Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Christine O' Donnell - ignorance of the US Constitution

Christine O' Donnell - ignorance of the US Constitution (Page 5)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Who created the aliens according to the Intelligent Design types?
Intelligent Design types (AFAIK) aren't interested in aliens and gods. They are merely taking methodology from known scientific disciplines and applying it to nature for design-detection. ID types would be no more concerned with the actual name of the entity or its creator than the Theory of Evolution is with the origin of matter; just as most scientific disciplines are not concerned with the origin of species. What some are essentially saying here is; "why study flowers if you can't answer how they originated?" which is drawing an unnecessarily rigid line in the sand IMO and poses a stumbling block they'd suggest in no other field of science.

Let me put it this way; you ain't gonna learn shxx if you ain't studyin'.

While it is understandable that these questions burn in the minds of many (myself included), there is nothing to suggest science must answer these questions for us.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 08:22 AM
 
True. But, I can't imagine someone who truly believes in intelligent design (ie: isn't interested in aliens and gods) wanting to push ID into grade schools. At this point, the concept of intelligent design is a philosophical investigation better suited for university study than grade school.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's impossible to test what was responsible for the origins of our species, therefore it is not scientific to teach that it was due to us evolving from other lifeforms.
Evolutionary. Theory. Does. Not. Propose. To. Explain. The. Origin. Of. Our. Species.

Evolutionary theory only attempts to explain the origin of speciation.

Some people use evolutionary theory to speculate about the origin of life, just as some speculate that life originated by the hand of an Intelligent Designer or by god(s), but anybody who actually teaches that speculation as fact is being academically dishonest.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's impossible to test for intent, therefore it is not scientific to teach that an intelligent designer might be responsible for the origins of our species.

It's impossible to test what was responsible for the origins of our species, therefore it is not scientific to teach that it was due to us evolving from other lifeforms.

I'm [not] following you.
Clearly. Again, we are talking about models here. The theory of evolution is an existing model that has been scientifically tested and is applied to humans as a way of understanding the physical evidence because it seems to fit the evidence we have. The analogy would be the theory of relativity, another tested model which is applied to new scenarios in order to understand phenomena observed in the study of physics and cosmology, even though there are many things we still do not understand and which might seem contradictory under the theory.

Intelligent Design, by contrast, does not explain physical phenomena. It is not a scientific theory. It attempts to answer a different question than evolutionary theory, which is why it is completely improper in a science textbook to introduce it with evolution as some sort of alternative.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Nov 2, 2010 at 12:43 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's impossible to test for intent...
Well, if God were real we could just interview him. The only thing making the intent hypothesis seem "impossible" to you is that it's not true

     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You should at least get the quote context in order before you go. I'll help:
That was in context. I shortened the length between my initial assertion and you completely exemplifying the point I was making.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
Originally Posted by olepigeon
Intelligent Design, regardless if you claim it's aliens or God, inevitably boils down to a completely untestable variable.
Okay. So... don't test for aliens or gods then.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
They are merely taking methodology from known scientific disciplines and applying it to nature for design-detection.
No they aren't. The'yre lobbying school board to change the very principals of scientific method, removing methodological naturalism and replacing it with theistic realism.

Intelligent Design proponents have yet to present a credible scientific case for their argument, instead relying on public support in place of scientific research.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
No they aren't. The'yre lobbying school board to change the very principals of scientific method, removing methodological naturalism and replacing it with theistic realism.
This is absolutely ridiculous. You've got yourself all worked up into a lather for no reason. Of course no one is suggesting that ID replace evolution or anything approaching the dramatized rant above. I cited a link of exactly what it was they were lobbying for and in most cases it doesn't even reference ID.

Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
That was in context. I shortened the length between my initial assertion and you completely exemplifying the point I was making.
You've not demonstrated that you're qualified to tell anyone what they do or do not know with regard to science olePigeon. It might come as a surprise to you that merely insulting people with comments like "inadvertently intelligent", skipping over inconvenient points, and failing to acknowledge a two-way conversation is not establishing your intellectual prowess here, but I can tell you as a member of your audience it isn't. In fact, what you've demonstrated to me is that you're not nearly as concerned about the state of science as you are your own personal convictions bordering social ineptitude. There is absolutely zero possibility of ID replacing evolution in academia as the prevailing field of study olePigeon. Zero. Egadz man chill.

I often find you more agreeable than you might know, but there are two topics for which you lack any control whatsoever; ID and chiropractics. I mean, you just cannot be reasoned with in any capacity here.

Until the next time there's an outlet for zealous olePigeonism...
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
True. But, I can't imagine someone who truly believes in intelligent design (ie: isn't interested in aliens and gods) wanting to push ID into grade schools. At this point, the concept of intelligent design is a philosophical investigation better suited for university study than grade school.
I don't see anyone pushing ID into schools. Even if there was a minority movement to influence a school board, there's little to suggest they'd get anywhere. I just don't see this as the threat to science that the paranoid rants I'm reading would suggest. (not directed at you)
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
In the past, ebuddy has agreed that intelligent design is not ready for the classroom (far from it), even if it's a worthwhile scientific pursuit for the laboratory. I haven't seen any new advancement that could change his mind about this, so I don't know why he seems to have changed his position.
I missed this.

