How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nope. IDers are realizing that there are "signatures" that designed things have. Much like when I was working in radar, we knew the difference between noise and a signal. Now noise can be faked (i.e., designed to look non-designed), but a signal of any sustained length just can't.

to identify a "signature" you have to have some real world example to judge it by... humans transmit radio signals, so if we detected something coming out of space, we'd know what to judge it by... there is no natural example of an intelligent designer that could create things like galaxies, stars, atoms, etc. to imply the one ID claims to exist

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've disagreed with this over and over, and pointed out over and over that IDers are talking of a TYPE of intelligence, not a MAGNITUDE of intelligence. And the TYPE of intelligence we're evaluating and looking for is the TYPE of intelligence that humans have.

but it's all about MAGNITUDE... were not talking about making a ham sandwich, or even a polio vaccine... we're talking about the creation of everything we know to exist... creating DNA, from scratch, is an ENORMOUS MAGNITUDE greater than anything humans have ever done, and maybe ever could do

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, it's not. Period. Or rather, many intelligent people fall on both sides of the question, so it will be battled out in the courts.

My point is that if they trot out an evolutionist that thinks that evolution supports atheism, will you want to throw out evolution?

Having God is NOT NECESSARY to ID.

Having something is a requirement for science. What IDers are saying is that the "designer" might be God.... or something else. This is not an answer but an obfuscation. Until that question is answered it is science fiction, not science.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count

Read the Court decision - it has some very good quotes about how the Intelligent Designer has to be supernatural (from both sides), and therefore outside the bounds of science.

Then tell the SETI scientists that they can't call themselves scientists anymore, for they are doing the SAME THING that the IDers are doing. And yes, "distinct possibility that an intelligent being IS behind our world" is a philosophical truth (or a philosophical conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from scientific observations), BUT SO IS the distinct possibility that NO intelligent being is behind our world. It's exactly the same. That final leap, whether it's to intelligent designer OR to non-directed processes, is philosophical. That's the whole problem with the studies of origins - and it's a problem to ALL sides.

Originally Posted by brownie

to identify a "signature" you have to have some real world example to judge it by...

I've said this many times - we ARE judging it by something in our real world - OURSELVES. That is the answer of the IDers. We are looking for signatures of an intelligence LIKE OURSELVES. Now, there may be intelligences out there NOT like ourselves, but we wouldn't know how to look for them.

Originally Posted by Cirdan

What IDers are saying is that the "designer" might be God.... or something else.

They are saying that WHEN ASKED, just like evolutionists would say they think God is behind evolution, or is not behind evolution, when asked. Or they could both say that the question isn't relevant, which is entirely true. The question, and the answer, have NOTHING to do with the science. Again, with my data processing, math, radar, computer and simulation background, I think it is a fascinating question and one well worth asking and exploring.

[Lotesse]

Yes, but the SETI scientists aren't asking that public schools require students to learn their theories as truth and science.

[Rían]

I would certainly hope that the SETI scientists would be rightfully granted the dignity of being called scientists, and having their field described as a scientific study, if students were to ask about it. Right now, scientists that are researching ID aren't allowed these rightful descriptions. Instead, by many people, they're subjected to name-calling that would shame a first-grader, and shameless and inappropriate questioning of their characters and their motives.

I'm not super-against the court decision; as I said, I think the field is not quite ready to be officially taught in schools. I'm mainly against those who try to suppress study in the field of ID by the very unscientific means of name-calling, and closing ranks against things they don't like, and questioning motives, and even "mind-reading" (like "I know what they REALLY think!" ) and things like that. If you don't like the field, scientist, then STAY OUT! There's plenty to research. But don't stop someone else who IS interested. The goal of science - the very MEANING of the WORD science - is knowledge. Let's not put limits on ourselves! Let's look at everything that science CAN look at - and that includes ID as I have described it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've said this many times - we ARE judging it by something in our real world - OURSELVES. That is the answer of the IDers. We are looking for signatures of an intelligence LIKE OURSELVES. Now, there may be intelligences out there NOT like ourselves, but we wouldn't know how to look for them.

so ID is a theory about aliens, not about a supernatural being?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

