| Subject: Oh goody... |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/13/04 9:41am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Problem? Where? Assumptions?" on 09/12/04 6:37pm
>>Ever noticed that you never hear an affirmative
>>definition of Intelligent Design Theory (ID)?
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "affirmative
>definition," but here's a definition: life on earth
>was artificially created.
OK - perfect. That's exactly what I was asking for!
Now, since you're the proponent of this theory, I'm asking the questions:
if life on earth was artificially created,
1) who or what created it?
2) if it was a "who," does this "who" still exist?
3) if this "who" exists, is it intelligent?
4) if it's intelligent, can we communicate with it?
5) can we objectively observe it?
6) by what means was life created? nanomachines? molecular design in a laboratory somewhere?
7) if it was in a lab, where was the lab?
8) what methods were used in the lab?
9) what technology existed in the lab?
10) how was the technology created?
11) how is it used?
the really big important question:
12) HOW DID THE CREATOR COME INTO BEING?
See? You have to defend your assumptions. Convince us they're true. That's why Occam's Razor is used as the rule of thumb... The less we have to "believe" about a theory, the "better" it is.
So, batter up, Wade. Here's your chance to defend the assumptions neccessary for ID. We can start with the above questions... There'lll be more.
>>I think this is the reason why. For any positive
>>statement of a theory, you first state the assumptions
>>required for that theory. For much of mainstream
>>science, these assumptions are often taken for
>>granted, such as:
>>
>>3) Things that we cannot observe or measure, we cannot
>>know about.
>
>We cannot observe quarks, yet we can "know" about
>them. (Perhaps you meant observe nor measure,
>though.)
Well, we "know" about quarks because, in the latest version of our mathematical physical model of the universe, the assumption that quarks exist "seems" to make mathematical sense.
We'll someday probably be able to observe them, just not yet. And I don't mean "someday" as in, "Someday, God will reveal Himself to us!!!" I mean as in, "as soon as we scrape together the money to build a sufficiently powerful particle accelerator, we'll observe quarks - or whatever's actually there at that scale."
(A little background - the problem with subatomic particles is that they are physically smaller than the wavelength of light, which means that photons actually "miss" them, which is why we can't see them using a light microscope. So we'd need to use particles with a shorter wavelength than that of photons, and a detector that can detect them in order to see things smaller than the wavelength of a photon.
Basic physics:
E = hc/wavelength
"hc" is Planck's constant times the speed of light in a vacuum. "hc" is a constant. So, we can see that as we decrease the wavelength of a particle (which is what we need to do to see smaller and smaller particles), we must increase its energy.
Which is what particle accelerators do... Well, it's what they WOULD do, if we funded them anymore. Particle accelerators are just generators of higher and higher energy particles, and detectors of those particles, that we use to "look at" things that are smaller than the wavelength of electrons (yeah - electron microscopes are the intermediate between light microscopes and particle accelerators - since electrons are readily available, they're not to hard to make )
So, in answer to your question Wade, it seems mathematically likely that they exist, plus we know we can observe them (as soon as we get enough money to do it...)
Let's continue.
I said:
>>The problem with ID is that we, as curious humans, are
>>prone to asking questions about our assumptions. In
>>fact, this questioning of assumptions is a neccesary
>>part of "sanity checking" the assumptions we've made
>>about any given theory.
You said:
>How is this intrinsically problematic?
I tell you what. Answer my questions about your assumption that "life was artificially created," let us discuss them, and then let's see if you don't think that this question is a little silly.
I said:
>>If a scientific theory cannot allow a rigorous
>>discussion of its assumptions, and why they are
>>reasonable and valid, then it is not a scienfitic
>>theory.
and you responded:
>Careful, a lot of people have set themselves on
>tenuous ground when it comes to defining a "theory"
>especially in matters like these.
No, Wade. That's the way science works. If you call it "tenuous ground," then so be it. Natural science (excluding mathematics) is approximative science. It's our "current best educated guess" about the universe. That's all it is, and if it makes you uncomfortable that we don't know the answers to everything, then neither I nor science have any comfort for you. You can choose to believe in whatever imaginary things you like, but if you want the world to acknowledge YOUR beliefs and theories, then you have to let the world discuss EVERYTHING about them.
>In any case, there's no reason why we can't discuss
>the "assumptions" of ID theory. This seems like more
>of an aspect of its adherents than the theory itself.
Like I said, answer those first 12 numbered questions, and that'd be a great start.
>The "assumptions" aren't much different from
>mainstream science, depending on the philosophy of
>science used (in this case, let's assume realism). In
>that case, it has all the assumptions of realism.
OK - good. That's a good starting ground.
>There is also the explanatory filter and the
>assumption (justified or not) that it is at least in
>principle rational, and of course the assumption that
>intelligent design can at least in principle be
>rationally detectable and inferred from the data even
>if we can't identify the designer.
No. You stated that "life was artificially created." BY WHO OR WHAT?
>Those are all the assumptions I can think of at the
>moment.