I've not changed my position and as far as I know there have been no new developments that would have me change my view that ID is not ready for the classroom. My problem with ID in the classroom is not on Constitutional grounds however and in keeping with the thread; I don't see O'Donnell's reaction to the "separation" argument against ID in the classroom as being mistaken. Well delivered perhaps not, but mistaken? No.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
ID is not ready for the classroom. My problem with ID in the classroom is not on Constitutional grounds however
Fair enough, when talking about your own motivations. But when considering the motivations of others, if a person does push for ID in the classroom (now), don't you think that indicates that they are motivated by creationism? I mean, doesn't this alone belie their dishonorable intentions, to use the false pretense of an agnostic ID when they really mean Genesis? I don't see any other believable explanation in a case like that.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Fair enough, when talking about your own motivations. But when considering the motivations of others, if a person does push for ID in the classroom (now), don't you think that indicates that they are motivated by creationism?
Yes, it's just difficult to champion a movement against this perceived threat when you're aware of the problems that already exist in the system. It has produced some whoppers that IMO are either the result of abject ignorance from the top-down or motivation of another kind. When it comes to public education I'd rather they too, render their philosophies on stickers. Teachers are responsible for teaching accurate principles and not zealous embellishments, but if they demonstrably cannot and we're not going to remove them from the system- a sticker might be in order.

I mean, doesn't this alone belie their dishonorable intentions, to use the false pretense of an agnostic ID when they really mean Genesis? I don't see any other believable explanation in a case like that.
Yes, but I don't see them getting anywhere. The idea that it'd reach beyond a sticker in one state on which it is not mentioned to arrive as the prevailing field of study in the public school science curriculum is laughable to me.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2010, 10:30 PM
 
Personally, I think a sticker is kinda corny. I think proper education about what science *actually is* would be enough. Science class shouldn't be about learning facts. It should be learning about the Scientific Method, with some of knowledge derived through the Scientific Method included as examples.

A sticker shouldn't be necessary, as long as evolutionary theory is explained as one of many possibilities.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 06:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Fair enough, when talking about your own motivations. But when considering the motivations of others, if a person does push for ID in the classroom (now), don't you think that indicates that they are motivated by creationism? I mean, doesn't this alone belie their dishonorable intentions, to use the false pretense of an agnostic ID when they really mean Genesis? I don't see any other believable explanation in a case like that.
As opposed to the other side whose push very likely could be motivated by their personal anti-religious bias?

I don't think Constitutionally you can reject something just because it is supported by someone who you believe has religious beliefs which bias their views on the subject. If that were the case, then truly the same could be said of people on the other side of the issue. Stop allowing personal anti-religious biases determine what is or isn't taught in schools. As I stated before, that's not the standard our founding fathers used, and not one that truly could stand up to strict scrutiny if courts where just directly interpreting the will and intent of the majority of our founders instead of inserting new law based on their own biases as well.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 08:17 AM
 
Is the Math classroom also anti-religious because it doesn't include any religious teachings?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 09:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, but I don't see them getting anywhere. The idea that it'd reach beyond a sticker in one state on which it is not mentioned to arrive as the prevailing field of study in the public school science curriculum is laughable to me.
Is that the standard? It has to be the prevailing field of study in order to be a problem? I would have thought that teaching falsehoods at all, even represented as a distant second, would be a problem. All the more so if they have an ulterior motive that (if true of course) would be unconstitutional.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
As opposed to the other side whose push very likely could be motivated by their personal anti-religious bias?
Not "very likely could be," more like "the only possible explanation is." There's a big difference.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Is that the standard?
No, it's a matter of priorities.

I would have thought that teaching falsehoods at all, even represented as a distant second, would be a problem. All the more so if they have an ulterior motive that (if true of course) would be unconstitutional.
The attempt to teach these falsehoods is not getting anywhere. As a matter of priority, there is the fact that we're 29th in science among developed nations and it has zero to do with stickers, ID, Creationism, or pushing the Judeo-Christian god. There are falsehoods already in the system founded on motivations of another kind evidenced by the number of those still thinking they had gill slits at one time. It's a matter of priorities. I'm not going to be more concerned about the failed push of a falsehood into the school system than I am the pushes and failures already in the system.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 12:29 PM
 
oh I see
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Of course no one is suggesting that ID replace evolution or anything approaching the dramatized rant above. I cited a link of exactly what it was they were lobbying for and in most cases it doesn't even reference ID.
I didn't say Intelligent Design was replacing evolution, I said that the fundamental, applied principals -- such as evidence, testing, and observation -- used for determining the validity of a theory are being replaced with conjecture and belief. Scientific method does not allow for the supernatural because you can not test it. ID proponents want to include the supernatural so they can claim ID is scientific.

I can list nine states that have had school boards or elected officials actually pass state legislation to include Intelligent Design in the science curriculum; not because it's evidence based, but for purely religious reasons.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You've not demonstrated that you're qualified to tell anyone what they do or do not know with regard to science olePigeon.
You demonstrated that yourself. You claim Intelligent Design is as scientifically valid as evolution, yet when I ask you to demonstrate to me a method for testing the existence of God or the creators of the creators, you tell me simply, "Just don't test for god or aliens."

That doesn't work. You can't claim you have a scientific theory and not test it, then demand people be taught it in a science classroom because a talking shrub told you it was true.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
As opposed to the other side whose push very likely could be motivated by their personal anti-religious bias?
I'm not saying there isn't bias, but the criteria is relatively straight forward: students learn about gravity because the math, observations, direct evidence, and testing demonstrates to reasonable degree certainty what gravity is and how it works. Likewise with evolution. Students learn about evolution because the math, observations, direct evidence, and testing demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty what evolution is and how it works.

