I did read it, and my point is that Darwinism makes no claim as to whether there is an intelligent or unintelligent process behind evolution. We observe that life changes in reproduction and extrapolate that to make the hypothesis that this has been happening for millions of years. Then we look at, say the fossil record, or the evolution of bacteria (since that can be observed in scales less than thousands of years). We make testable hypotheses such as "if evolution is true than we should be able to find a reasonable timeline that shows evolution in the fossil record." This is the scientific method. Darwinism at no point claims that there is NOT an intelligence behind the forces of nature. None of science does because it is grossly unscientific to make hypotheses involving unmeasurable phenomena.
For an example, would you say that the Law of Gravity assumes there is no creator because it assigns the force of gravity to the relationship between the masses of two objects and that it says nothing of who created that force? Like Darwinian evolution, the Law of Gravity makes no claim as to why gravity works, but it makes testable hypotheses on how gravity works. For all Science cares, gravity is caused by invisible unmeasurable fairies pushing objects around or the will of an unmeasurable creator or merely chance (also unmeasurable). These are simply not testable and therefore ignored by science.
I sometimes suffer from ambiguity, but I think if you will go back to my last post you will see that I was addressing the issues you raised in the hope of more discussion. I hope this post is clearer, as I am enjoying having this debate with someone who is intelligent and who has reasons behind their opinions, something that is lacking in so many people with strong opinions.
One cannot say both that ID is not falsifiable and that there is evidence against it.
Evidence against what hypothesis? That an intelligent designer created everything? That's simply no hypothesis at all. If you'll notice, Darwinism, etc. purports to explain the processes by which life changes. We see life changing around us, make observations, and extrapolate testable hypotheses. The key difference here is that science attempts to explain what is happening and how it happens. Darwinism simply does not make any attempt to worry that invisible unmeasurable fairies are actually the cause of the chemical processes that allow genetics to work. I repeat: Darwinism is not based on the claim that the observed processes of genetics and evolution are the result of unintelligent processes. It makes no claim either way BECAUSE THAT IS AN UNMEASURABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE STATEMENT i.e. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.
ID on the other hand does not offer testable hypotheses. To say that ID is unfalsifiable is frankly ignorant. How can "ID" be falsifiable? "ID" isn't a hypotheses. "God created life" is a hypothesis and is unfalsifiable for the same reason "invisible unmeasurable fairies control genetics." Anything that is unmeasurable, by definition cannot be measured, and is therefore of no use to science and logic. Perhaps of use spiritually, but that is a different argument. If God is invisible and unmeasurable, there is simply no way to test hypotheses about God. On the contrary, take hypotheses such as "By measuring X, Y, and Z aspects of an 'object,' we can tell with C% assurance that the 'object' was crafted by an intelligence." That would be a measurable hypotheses, and one I have yet to see anyone even attempt to start to work on. That's why I won't be reading any books on ID - its proponents have not impressed me that I would find anything but pseudo-science there.
If you would bother yourselves enough to actually read those you are so vehemently opposed to, then maybe I wouldn't have to channel them for you.
If I am ignorant of ID, you and its other proponents are somewhat to blame.
I agree. This article was heavy on opinion and serves very little purpose. Who cares what this guy thinks about how certain, similar patterns are named?!
I'd rather you present a counter-argument rather than simply repeating that we are wrong. I'm not going to go read a book on ID, OK? And that's because I haven't heard anything to convince me there's any reason to spend my time doing that.
"Demarcation" of the boundaries of science certainly is not futile. Almost all human constructs have "demarcation criteria," and it's especially important to remember science's. You simply must have a clearly defined, testable hypothesis to add anything to scientific discussion. The problem with ID, at least mainstream ID, is that it offers no testable hypotheses. Therefore, simply put, it is not science and should not be taught as science.
Evolution is based on testable hypotheses. If you disagree with the results of the experiments that tested those hypotheses, and the conclusions made from those results, that is one thing. Please, please come up with new hypotheses, experiments, and facts - that's how science progresses. Otherwise, stop trying to back up your knowledge/ideas of spirituality with pseudo-science passed off as science (not you specifcally but the ID crowd in general).