Yeah, and WHO OR WHAT DID THE DESIGNING, AND HOW?
>>Intelligent Design Theory assumes the existence of a
>>sentient being or beings who may or may not exist
>>presently, that, through unknown means, created
>>specific biological systems in either exactly, or
>>close approximation to, the forms in which they exist
>>today.
>
>I don't see how that's an assumption of ID theory.
>Certainly the notion that a designer exists is
>part of the theory, however.
OK, then if we assume that a "designer" exists, why aren't we trying to figure out who or what that designer is?
>Killed what super-friend? God? If so, are you aware
>that the founding fathers of science were themselves
>theists? Did they think of themselves as killing God?
> No, they thought of as revealing him (rational order
>existing in the world etc.). Do you have any idea how
>inaccurate that statement "science killed God" is?
Yeah - it's really inaccurate.
>ID does not contain much in the way of assumptions as
>to what the designer is. In its current scientific
>form, it assumes we can rationally determine if
>something is designed even if we can't identify the
>designer.
Well, it DOES contain the assumption that there is or was a "designer."
Look. Here's the whole point of this discussion. Biological evolution has an analogous assumption - and here it is:
"Life arose from simple spontaneously occurring precursor molecules, which then evolved via currently understood and demonstrable processes into the form that life exists today."
I don't object to the theory of ID at face value. I DO, however, find the way you and its creators and proponents have gone about explaining it to be non-scientific.
You state an assumption: "There is/was a designer." Then you IGNORE that aspect of your theory, and say, "Whew! Now that THAT'S settled, we can ignore it!"
NO, Wade, you can't. That assumption of biological evolution I just stated - there are entire periodical publications devoted to trying to figure out if it's true or not, and if it is true, how it happened. People devote their entire careers and lives to try to prove, or at least show HOW, in an observable way, that assumption could be true. There are whole research groups devoted to the topic!!!
And even if we couldn't possibly know exactly HOW it happened without a time machine to go back to the moment it occurred, we're still trying to understand how, and to show that it COULD have happened!
Mainstream science spends a significant portion of its time and resources trying to legitimize its assumptions - they don't ignore them!!! It's a critical part of our study of life that we be able to at least explain how it probably happened!
If ID were legitimate, why aren't there scientists trying to show how the designing was done, and by who or what? Why aren't we looking for the designer? I mean, that's a HUGE assumption, that some one or some thing DESIGNED life!!! That's a significant claim you and ID proponents are making!!!
WHY AREN'T THEY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT'S TRUE OR NOT???
I mean, they claim, from within a realism-based framework, that some designer REALLY existed that actually, artificially DESIGNED LIFE! Why aren't they looking for him/it?
That's why I say that ID is disingenuous. They're not even trying to legitimize their assumption. The difference between ID and molecular evolution is that proponents (heh - do I even need to say "proponents of molecular evolution?") of molecular evolution ARE TRYING TO PROVE, as much as they can, their FIRST ASSUMPTION, whereas ID proponents (proselytizers?) are NOT.
So, explain, in addition to answering my first questions,
13) Why don't any ID-scientists study the designer?
14) Why doesn't anybody examine the things that must follow from the assumption of "design?" Such as who/what is the designer? How was the designing done?
15) WHY DO THEY ALL IGNORE THIS?!?!?!?
You could say, "well, there's no way we can know about the designer, so why bother looking." To which I'd answer that, without a time machine, there's no way we can really know EXACTLY the process that spontaneously generated life on earth. But, because we're working from a reality-based framework, we can at least try to approximate, and demonstrate how is PROBABLY DID happen, which is demonstrated to be more and mroe likely the more observable phenomena we discover and the more our knowledge grows.
Scientists who assume that life arose spontaneously realize we can't KNOW, yet they still look! Why is it that the scientists who assume the existence of an intelligent designer NEVER LOOK FOR THE DESIGNER?!?!
>I never though you'd be this paranoid. Look, there
>are a lot of people who don't have any religious or
>political agendas here (such as myself). Behe was a
>Roman Catholic, and only "converted" to ID theory as a
>result of the evidence (as he perceived it). That's
>true for most in the ID movement. Most are perfectly
>willing to modify their religious views if the
>evidence demands it (some common examples: the age of
>the earth and the big bang theory). But as they see
>it, an ID is rationally necessary. The new
>“upper-tier” movement is showing some considerable
>differences over the “lower-tier” movement (ICR and
>the rest).
Paranoid? I'm only saying what every rational person (including myself) thinks about ID. I'm only basing my statements on the way ID's proponents have presented it, and the manner in which it's studied (which is NOT AT ALL). Paranoid? I don't think so.
So here's your chance. You can be an exemplar of this new "upper-tier" movement and let's start the First Ever Real Discussion of the Scientific Merits of Intelligent Design. You can begin by answering the numbered questions.
Until you, or Michael Behe, or any other ID-supporter is willing to discuss the "D" of "ID" theory, we can only guess at why you're unwilling to examine your own assumptions.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 