No, the ID people say evolution didnt happen. The ID theorists have dont really touch the idea that life is designed, they just oppose evolution and argue creationism.



[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 1:54 PM. Reason : sdf]

9/14/2006 1:51:45 PM

Quote :

"Evolution doesnt 'disagree' with a designed life or universe. Only you and idiots like you believe this."

You should tell the Discovery Institute this then. These are the people who are working hard to present ID as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. These are the people that argue that work by Dembski/Behe and others is meaningfull and not just untestable bullshit.

You conflate two different groups of people, IDers and people who can reconcile belief in God with evolution by natural selection.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 2:11 PM. Reason : x]

9/14/2006 2:10:52 PM

Quote :

"You should tell the Discovery Institute this then."

They are biblical literalists. That would be pointless.

Quote :

"You conflate two different groups of people,"

I was the one seperating them.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 2:26 PM. Reason : 4]

9/14/2006 2:23:12 PM

You either don't know anything about the Discovery Institute or don't know the meaning of biblical literalist.

9/14/2006 2:28:06 PM

I know both.

9/14/2006 2:32:57 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mHWhXmIDd6g

9/14/2006 6:02:50 PM

Quote :

"But who's version of religious creation do you teach alongside science's explantation for the beginning? I don't think that it is particularly fair to just default to "God" and his seven days just because it's the religious right that are having the problem."

9/14/2006 6:11:48 PM

I'm telling you guys. A grassroots effort to influence schoolboards to require a "Philosophy of Science & Religion" course to be taught at ANY public school that endorses the idea of intelligent design in any way is the way to go. We may gripe and bitch over the idea, but I bet it'd successfully change the discourse enough to solve the original problem--even if the Philosophy of Science & Religion class gets booted. In order for the idea to get shot down, there'd have to be a discussion about it.

In that debate, the debate is no longer about whose dogma is right and whose dogma is wrong. The debate is reframed into those who want the students to learn the difference between theory and law, and between religious belief and objectively established fact.

The discussion would be far more honest than our veiled debate right now. The currently obfuscated bickering over who's right and wrong, when neither can be established, is the only thing preventing this issue from being passably resolved in this country. And while a class like that wouldn't be required to fix it, a debate over a class like that sure would.

9/14/2006 6:27:17 PM

I think what you mean is

there's no way public high schools are going to introduce a philosophy class, so they'll balk and can ID

9/14/2006 6:59:37 PM

As a consequence of the discussion.

9/14/2006 7:06:26 PM

Quote :

"do I look like i'm in front of a commitee? do I look like i'm talking to a senator?"

You don't fucking get it. Every time anybody in your camp talks to or in front of anybody from the opposite camp in the way you are talking now, you hurt your own case. It doesn't matter so much that you're right in this instance. It matters who will win.

9/14/2006 7:19:02 PM

Uh, WE will win when we enter college knowing what the fuck's up with the scientific method.

9/14/2006 10:50:56 PM

Here goes...

ID and Creationism do not have a place in a science classroom. There is nothing scientific about these theories. Here's why

ID advocates correctly point out the flaws in macroevolution. No plausible explanation currently exists to explain the origination of a cell, much less a working organism. The only plausible explanation, according to ID, is that an intelligent designer created life. I understand this argument and in fact believe this to be true... to an extent.

The problem with ID is that it is a "negative argument." It assumes we have two possibilities, ID and evolution. If evolution is found false, then ID is the correct solution. I've read about the evidence against macroevolution in all its forms, and fully understand why it's being rejected. To date all theories on macroevolution have been debunked thoroughly.

What's the problem?

You can't assume ID and evolution are the only plausible theories. Life could have originated elsewhere and arrived via meteorite, just to name an example. Sure it sounds goofy, but its just as sound of an argument as ID.

All "evidence" supporting ID is merely evidence debunking evolution. Scientists may not be able to prove how a cell assembled naturally, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Democritus believed but couldn't prove that atoms existed. Centuries later he was vindicated by new science, but after enduring ridicule in his own time by followers of Aristotle. The same happened to the heliocentric-universe crowd. It's for this reason you must beware calling something "impossible," because history shows that science has a way of eventually figuring out how to make the impossible.... well, possible.

The point is that, while we debate intelligent design vs. natural formation, science will march forward. In time it will (hopefully) uncover the truth, whatever that may be. There is no science to ID. It's a theory of gaps, existing where evolution fails to provide an adequate explanation to the formation of life as we know it.