Most spiritual arguments are inherently untestable and therefore have nothing to do with science. Likewise, religion/spirituality has little to do with pragmatic application of tested facts. Why should it necessarily? It serves an entirely different purpose than science does.
Please don't take my comments to you as an attack; they are strictly strictly out of love for honest debate and Truth.
Oh bother. Look at you all. There's a good reason for calling them PCs. Of course Macs are personal computers, but for many years up until around the Windows 95 days, a lot Windows and DOS software was marketed as running on "IBM-PC and 100% compatible computers" and then just as "IBM-PC Compatible. That's where it comes from. It's simply an evolution of a marketing slogan.
Thanks. I will look at the Godel stuff. I have to admit, I didn't know there was really anyone else who thought about this kind of thing. Especially not Kant... I guess I will have to do some research:)
It's too bad we as scientists or whatever can't make it more clear how unscientific ID is, not because it is wrong, but because it is an unprovable "hypothesis" and therefore certainly doesn't have a place in science education. Frankly I have no problem with theology classes in public schools as long as they can teach "Evolution" in science class. And, like every other set of curricula, the content of both should be held to the strictest standards of dispassion.
Completely OT, but why can't God be both eternal matter or eternal spirit-or-whatever-one-would-say. If God is omnipotent and/or omnipresent, then Reality = God because it follows that the force or group of forces in control of Reality is Reality. And who can argue with Reality* and get the last word;)
* i.e. everything which is real. It's an interesting trick of our perception to be able to think of falsities as they are completely missing from nature. And there really is no arguing that there is anything more powerful than the totality of what exists seen and unseen.
There are certainly "levels" of intelligence - we measure this with (arguably flawed) IQ tests in our own species. We can measure the intelligence of animals relative to us. Even, I think a microorganism or an integrated circuit could be said to possess some level of intelligence. Obviously, the answer to what intelligence is would need to be part of the hypothesis.
It's an interesting intellectual question, and it has been touched on in many areas of science, most notably pattern recognition, as the summary states. It interests me that no mainstream creationist has pursued this line of thinking. There are good arguments for being open minded when it comes to our beliefs about the universe - not the least of which is that our senses, and so the data we collect using them, are not provable to be trustworthy.
Obviously, ID fails to impress us with its (lack of) logical hypotheses. I would like to see the ID crowd come up with an actual science that could predict whether something was created by an intelligence (and predict what "level" of intelligence created it). At least it would lend them some credence and provide a factual basis for their (and our) arguments.
Hey good call! It's not like US Conservatives ever lie... oh wait. This just in: the level of political debate in America has corroded into name calling and allegiance to Red or Blue above all else. Or... was it ever not like this? I'm too young to know.
Yeah I'm "a troll," and this dude is "insightful." If I have to hear "left-wing kook" or "right-wing Bible thumper" one more time, I'm gonna flip my fucking lid!
There was a public outcry over the intrusion into Palin's email. And drop Ayers, Jesus! Start thinking critically and stop regurgitating what other people tell you.
I could easily say similar things to some Liberals, but you are being a dumb ass right here, right now. I repeat: stop blaming "the Liberals" and 1. start having opinions that have critical thought put into them, and 2. start thinking of how you can help America not how everyone else is ruining it. That's just counterproductive self-pity.
Hey yeah! And it's cheap at $3500. Kind of a ridiculous price when you just want to compile Subversion (which I did get working) and PHP (which just got ridiculous)...
I do like smit, but seriously, when is a multi-ten-thousand dollar AIX server better than a comparable Linux or BSD box?
Smit is nice but Linux has good admin tools too. Oh man, and compiling open source source software on AIX is way more trouble than it should be (at least on 5.2). I couldn't even find a completely functional version of GCC as a binary. There's no package management, either. I really can't see what the point is nowadays.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get snippy. It's not becoming :)
I did read it, and my point is that Darwinism makes no claim as to whether there is an intelligent or unintelligent process behind evolution. We observe that life changes in reproduction and extrapolate that to make the hypothesis that this has been happening for millions of years. Then we look at, say the fossil record, or the evolution of bacteria (since that can be observed in scales less than thousands of years). We make testable hypotheses such as "if evolution is true than we should be able to find a reasonable timeline that shows evolution in the fossil record." This is the scientific method. Darwinism at no point claims that there is NOT an intelligence behind the forces of nature. None of science does because it is grossly unscientific to make hypotheses involving unmeasurable phenomena.