Intelligent design doesn't. There is no math that can support it, all "evidence" proposed has already been explained through organic processes, there has been no verifiable observation of a god or alien claiming to have made people, and there is no way to test it to verify the validity of the "theory."
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I can list nine states that have had school boards or elected officials actually pass state legislation to include Intelligent Design in the science curriculum; not because it's evidence based, but for purely religious reasons.
I wasn't going to ask, but in light of the below... please list the nine states that have passed legislation to include Intelligent Design in the science curriculum.

You claim Intelligent Design is as scientifically valid as evolution...
You're paranoid. Please copy-paste where I said Intelligent Design is as scientifically valid as evolution.

That doesn't work. You can't claim you have a scientific theory and not test it, then demand people be taught it in a science classroom because a talking shrub told you it was true.
No one proposed this. No one is trying to strip you of your precious godlessness olePigeon, relax. If you're this insecure in your atheism, visit a support group.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Is the Math classroom also anti-religious because it doesn't include any religious teachings?
No of course it's anti-atheist because the curriculum does not insist there is no god.
ebuddy
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 07:04 PM
 
Really? My math textbooks never mentioned Martin Luther King Jr., but I wouldn't call them racist.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 07:14 PM
 
Sarcasm mismatch
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2010, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I wasn't going to ask, but in light of the below... please list the nine states that have passed legislation to include Intelligent Design in the science curriculum.
Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, and Arkansas. Nearly all of them repealed the legislation after the Senate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Please copy-paste where I said Intelligent Design is as scientifically valid as evolution.
You're correct, you did not specifically say that, but you eluded to it via the sources you were quoting, and claiming that the same methods used to test particle waves can be used to test the existence of God, which is false.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No one proposed this.
The fundamental argument for Intelligent Design is that life is too complex to have been formed naturally, that some higher power designed it with purpose. You yourself argued to simply not test that part of the theory.

If you're arguing (or supporting the argument) that intelligent design should be considered for a classroom, but don't hold it to the same scrutiny as everything else in the class, it just should be stuck in the science classroom.

Intelligent Design might as well be the Cheese Theory. All life is actually made up of a super secret cheese energy. I want my Cheese Theory considered for science class because everything else about the theory can be tested, but not the super secrete cheese energy part... so just leave that out.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 06:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I'm not saying there isn't bias, but the criteria is relatively straight forward: students learn about gravity because the math, observations, direct evidence, and testing demonstrates to reasonable degree certainty what gravity is and how it works. Likewise with evolution.
To the extent that things adapt and develop occasionally in small ways.

There's simply no "reasonable degree" in showing that this is exactly what happened in regards to how human life developed. It's a theory, and probably the one where there is the most circumstantial evidence, but it's not one that can truly be tested. If you can teach possible cause and effect in areas where no testing is possible, then you can't only limit it to things which don't make people with religious animosity feel uncomfortable.

In order to do so you have to distort what the Constitution was intended to limit, and use a set of double standards. That's hardly the intellectually honest and curious approach to learning.

Intelligent design doesn't. There is no math that can support it, all "evidence" proposed has already been explained through organic processes, there has been no verifiable observation of a god or alien claiming to have made people, and there is no way to test it to verify the validity of the "theory."
Often times when theories are developed, there is no real quantitative evidence to support them. People make observations and use those observations (which may be coincidental happenings and not related) to further investigate the truth. Suggesting that you aren't engaged in "science" until as part of your search you can prove that you have "math" to support it is really a standard that doesn't work, and seems created only so that those with religious animosity can forward their agenda.

I'm often reminded of the story of the scientists trying to discover the mechanisms behind radioactivity. One prominent scientist offered the explanation that he believed that radioactive material absorbed the energy of the sun and used that energy. Of course, we lated found out that despite the fact that all the other related observations he made in regards to radioactivity where valid, the ways he applied then to the specific investigation did not give him the correct answer. At the time, there was not the means to test the energy in question with any sort of accuracy. That had to be developed. Based on the standards you try and apply to those who believe that there is an unknown, intelligent energy force in the universe which follows rules and patterns to effect how matter is shaped, the story I've outlined would have no place in a science class.

It's a standard which seems only has to purpose of abridging the religious rights of others.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 06:55 AM
 
Here's a neat excerpt from an exhibit at the Library of Congress:

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89 (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibition)

"The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

...in a country supposedly founded on the principle that religion should be suppressed from Government by a "high wall?"

HAhahaha. As we can see, the courts have steered our country AWAY from the intent of our founders so as to better reflect their personal preferences. This is known as "legislating" laws, not interpreting them, and is an abuse of power by those placed in non-elected positions.

Christine O'Donnell was right, and all the political hacks and fakes who belittled her should be ashamed.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 08:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, and Arkansas. Nearly all of them repealed the legislation after the Senate.
Okay... so the legislation was not passed. Look olePigeon, we have to assume some degree of honesty here don't we? I'm saying it's not getting anywhere and you're saying "YES IT IS" by citing 9 States in which it got nowhere.

You're correct, you did not specifically say that, but you eluded to it via the sources you were quoting, and claiming that the same methods used to test particle waves can be used to test the existence of God, which is false.
You're extrapolating a position for me and arguing against it. I've actually said quite the opposite regarding the merits of the theories. In terms of testing for theories, particularly those as complex as quantum fluctuation; you're not going to be able to test for the loftiest of its implications. You're going to break the theory down to what we can address in our limited capacity and test aspects of it for plausibility.