ID advocates look at the evidence and conclude it's impossible for a human being to be created naturally without a designer. Evolutionists believe they simply haven't found the underlying cause yet. It's a matter of perspective, but in the end the debate will always hinge on the success and failure of proving evolution theories. Evolution is scientifically derived theory, and is at least on certani levels testable. ID cannot be proven true or false, hence it is a philosophical argument... and NOT scientific.


The appropriate action IMO is to crackdown on science textbooks. Too many of them give evolution the benefit of the doubt on more controversial subjects, like macroevolution, where the science supporting it doesn't exist. This gives the ID crowd the ammo it needs to argue for its theory's inclusion. It's far better to teach evolution and admit parts of it are still being debated than to add, say, creationist/ID disclaimers everywhere. That way science classrooms teach just science while claiming they're aren't advocating atheism.



If you read all that, prepare for all of this to be ignored. Most throughtful, well reasoned responses on TWW are...

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 11:35 PM. Reason : zxc ]

9/14/2006 11:33:32 PM

^ Excellent. I'm come down on the side of panspermia personally, but that was exactly the way to present the argument to avoid the ritualistic misappropriation of the science vs. philosophy discussion that so often occurs in these debates.

9/15/2006 1:36:06 AM

^^ I agree with some of it. I like the way it was written.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"I mean everything's a theory, you might as well present "intelligent falling" as an alternative to gravity"

I'm going to use this in my next ID v evolution debate.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 9:24 AM. Reason : ]

9/15/2006 9:21:27 AM

Quote :

"You can't assume ID and evolution are the only plausible theories. Life could have originated elsewhere and arrived via meteorite, just to name an example. Sure it sounds goofy, but its just as sound of an argument as ID."

umm life arriving via meteorite isnt an alternate theory to eveolution. Where did the life on the meteorite come from? ID? Evolution? As far as I know evolution isnt limited to earth.

Quote :

"Scientists may not be able to prove how a cell assembled naturally, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. "

The irony here is baffling.

9/15/2006 9:40:29 AM

^That is actually hilarious. Even if you don't believe in a God, you have to see that that is a funny post.

9/15/2006 10:21:58 AM

Quote :

"Lokken: umm life arriving via meteorite isnt an alternate theory to eveolution. Where did the life on the meteorite come from? ID? Evolution? As far as I know evolution isnt limited to earth."

But neither would the hypothetical intelligent designer.

The approach of the post you quoted was informed, well-reasoned, and pointed out the true nature of the debate. It definitely improperly presented the idea of panspermia, a theory about 5 times younger than Darwinian evolution, as independent from the holistic scientific consensus about the idea of evolution versus the idea spontaneous generation. It's not independent of evolution or intelligent design at all. I can even see certain hypotheses where all three could be used.

But such nonscientific speculations are where the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution argument belongs.

If we're going to have a rational debate about ID vs. Evolution, let's cut the masquerade. We ought to take a second to step back and identify whether we want to argue about the validity or invalidity of evolution as a separate issue from the validity or invalidity of intelligent design. After all, as any good theist who's been in a religious argument knows, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Apply the exact same tenant to both the intelligent design's ideology, and Darwinian evolutionary biology ideology, and what do you get? It appears one has evidence, and the other has inductions. In short, one's a falsifiable scientific theory with evidence to support its basic claims, and one's an unfalsifiable, philosophical hypothesis that God or aliens or Ganesh or Ra or whoever is what fills in the scientific gaps created by specific theories of evolution, presumably by supernatural means.

Mindlessly repeating that evolution is just a theory doesn't discount the fact that a mountain of evidence supports its basic premise which is that species adapt and ultimately form other species. Similar, the mindless repetition that evolution has its flaws doesn't do anything positive for scientific thought, nor does it present a scientific hypothesis. It's the equivalent of simply bitching and offering no plan to get out of Iraq, or stop poverty, or elevate the discourse of political campaigns, or educate people. All piss in the wind.

The fact is that Darwinian evolution has its flaws. The quality of the scientifically accurate information through biological education systems fails the public if our students aren't learning that in school. Period. There are alternative theories to Darwinian evolution already in existence that more clearly explain the mechanisms of evolution than Darwin ever came up with. Darwin seems to have achieved the scientific equivalent of Godhood, and it's limited the capacity of even scientists to come out and actively popularize alternative models of life's evolution, however more complete they may be.