For an example, would you say that the Law of Gravity assumes there is no creator because it assigns the force of gravity to the relationship between the masses of two objects and that it says nothing of who created that force? Like Darwinian evolution, the Law of Gravity makes no claim as to why gravity works, but it makes testable hypotheses on how gravity works. For all Science cares, gravity is caused by invisible unmeasurable fairies pushing objects around or the will of an unmeasurable creator or merely chance (also unmeasurable). These are simply not testable and therefore ignored by science.
I sometimes suffer from ambiguity, but I think if you will go back to my last post you will see that I was addressing the issues you raised in the hope of more discussion. I hope this post is clearer, as I am enjoying having this debate with someone who is intelligent and who has reasons behind their opinions, something that is lacking in so many people with strong opinions.
That, my friend, was well put.
One cannot say both that ID is not falsifiable and that there is evidence against it.
Evidence against what hypothesis? That an intelligent designer created everything? That's simply no hypothesis at all. If you'll notice, Darwinism, etc. purports to explain the processes by which life changes. We see life changing around us, make observations, and extrapolate testable hypotheses. The key difference here is that science attempts to explain what is happening and how it happens. Darwinism simply does not make any attempt to worry that invisible unmeasurable fairies are actually the cause of the chemical processes that allow genetics to work. I repeat: Darwinism is not based on the claim that the observed processes of genetics and evolution are the result of unintelligent processes. It makes no claim either way BECAUSE THAT IS AN UNMEASURABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE STATEMENT i.e. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.
ID on the other hand does not offer testable hypotheses. To say that ID is unfalsifiable is frankly ignorant. How can "ID" be falsifiable? "ID" isn't a hypotheses. "God created life" is a hypothesis and is unfalsifiable for the same reason "invisible unmeasurable fairies control genetics." Anything that is unmeasurable, by definition cannot be measured, and is therefore of no use to science and logic. Perhaps of use spiritually, but that is a different argument. If God is invisible and unmeasurable, there is simply no way to test hypotheses about God. On the contrary, take hypotheses such as "By measuring X, Y, and Z aspects of an 'object,' we can tell with C% assurance that the 'object' was crafted by an intelligence." That would be a measurable hypotheses, and one I have yet to see anyone even attempt to start to work on. That's why I won't be reading any books on ID - its proponents have not impressed me that I would find anything but pseudo-science there.
If you would bother yourselves enough to actually read those you are so vehemently opposed to, then maybe I wouldn't have to channel them for you.
If I am ignorant of ID, you and its other proponents are somewhat to blame.
I agree. This article was heavy on opinion and serves very little purpose. Who cares what this guy thinks about how certain, similar patterns are named?!
I'd rather you present a counter-argument rather than simply repeating that we are wrong. I'm not going to go read a book on ID, OK? And that's because I haven't heard anything to convince me there's any reason to spend my time doing that.
"Demarcation" of the boundaries of science certainly is not futile. Almost all human constructs have "demarcation criteria," and it's especially important to remember science's. You simply must have a clearly defined, testable hypothesis to add anything to scientific discussion. The problem with ID, at least mainstream ID, is that it offers no testable hypotheses. Therefore, simply put, it is not science and should not be taught as science.
Evolution is based on testable hypotheses. If you disagree with the results of the experiments that tested those hypotheses, and the conclusions made from those results, that is one thing. Please, please come up with new hypotheses, experiments, and facts - that's how science progresses. Otherwise, stop trying to back up your knowledge/ideas of spirituality with pseudo-science passed off as science (not you specifcally but the ID crowd in general).
Most spiritual arguments are inherently untestable and therefore have nothing to do with science. Likewise, religion/spirituality has little to do with pragmatic application of tested facts. Why should it necessarily? It serves an entirely different purpose than science does.
Please don't take my comments to you as an attack; they are strictly strictly out of love for honest debate and Truth.