The fundamental argument for Intelligent Design is that life is too complex to have been formed naturally, that some higher power designed it with purpose. You yourself argued to simply not test that part of the theory.
Wrong and wrong. The scientist at the forefront of ID generally supports evolution and says nothing even remotely close to "life is too complex to have been formed naturally". For example, Behe accepts the common descent of species including humans from primates as well as the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. All he's argued is that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms. Whether or not the mechanism is a "higher power" is your extrapolation, not his. He says zero of the intelligent agent and zero of any purpose. That's all you.

If you're arguing (or supporting the argument) that intelligent design should be considered for a classroom, but don't hold it to the same scrutiny as everything else in the class, it just should be stuck in the science classroom.
I've not once said or argued, at any point, that ID should be considered for a classroom. Not once. That's all you. I've opposed the argument against the idea on Constitutional grounds because that's what the thread was about afterall. I believe the establishment clause has been stretched to mean whatever it is insecure atheists need it to mean. If Jefferson's ideal of Separation was actually acknowledged, we'd all be reading from the Bible in the classroom.

Intelligent Design might as well be the Cheese Theory. All life is actually made up of a super secret cheese energy. I want my Cheese Theory considered for science class because everything else about the theory can be tested, but not the super secrete cheese energy part... so just leave that out.
okay? If this is what you want, have at it. So far, 9 states tried to get the cheese theory into the classroom and it failed on all counts. Can we worry about the cheese theories already being taught in class and the fact that we're 29th among developed nations in science or are we going to concern ourselves with protecting the right of godlessness in the public sector?
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Okay... so the legislation was not passed. Look olePigeon, we have to assume some degree of honesty here don't we? I'm saying it's not getting anywhere and you're saying "YES IT IS" by citing 9 States in which it got nowhere.
While we're being honest, getting to the point where it has to be repealed is hardly "not getting anywhere".
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 08:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No of course it's anti-atheist because the curriculum does not insist there is no god.
Right, so let's see stupendousman show us a science textbook that insists there is no god.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Right, so let's see stupendousman show us a science textbook that insists there is no god.
...as soon as you can show me that the majority of those scientists who support ID want it to be taught that the Judeo/Christian "God" is responsible for the "design" in question.

Neither side, regardless of their true intentions, are likely to be so blatantly transparent, however both sides of the argument usually wish for their preferred stance to be accepted because it enforces the biases they already have.

The bottom line is that there really isn't a Constitutional hurdle from getting ID into the classroom, unless you are engaging in an intellectually dishonest interpretation which is actually an attempt to legislate the matter rather than adjudicate it. I don't think that Judges should be abusing their power in this manner.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 09:46 AM
 
Of course getting the government control out of schools altogether would solve this dilemma. They have no right, nor have they shown any competence whatsoever, in determining what is proper to be taught in schools.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 10:57 AM
 
I feel like most of the batsh!t crazy stuff comes from school boards, though, not necessarily the state/federal government.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
There's simply no "reasonable degree" in showing that this is exactly what happened in regards to how human life developed. It's a theory, and probably the one where there is the most circumstantial evidence, but it's not one that can truly be tested. If you can teach possible cause and effect in areas where no testing is possible, then you can't only limit it to things which don't make people with religious animosity feel uncomfortable.
It is not circumstantial, and it can be tested. Direct evidence is available through sekeltal remains and DNA. Granted, it becomes more and more extrapolated the further back you go, but for the evidence available, it directly covers the past 150,000 years. Past that and we can start measuring the decay of certain of elements, which we know have a finite rate of decay within a certain margin of error.

Direct observation has been made using several different experiments over the past 150 years. Most recently was a groundbreaking study using bacteria that evolved the ability to process calcite.

Deduction can be made from any of these experiments or direct evidence. I'll cite again the delta-t gene mutation, one of the more recent discoveries. Some people are naturally immune not just to the bubonic plague, but also to HIV. 2% of the european population was immune to the effects of Yersinia pestis, which means had 100% of the population been infected, only 98% would die. The remainder 2% would survive, pass on their genes, and now future generations are immune to bubonic plague. Likewise, should 100% of our population become infected with HIV, 2% are immune, will pass on their genes, and future generations would be immune to HIV.

Stupendousman, I implore you to pick up a book on evolutionary biology. The amount of studies, evidence, and observation in regards to evolution is insurmountable. The very same principles we use to study gravity and its effects are used to study evolution.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Often times when theories are developed, there is no real quantitative evidence to support them.
No, and I'll explain why below. (You're aggravatingly close to understanding...)

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
People make observations and use those observations (which may be coincidental happenings and not related) to further investigate the truth.
This is not a search for truth, if you want truth you go to a church. This is about discovery, and like you said, the majority of discoveries are made by "oops" rather than "eureka."

What you described above is the exact opposite of how scientific method is applied. You do not come up with a theory, then look for evidence to support that theory. That is completely backwards. A hypothesis is, perhaps, what you're referring to, but hypothesis is not a scientific theory. If you simply start with a theory then look for evidence to support it, you're not being impartial; the evidence will be molded to fit your theory, your observations skewed, and the results will reflect that bias.

You may hypothesize that life is too complex to develop naturally. OK, fine with that. Now you look for evidence to develop a theory. What evidence do you have to support that hypothesis? The major talking points of intelligent design have already been refuted (irreducible complexity, specified complexity, fine tuned universe, etc.) Since it's been mentioned to simply not test the designer aspects of intelligent design, what does that leave?