They are saying that WHEN ASKED, just like evolutionists would say they think God is behind evolution, or is not behind evolution, when asked. Or they could both say that the question isn't relevant, which is entirely true. The question, and the answer, have NOTHING to do with the science. Again, with my data processing, math, radar, computer and simulation background, I think it is a fascinating question and one well worth asking and exploring.

another reason to study science is to help predict the future... evolution makes many predictions... for instance, that life may have developed on other planets, or may yet develop... or even that current life on earth may develop something similar to human intelligence, given enough time

what practical applications does ID give us?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm not super-against the court decision; as I said, I think the field is not quite ready to be officially taught in schools. I'm mainly against those who try to suppress study in the field of ID by the very unscientific means of name-calling, and closing ranks against things they don't like, and questioning motives, and even "mind-reading" (like "I know what they REALLY think!" ) and things like that. If you don't like the field, scientist, then STAY OUT! There's plenty to research. But don't stop someone else who IS interested.

Again... no one is stopping any research... This is about defending our public school system from imposition of religion as science. If you want to work out the evidence for intelligent design in your garage no one is going to come and stop you. The Discovery Institute (or whatever the intelligent design main church is called) has tons of money. Its not like they cant afford to bank roll lots of scientists and whomever else to do the work necessary to prove intelligent design. Apparently they already are. You seem to think there is a vast conspiracy afoot to take out any possibility of working on intelligent design. But it doesnt seem like the creationists are interested in actual scientific research as they are in marketing messages and mass promotion in the christian community.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Again... no one is stopping any research...

They most certainly are. Publishing in scientific journals is a critical part of scientific research, and ID scientists are being shut out of this critical area, and those few times they WERE printed in scientific journals, their opponents have the unmitigated GALL to question the motives of the editors and accuse them of all sorts of nefarious motives which they apparently can discern through mind-reading

This makes me really angry. Impartially analyzing and discussing scientific research is one thing; "mind-reading" motives, ganging up and keeping perfectly good scientists from publishing in journals, and accusing them of immoral and unscientific conduct, apparently solely because of the type of research they're interested in, is quite another thing.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Impartially analyzing and discussing scientific research is one thing; "mind-reading" motives, ganging up and keeping perfectly good scientists from publishing in journals, and accusing them of immoral and unscientific conduct, apparently solely because of the type of research they're interested in, is quite another thing.

The process of peer review is never a genteel process. No exception is made for anyone and no one's work goes unchallenged. Papers are often subject to derision from reviewer if they feel the research is flawed. This is not a treatment reserved for IDers alone.

[Rían]

But typically, from what I've read, they don't even GET reviewed - the editors see it's an article about ID, and won't even review it, because they say it's not scientific because it's not in scientific journals, and it's not in scientific journals because it won't even get a review. When an ID article DID finally get printed in a scientific article, the editor in question (who thought it was a good article, along with the other reviewers that OKed it), started getting asked all sorts of personal, prying questions about his religious beliefs, like he was an unscrupulous, unethical man. Many, many people associate evolution with atheism; why not ask THEM when they OK an article about evolution.

ID is NOT tied to any particular religion or being. There is a distinct possibility that an intelligence IS behind our world, and I think it's irresponsible to ignore that possibility when good scientists think there ARE some valid things to scientifically study in this area.

[Lotesse]

Oh, I keep getting re-tempted to put the same two-cents worth in thes damn creationism VS science threads, and I ought to know better. So silly. The idea of a god or alien setting out to create the galaxy from scratch is total science FICtion, not science, and THAT is why IDers don't get respect or whatever. It's ridiculous. Are there any ATHIESTS who "BELIEVE" in I.D.? Or is it only Christians and other religious followers?

I TOTally wave my paw and say "bah."

[HOBBIT]

Please don't call people idiots Lotesse.

[BeardofPants]

*wants to know if someone would please explain to her what some of these signatures are, and how would they be differentiated from 'non-designed' phenomena

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

*wants to know if someone would please explain to her what some of these signatures are, and how would they be differentiated from 'non-designed' phenomena

you mean you don't have "made in heaven" stamped on your butt?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

The idea of a god or alien setting out to create the galaxy from scratch is total science FICtion, not science, and THAT is why IDers don't get respect or whatever.

basically you are right... science deals with the natural and ID deals with the supernatural

it's not about whether ID is right or wrong... it is simply about the fact that we can not imply, from our current understanding of "intelligence" and observable intelligent beings that an intelligent designer could possibly do the things ID claims the designer does

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

The idea of a god or alien setting out to create the galaxy from scratch is total science FICtion, not science, ...