Oh bother. Look at you all. There's a good reason for calling them PCs. Of course Macs are personal computers, but for many years up until around the Windows 95 days, a lot Windows and DOS software was marketed as running on "IBM-PC and 100% compatible computers" and then just as "IBM-PC Compatible. That's where it comes from. It's simply an evolution of a marketing slogan.
Civil disobedience in modern society just gets you in a lot of trouble.
What a cowardly point of view (no pun intended).
Thanks. I will look at the Godel stuff. I have to admit, I didn't know there was really anyone else who thought about this kind of thing. Especially not Kant... I guess I will have to do some research :)
It's too bad we as scientists or whatever can't make it more clear how unscientific ID is, not because it is wrong, but because it is an unprovable "hypothesis" and therefore certainly doesn't have a place in science education. Frankly I have no problem with theology classes in public schools as long as they can teach "Evolution" in science class. And, like every other set of curricula, the content of both should be held to the strictest standards of dispassion.
Completely OT, but why can't God be both eternal matter or eternal spirit-or-whatever-one-would-say. If God is omnipotent and/or omnipresent, then Reality = God because it follows that the force or group of forces in control of Reality is Reality. And who can argue with Reality* and get the last word ;)
* i.e. everything which is real. It's an interesting trick of our perception to be able to think of falsities as they are completely missing from nature. And there really is no arguing that there is anything more powerful than the totality of what exists seen and unseen.
Care to post any references? I would be most appreciative.
Right, SO why has the debate not progressed? That's the important issue. There is still much to be figured out.
Luckily though I am a blind alien, I was able to understand your comment with the use of a screen reader and a Babel Fish. DON'T PANIC.
There are certainly "levels" of intelligence - we measure this with (arguably flawed) IQ tests in our own species. We can measure the intelligence of animals relative to us. Even, I think a microorganism or an integrated circuit could be said to possess some level of intelligence. Obviously, the answer to what intelligence is would need to be part of the hypothesis.
It's an interesting intellectual question, and it has been touched on in many areas of science, most notably pattern recognition, as the summary states. It interests me that no mainstream creationist has pursued this line of thinking. There are good arguments for being open minded when it comes to our beliefs about the universe - not the least of which is that our senses, and so the data we collect using them, are not provable to be trustworthy.
Obviously, ID fails to impress us with its (lack of) logical hypotheses. I would like to see the ID crowd come up with an actual science that could predict whether something was created by an intelligence (and predict what "level" of intelligence created it). At least it would lend them some credence and provide a factual basis for their (and our) arguments.
Ooooooooh. Damn dude. You told us.
Hey good call! It's not like US Conservatives ever lie... oh wait. This just in: the level of political debate in America has corroded into name calling and allegiance to Red or Blue above all else. Or... was it ever not like this? I'm too young to know.
Yeah I'm "a troll," and this dude is "insightful." If I have to hear "left-wing kook" or "right-wing Bible thumper" one more time, I'm gonna flip my fucking lid! There was a public outcry over the intrusion into Palin's email. And drop Ayers, Jesus! Start thinking critically and stop regurgitating what other people tell you. I could easily say similar things to some Liberals, but you are being a dumb ass right here, right now. I repeat: stop blaming "the Liberals" and 1. start having opinions that have critical thought put into them, and 2. start thinking of how you can help America not how everyone else is ruining it. That's just counterproductive self-pity.
Likewise, dumb ass.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! And it's all the Liberals' fault!
Sure, you can use it to install packages. But, unless I am mistaken, which is quite possible, there is nothing like ports or apt-get for AIX...
Hey yeah! And it's cheap at $3500. Kind of a ridiculous price when you just want to compile Subversion (which I did get working) and PHP (which just got ridiculous)...
My first thought was: "Who Cares?"
I do like smit, but seriously, when is a multi-ten-thousand dollar AIX server better than a comparable Linux or BSD box?
Smit is nice but Linux has good admin tools too. Oh man, and compiling open source source software on AIX is way more trouble than it should be (at least on 5.2). I couldn't even find a completely functional version of GCC as a binary. There's no package management, either. I really can't see what the point is nowadays.
+1 FUNNY
Ooh. Good call :(