What is there left in intelligent design to develop a theory that you can test?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Based on the standards you try and apply to those who believe that there is an unknown, intelligent energy force in the universe which follows rules and patterns to effect how matter is shaped, the story I've outlined would have no place in a science class.
No. The main premise was to understand the mechanics of a known variable. Radioactivity was discovered by accident by Henri Becquerel when working with phosphorescent materials. He hypothesized that radioactivity was related to phosphorescence, but only after he directly observed the minerals on the glass plates glowing. That is not an unreasonable assumption given the evidence, and is a perfectly valide explanation (even if it wasn't accurate.) He had direct, observable evidence to support his theory. But like I said, this is a process of discovery, not a search for truth or right answers.

Subsequent testing of his theory by other peers revealed more interesting results. Uranium salts glowed, but other salts didn't.

Intelligent Design doesn't work because you can't test it. How do you directly observe god or aliens creating life? How do you test that premis? What is the evidence?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's a standard which seems only has to purpose of abridging the religious rights of others.
Which has nothing to do with science. If you want to teach intelligent design, go ahead and teach it in a philosophy class or a religious studies class. I don't care, just so long as you don't teach it in a science classroom. Why would you teach people Spanish in a geometry class? It doesn't belong there.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Okay... so the legislation was not passed.
No, I said nearly all. Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri all had "academic freedom" bills (or something similar) passed. The other states had nearly identical bills make it through the house, but stalled at the senate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
All he's argued is that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms. Whether or not the mechanism is a "higher power" is your extrapolation, not his. He says zero of the intelligent agent and zero of any purpose. That's all you.
One man, cherry picked for an organization that uses his argument for irreducible complexity as the foundation to promote the key concepts of intelligent design, which requires a "higher power" to be involved in demonstrating the theory.

Intelligent Design, even as Behe describes it, is not falsifiable. Doctor Kirk Fitzhugh wrote an entire book on the mechanics of scientific testing, to which he directly replied (and accurately described) Behe's argument: "Behe’s claim that intelligent design would be ‘disproven’ is not correct for the simple fact that no legitimate test of the intelligent design theory has been provided in his example. Once again, what we have to acknowledge is that in order to test intelligent design theory, the required test conditions must be such that the causal interaction between an intelligent agent and organism must be available to observation.... Behe’s suggestion of an experiment involving active selection for mobility is quite irrelevant to testing an intelligent design theory since the causal conditions involve the experimenter, not the intelligent agent to which the theory refers."

Simply because Behe refuses to run along the same lines as the Discovery Institute doesn't make his position any more valid.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've not once said or argued, at any point, that ID should be considered for a classroom. Not once. That's all you. I've opposed the argument against the idea on Constitutional grounds because that's what the thread was about afterall. I believe the establishment clause has been stretched to mean whatever it is insecure atheists need it to mean. If Jefferson's ideal of Separation was actually acknowledged, we'd all be reading from the Bible in the classroom.
Alright, then I apologize. We agree to some extent on that point. As I stated before, I have no problem with teaching intelligent design in a school, just not in the science classroom. It isn't science. Simple as that. Stick it in a debate class, or religious studies class. I'm fine with that.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
okay? If this is what you want, have at it. So far, 9 states tried to get the cheese theory into the classroom and it failed on all counts.
7 states. 3 got the Cheese Theory passed.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Can we worry about the cheese theories already being taught in class and the fact that we're 29th among developed nations in science or are we going to concern ourselves with protecting the right of godlessness in the public sector?
I have no problem teaching religion in pubic schools, so long as it's relegated to a religious studies class and not intermingled with other academic courses.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
andi76
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Austria
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 02:03 PM
 
Anyone ever heard of the Trias Politica by Montesqueu?
A French philosopher. 18th century. Every modern democratic state is based on the concept in the trias politica.
Clearly states that church, state and justice should be separate institutions in order to protect the citizens from the greed of politicians, the idiocy of faith and partiality of judges.
As long as the judges of the supreme court are nominated by politics (the president) justice in the US cannot be taken seriously. And therefore neither can politics.
So Tea Party dumba**es that don't even know the amendments can stay ignorant for that matter. It's all one big joke anyway.
Although I must say it's a shrewd strategy to act like you don't know anything. The general tea party voter can really identify with their leaders.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 04:58 PM
 
I forgot to mention perhaps the most important reason why Henri Becquerel's theory on radioactivity was scientific and why Michael Behe's theory isn't: falsifiability. Even though Becquerel conclusion was inaccurate, it is important to note that he and his peers were able to demonstrate why. You can't do that with intelligent design. It's mostly like not correct, but it's not even wrong.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...as soon as you can show me that the majority of those scientists who support ID want it to be taught that the Judeo/Christian "God" is responsible for the "design" in question.

Neither side, regardless of their true intentions, are likely to be so blatantly transparent, however both sides of the argument usually wish for their preferred stance to be accepted because it enforces the biases they already have.

The bottom line is that there really isn't a Constitutional hurdle from getting ID into the classroom, unless you are engaging in an intellectually dishonest interpretation which is actually an attempt to legislate the matter rather than adjudicate it. I don't think that Judges should be abusing their power in this manner.
So, then, what is the point, again, of getting Intelligent Design into schools?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 10:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi76 View Post
Anyone ever heard of the Trias Politica by Montesqueu?
A French philosopher. 18th century. Every modern democratic state is based on the concept in the trias politica.
Clearly states that church, state and justice should be separate institutions in order to protect the citizens from the greed of politicians, the idiocy of faith and partiality of judges.
Can you quote where Montesqueu refers to the idiocy of faith? This seems more antagonist than accurate.

