In order to fall within the purview of a science class, it needs to meet the necessary requirements to fit within the scientific method. Testability is paramount, it is a requisite to reach the status of Theory.

Hence the need to teach ID in philosophy classes. As much as you want to make it into a scientific Theory it will never reach that status until it can be tested. There is a logical progression, without testing nothing reaches the status of scientific theory.

While it can be a theory in philosophy, until it can be tested and verified it does not fall within the purview of the scientific method and is therefore not something that should be taught in a science class.
 
Dixie said:
Yes Waterhead... Like I said... 150 FUCKING YEARS AGO! Back then, we didn't understand the complexity of the human eye and how it worked!
Click to expand...

Uhmmm... yes we did. It's not that difficult. It's a lens, a muscle, a hollow area, and some light detecting cells. All you'd need was a basic degree in anatomy.
 
Southern Man said:
That's only required in one of the 5 definitions of science. Perhaps you should learn that.
Click to expand...
While language usage may let the layman misapply the term, it doesn't change what is.

If it is not testable, it will never reach the status of Scientific Theory. Nothing will.

This should not be taught in science because it is not something that can be tested using the scientific method. (Which doesn't change even if the dictionary says that there is such a thing as the "science of art". Just because some people use it as an idiomatic expression doesn't change what the scientific method is or how it applies. BTW - Art shouldn't be taught in science class either, even if people use the words "science of art" together.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top