The only way you could KNOW this is if you were God so I can say with equal validity that the only way that the galaxy could form via non-directed forces is total science fiction

Are there any ATHIESTS who "BELIEVE" in I.D.?

There are agnostics and non-Christian "religious" people in the Discovey Institute that believe that ID is more likely than neo-Darwinian evolution, and I'm sure in other places, too.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The only way you could KNOW this is if you were God so I can say with equal validity that the only way that the galaxy could form via non-directed forces is total science fiction

science is not about knowing absolutely what the truth is... it is simply asking, and attempting to answer, the question: "could this have occured naturally?"

"naturally" being via forces and influences we can observe

an alien is ultimately fiction because we have yet to observe one... science can theorize that aliens exist out there (a theory which depends in a large part upon accepting the theory of evolution, or something similar )... but it is actually a much weaker theory than evolution, since it is almost purely speculative and based solely on other theories

my guess is that if you looked at high school curriculums you would find they spend very little, if any, time on discussing whether or not aliens exist... why? because it is not a particularly strong scientific theory (at least in light of current observations)

maybe we need some group out there to champion the aliens too

god (or an intelligent designer) is fiction because we have not observed one either... and, unlike aliens, have even less observable evidence from which to imply the designer's existance

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

*wants to know if someone would please explain to her what some of these signatures are, and how would they be differentiated from 'non-designed' phenomena

As I said before, the concept is in its infancy and needs fleshing out and experimenting, etc., but here are several general ideas that are being developed:

I think one of the best examples would be an arrowhead shaped rock. If I were to pick up 2 rocks that look like arrowheads and examine them, I might conclude that one was a result of natural forces, and one was designed and implemented. One way would be this: the "natural" one would be something like a rock of all one type except where it was eroded further in, and there it would be a rock of a softer type that is more easily affected by water or other erosive forces. And the rock's shape follows the erosive properties of the type of rock. Now the one that I might conclude to be designed would have different types of rock in it also, with different erosive properties, but the shape is carried out despite the presence of different types of rock; IOW, against what we have observed in nature. Do you see the general idea?

Also, as I said, if you look at a signal in an oscilloscope, you can generally tell if its noise or if it's a data-bearing signal, just from the way the signal looks and from your experience of actual data-bearing signals in the real world. I'm not sure how you would quantify it, because I wasn't on that end of the radar world, but that's what needs to be developed - the general idea of randomness vs. pattern (not mindless/replicated pattern like a snowflake; but data-bearing pattern).

Another area that I think is a good idea to develop is looking for parts that cannot have been developed seperately (and I can't even think of the name now; it's really early and I'm going back to bed in a minute! It's what Behe talks about, and I think it's a very good concept to ponder and research).

There's some of the things, and you can also find my links I posted a page or so back if you want to read more But the general concept is that we intuitively recognize things that are designed by an intelligence LIKE ours; that's why we even HAVE SETI programs, and why we even LOOK for signs of intelligence on other planets - because we KNOW it's recognizeable. And as I said, it's certainly a possibility that our world DID come about thru the efforts of an intelligence LIKE ours, and I think it's irresponsible to ignore this possibility, and unethical and unscientific to suppress it. Let the scientists publish!!!!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

science is not about knowing absolutely what the truth is... it is simply asking, and attempting to answer, the question: "could this have occured naturally?"

Absolutely not! The word "science" means "knowledge". It's basically only recently in the history of science that this naturalistic angle came in, and IMO it's from the evolutionists who are worried (and rightly) that their emperor might be shown to have no clothes. Neo-Darwin evolution is the science that relies most heavily on extrapolation and intelligent GUESSES, because of its very nature of talking about things that are PRE-history by MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years, and thus cannot be scientifically examined in themselves.

And does a chemist look at the AIDS virus and ask, "Could this have occurred naturally?" and stop there? OF course not! His/her goal is KNOWLEDGE about the virus; how it works; what affects it and how; etc. Really, the ONLY field in science whose main question is "could this have occurred naturally?" is evolution; I can't think of ANY other field where it is asked at all, or is asked as a main goal type of question.