Afterall, the faiths in question as far as he was concerned were essentially Catholic and Protestant Christianity; Protestants more fitting the Republic. He regarded Christianity more suitable for the plan of government than what he viewed the barbaric faiths of others. While he certainly was no champion of a religion, he clearly suggests Christianity was a critical component of the preferred governance, and then distinguishing between Catholics and Protestants. Make no mistake, those of the Protestant faiths were as active in their faiths as Catholics. There would be no separation of that which is inherent in mankind be it the construct of religion or government. Separation was a separation of powers for certain, but separation of faith from government? Certainly not. Any interpretation as such IMO is lame. There's a cavern of difference between the establishment of a religion and one's culture and heritage. Like so many after Montesqueu, separation was construed to protect religion from the conquerer's establishment.

As long as the judges of the supreme court are nominated by politics (the president) justice in the US cannot be taken seriously. And therefore neither can politics.
I can't wholly disagree here, but I am curious what you'd consider laughable of our Judicial system?

So Tea Party dumba**es that don't even know the amendments can stay ignorant for that matter. It's all one big joke anyway.
What is it they stand for that stands in such stark conflict with what you stand for? Why is it so important to compartmentalize views into labels? You seem to suggest those who differ with you on the idea of Separation are dumbasses, when in reality (witting or un) they may have a clearer understanding than you.

Although I must say it's a shrewd strategy to act like you don't know anything. The general tea party voter can really identify with their leaders.
So is this whole thing just post-election sour grapes? Egadz man.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
No, I said nearly all. Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri all had "academic freedom" bills (or something similar) passed. The other states had nearly identical bills make it through the house, but stalled at the senate.
You might have to provide more specific details then. What I'm seeing is that as of June 2008, only the Louisiana bill has been successfully passed into law. What is the bill? The Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), which reads; "local boards are to assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories." If you can show me where ID is being taught in Louisiana, I'll concede Louisiana as one state of 50 that allows for the teaching of ID whereas 8 others that tried all failed.

One man, cherry picked for an organization that uses his argument for irreducible complexity as the foundation to promote the key concepts of intelligent design, which requires a "higher power" to be involved in demonstrating the theory.
Well... you might know that Creationists are not in lock-step with Behe for obvious reasons that are essentially the cornerstones of their opposition to evolution; the ideal we evolved from a common line of primates, the age of the earth, and the universe. Perhaps this is why it's not really getting anywhere. What do you mean it requires a "higher power" to be involved in demonstrating the theory? By this logic, any controlled experiment illustrating evolution is evidence that a "higher power" was necessary.

Intelligent Design, even as Behe describes it, is not falsifiable. Behe’s suggestion of an experiment involving active selection for mobility is quite irrelevant to testing an intelligent design theory since the causal conditions involve the experimenter, not the intelligent agent to which the theory refers."[/i]
Sure it is. Take Behe's example of the bacterial flagellum. If it can be demonstrated that the individual parts of the flagellum have function independent of one another, they would not have been selected against and were therefore preserved for evolution. Several protein knock-out experiments have done just that; attempt to falsify Behe's supposition. One of the reasons why ID is not ready for the classroom to be quite frank.

Simply because Behe refuses to run along the same lines as the Discovery Institute doesn't make his position any more valid.
Just because he happens to approach his discipline from another perspective does not mean all work related to his endeavors should be rejected a priori.

7 states. 3 got the Cheese Theory passed.
7 states. 1 got the ability to discuss criticisms of theories currently being taught, none got the Cheese Theory passed. Like I said to Uncle, if faculty insists on perpetuating recapitulation fallacy for example, critical thinking is not only welcomed IMO, but all of a sudden becomes necessary for the integrity of science and for the proper education of the student. Just because a school system is teaching evolution doesn't mean it's being taught correctly, hence our ranking among developed nations in science.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
if faculty insists on perpetuating recapitulation fallacy for example, critical thinking is not only welcomed IMO, but all of a sudden becomes necessary for the integrity of science and for the proper education of the student.
I agree completely. I distinctly remember when I started learning about evolution in high school, my parents encouraged me to think critically about what I was being taught and to not accept it as fact just because it was being presented by an authority figure. Little did they realize I would take that lesson from them to heart and also apply it to the religious teachings I received at church.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Sure it is <falsifiable>. Take Behe's example of the bacterial flagellum. If it can be demonstrated that the individual parts of the flagellum have function independent of one another, they would not have been selected against and were therefore preserved for evolution. Several protein knock-out experiments have done just that; attempt to falsify Behe's supposition. One of the reasons why ID is not ready for the classroom to be quite frank.
If ID has already been falsified, then it should be discarded. We wouldn't be talking about it if it was. I know what you probably mean is that a previous version of the theory was falsified, and now it is a revised, better version of ID. (If so) can you please explain how the current version is falsifiable? (and if not please explain why we should let an already falsified theory to be entertained)
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You might have to provide more specific details then.
Louisiana Creates: New Pro-Intelligent Design Rules for Teachers - ScienceInsider

"Explore Evolution" is the Discovery Institutes book on Intelligent Design. It is currently being used not just in Louisiana, but "state school boards in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Minnesota" according to the Discovery Institute. If you read the Science Magazine article, you'll notice that Barbara Forrest predicted exactly what was going to happen. This stupid bill would be passed, then the Discovery Institute would swoop in with their Intelligent Design book, and distribute it as either a replacement or as supplemental material in the local schools and universities (which is laughable, as it somehow offers in 150 largely illustrated pages what the 1,200 page peer-reviewed biology books couldn't.)

This isn't fostering critical thinking, it's promoting religion and loose conjecture as fact. Here is the National Center for Science Education review of the book, an outlook you'll find all too common amongst anyone who critically analyzed the book.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
By this logic, any controlled experiment illustrating evolution is evidence that a "higher power" was necessary.
Why would examining DNA require a higher power to design said DNA? Why would collating historical records require a higher power to design the people on which the data is being collected? Why would radio dating require a higher power to create the fossils?

Experiments generally include a control group, one not influenced by the study.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Like I said to Uncle, if faculty insists on perpetuating recapitulation fallacy for example, critical thinking is not only welcomed IMO, but all of a sudden becomes necessary for the integrity of science and for the proper education of the student. Just because a school system is teaching evolution doesn't mean it's being taught correctly, hence our ranking among developed nations in science.
Which I would agree, but the Discovery Institute isn't about promoting critical thinking, it's about introducing their faith based curriculum into the science classroom. Read any number of the reviews that I provided, and you'll see that this has absolutely nothing to do with critical thinking. The book is a complete joke, it's a thinly veiled attempt to get their agenda into schools, and unfortunately it's working.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I agree completely. I distinctly remember when I started learning about evolution in high school, my parents encouraged me to think critically about what I was being taught and to not accept it as fact just because it was being presented by an authority figure. Little did they realize I would take that lesson from them to heart and also apply it to the religious teachings I received at church.
Do you know for certain your parents did not also apply critical thinking regarding their religion? In other words, what if they applied critical thinking that swayed them away from their religion, then later applied more that swayed them back?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If ID has already been falsified, then it should be discarded. We wouldn't be talking about it if it was. I know what you probably mean is that a previous version of the theory was falsified, and now it is a revised, better version of ID. (If so) can you please explain how the current version is falsifiable? (and if not please explain why we should let an already falsified theory to be entertained)
To be clear, I've not followed ID for some time Uncle. I know of one example of irreducible complexity provided by Behe and that was the bacterial flagellum. I vaguely recalled two things; that protein knockout experiments had been performed demonstrating ancillary function (though a google search produced nothing for me this morning) and that Behe had cited lost motility from said experimentation that would render the flagellum unfit. i.e. I don't remember Behe's acknowledgement of a sound refutation. (not that I'd expect it) My problem is that this is the only example of IC I'm aware of. For all I know he has produced more, but I would've thought I could find more if true. It may well remain worthy of the scientific process without necessarily qualifying as substantive public school classroom material.

I'd also challenge the ideal that science should discard a hypothesis if an aspect of it is falsified. I don't know that science would get very far if it were to take "no" for an answer this easily. In other words, if I grow several thousand generations of a bacteria and do not observe the development of novel functionality, does this mean I should discard the hypothesis altogether or simply find examples that do affirm the hypothesis?
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
To be clear, I've not followed ID for some time Uncle. I know of one example of irreducible complexity provided by Behe and that was the bacterial flagellum. I vaguely recalled two things; that protein knockout experiments had been performed demonstrating ancillary function (though a google search produced nothing for me this morning) and that Behe had cited lost motility from said experimentation that would render the flagellum unfit. i.e. I don't remember Behe's acknowledgement of a sound refutation. (not that I'd expect it) My problem is that this is the only example of IC I'm aware of. For all I know he has produced more, but I would've thought I could find more if true. It may well remain worthy of the scientific process without necessarily qualifying as substantive public school classroom material.

I'd also challenge the ideal that science should discard a hypothesis if an aspect of it is falsified. I don't know that science would get very far if it were to take "no" for an answer this easily. In other words, if I grow several thousand generations of a bacteria and do not observe the development of novel functionality, does this mean I should discard the hypothesis altogether or simply find examples that do affirm the hypothesis?
You seem to be giving the concept of falsifiability short shrift. The whole point of falsifiability is to come up with a testing mechanism so thorough that you can discard the notion depending on the outcome. If the test you have is something that would not allow you to discard the hypothesis and move on, then that test is insufficient for the standard of falsifiability.

I don't think that Behe or anyone else has rebounded after the (admittedly half-hearted) irreducible complexity idea for falsifiability. I haven't seen any other proposal of how ID is falsifiable.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2010, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You seem to be giving the concept of falsifiability short shrift. The whole point of falsifiability is to come up with a testing mechanism so thorough that you can discard the notion depending on the outcome. If the test you have is something that would not allow you to discard the hypothesis and move on, then that test is insufficient for the standard of falsifiability.

I don't think that Behe or anyone else has rebounded after the (admittedly half-hearted) irreducible complexity idea for falsifiability. I haven't seen any other proposal of how ID is falsifiable.
There has to be an arbiter of that which is falsified no? As I mentioned before, an attempt was made to falsify the ID supposition by picking apart a central prediction of the theory; that organisms would be found to be irreducibly complex. Behe identified one such organism that he claims could not have developed through evolutionary pressures because the parts of the whole are specifically complex- each part necessary exclusively for the purpose and viability of the whole of the organism. By knocking out proteins, one may identify functionality independent of the whole of the organism. This was attempted, but Behe cited lost motility as evidence that no part could be missing for the organism to remain viable through selective pressures. That's all I've got and so far as I know, all Behe's got. I certainly would not claim that ID theory is a robust theory with a myriad of testable hypotheses, but I don't see special cause to disregard it a priori as long as it can make predicitions, be tested, and falsified.

I know of no other field of science in which one would be so quick to take no for an answer, particularly that of evolution science.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2010, 10:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There has to be an arbiter of that which is falsified no?
It's really only up to anyone who steps up to the challenge. This is how it works, you choose to present a theory, and as part of that presentation you have to give some method by which it could be falsified. Then someone else (anyone who cares to, or yourself for that matter) attempts to do just that. If they do it, your theory is demoted back to nothing, until some future time that you can present it anew. But the next time you have to not only account for the previous results, but also give a new method of falsifiability (because obviously the old method was insufficient). Behe has his account for the results ("Ok I still think they were designed but not in such a way that they were irreducible"), but to my knowledge no new method of falsifiability. So it's nothing until there is a new method to test it.

As I mentioned before, an attempt was made to falsify the ID supposition by picking apart a central prediction of the theory; that organisms would be found to be irreducibly complex.
More precisely, the falsification test he gave was that a structure could be found, none of whose parts would have a function without the whole, and an example he gave was the flagellum. The concept of simply "irreducibly complex" does not provide a testable experiment, so it doesn't count as falsifiability. Neither does saying that the test exists but I won't tell you which one. The only reason it qualified as falsifiable in the first place was that he gave the parameters for testing the theory he was presenting. If someone wants to re-elevate it to the status of something that can be considered, they will have to come up with another method to falsify it.

Behe identified one such organism that he claims could not have developed through evolutionary pressures because the parts of the whole are specifically complex- each part necessary exclusively for the purpose and viability of the whole of the organism.
That's not quite right. What he claimed was that each part of the structure was useless without the others. It's not that one missing part breaks the animal (otherwise this would have been used in 1853 to show that a missing heart or a missing chromosome breaks us). It's that evolution can't build a house by rearranging blocks unless those blocks already have a purpose (a similar one or a completely different one). If they don't have a purpose, they wouldn't be there to rearrange in the first place. He claimed that he could find a house where none of the blocks making it had any other purpose, and that house was the bacterial flagellum. Then someone found a purpose for one of those blocks. So clearly that test of falsifiability was no good. But it's the only one he had. So until he finds a better test of falsifiability, ID isn't falsifiable.

I certainly would not claim that ID theory is a robust theory with a myriad of testable hypotheses, but I don't see special cause to disregard it a priori as long as it can make predicitions, be tested, and falsified.
Well that's the thing, it can't do those things (anymore/yet/whatever). That's what I'm saying. It's disregarded until it can.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's not quite right. What he claimed was that each part of the structure was useless without the others.
It's right as I understand it in context of what he deems "specified complexity". He's not saying as much of the individual components as he is for the simple, specific function of a rotary propulsion machine. For example, Behe's response to Miller who suggested the flagellum was unspun (debunked):
"If nothing else, one has to admire the breathtaking audacity of verbally trying to turn another severe problem for Darwinism into an advantage. In recent years it has been shown that the bacterial flagellum is an even more sophisticated system than had been thought. Not only does it act as a rotary propulsion device, it also contains within itself an elegant mechanism to transport the proteins that make up the outer portion of the machine, from the inside of the cell to the outside. (Aizawa 1996) Without blinking, Miller asserted that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because some proteins of the flagellum could be missing and the remainder could still transport proteins, perhaps independently. (Proteins similar -- but not identical -- to some found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria. See Hueck 1998). Again he was equivocating, switching the focus from the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport proteins across a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. What's more, the function of transporting proteins has as little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap. So discovering the supportive function of transporting proteins tells us precisely nothing about how Darwinian processes might have put together a rotary propulsion machine."

One of Behe's counterparts; Dembski reiterates what Behe is referring to with IC; "To this let me add: A system is irreducibly complex in Behe's sense if all its parts are indispensable to preserving the system's basic function."

It's not that one missing part breaks the animal (otherwise this would have been used in 1853 to show that a missing heart or a missing chromosome breaks us). It's that evolution can't build a house by rearranging blocks unless those blocks already have a purpose (a similar one or a completely different one).
A heart has one singular purpose as a pump. We're not talking about the evolution of humans comprised of thousands of parts. We're talking about one specific part with one specific purpose. In this case the flagellum- a rotary propulsion machine.

If they don't have a purpose, they wouldn't be there to rearrange in the first place. He claimed that he could find a house where none of the blocks making it had any other purpose, and that house was the bacterial flagellum. Then someone found a purpose for one of those blocks. So clearly that test of falsifiability was no good. But it's the only one he had. So until he finds a better test of falsifiability, ID isn't falsifiable.
In fact it is a lot like showing that missing one part breaks the animal as long as the animal is deemed irreducibly complex, i.e; no evolutionary pathway identified. As far as I know, this is not the case with the human heart.

Well that's the thing, it can't do those things (anymore/yet/whatever). That's what I'm saying. It's disregarded until it can.
You're assuming it has been falsified and this is why I asked who would be the arbiter of falsification. You answered "if they do it" [falsify your theory] then your theory gets demoted back to nothing, but this doesn't answer my question. Yes someone has to step up to challenge theory, then provide means of falsifying, and then folks go about the attempt of falsification. At that point, who determines that a theory has been adequately falsified and is this a standard that is applied equitably across all scientific disciplines? After all, it seems arbitrary enough a standard that Behe and Dembski could claim they've falsified Darwinian evolution right?
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:28 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,