Panspermia and Lamarck evolution are practically never mentioned in basic biology classes. Both theories represent scientific progression beyond the dogmas of Darwin or the dogmas of Creationism. Clearly the evidence has allowed the scientific paradigm to advance.

Why hasn't our education system allowed the conclusions of science to do so in our classrooms?

Some may even wonder how science progressed past this even though society hasn't.

Turns out the problem was created by a logical fallacy. Yep, those ugly P's and Q's got a grip on us and maligned our reason yet again leaving few of us to critically examine the underlying assumptions of the debate. Science was historically derived from philosophy, and that fact was far more internalized by the American society of Darwin's time than our own. We are also more aware of the philosophical underpinnings of religious belief today than society at large was then.

This allowed the society of Darwin's day to be deceived or self-deceived (no judgment on the actors involved) into not recognizing that Darwin's theory represented a testable hypothesis--thus belonging to a specific branch of philosophy, and Creationism (the Church's theory) did not belong to that branch. The matter wasn't framed as one of competing philosophies of course, and I think that's done much to obscure the philosophical origins of science today.

In short, society was victimized and continues to be victimized by this False Dichotomy.

Science is a branch of philosophy. All religions are as well. But that doesn't mean that either have an a priori reason to oppose one another's right to exist. Any presumptions that the two do not co-exist ought to be explained in a rational manner before attempting to enter data from either into the realm of truth.

9/15/2006 12:55:00 PM

Quote :

"To date all theories on macroevolution have been debunked thoroughly."

Quote :

" Science is a branch of philosophy. "

The theory that small changes over a massive time scale produces big changes has not been debunked. Its valid. And science uses logic, but scientic inquiry is distinct from philosophy.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:06 PM. Reason : 453]

9/15/2006 1:06:02 PM

In fact it isn't. Try as you might to escape it, the historical roots of Science are firmly established to be in philosophy. Ever hear of Empiricism? Consider science one subgrowth of that branch of philosophy. Epistemology isn't most people's strong suit, but that'd be its view of the sitation.

Mind you, all I posited was that evolution represents a theory. Even a diversely explainable one. I didn't at any time suggest it couldn't be, or isn't true. Just that it takes more than scientific establishment of a fact for it to represent more than philosophical agreement.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:10 PM. Reason : ...]

9/15/2006 1:08:44 PM

^^^ I wasnt arguing one way or the other.

I was just commenting that I dont see life being delivered here by a meteorite an alternate theory to ID or Evolution.

It may explain how life got to this particular rock but it doesnt replace either of those ideas.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:09 PM. Reason : *]

9/15/2006 1:09:23 PM

Quote :

"the historical roots of Science are firmly established to be in philosophy"

This is of course true. And I think you can tell us that there are HUGE differences between the way the the old research was done and the way we currently to science. The history means nothing. When you compare something, you look at what it is, not what it was.

Quote :

"I didn't at any time suggest it couldn't be, or isn't true."

Quote :

"all theories on macroevolution have been debunked thoroughly"

In fact you did. These are contradicting statements to anyone who speaks english.



[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:13 PM. Reason : 234]

9/15/2006 1:11:42 PM

^^ Correct. I was quoting you more because I uncharacteristically wanted to build on what you'd said, not argue with it.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ..]

9/15/2006 1:15:08 PM

Quote :

"And science uses logic, but scientic inquiry is distinct from philosophy."

Distinct from, yet defined by. This is what he meant by "Science is a branch of philosophy."

(edit -- fuck, beaten to it)

Quote :

"Try as you might to escape it, the historical roots of Science are firmly established to be in philosophy. Ever hear of Empiricism? Consider science one subgrowth of that branch of philosophy. Epistemology isn't most people's strong suit, but that'd be its view of the sitation."

It's more than Empiricism. Empiricists believe that your senses are how you know the world. No reason involved -- sensory data IS knowledge. Modern scientific inquiry is more similar to Kant's concept of synthetic a priori ideas, that we must observe the world around us and use our reason to understand and experience.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2006 1:16:07 PM

Quote :

"yet defined by"

In what way?

9/15/2006 1:18:18 PM

How do you suggest we arrive at a scientific method without philosophy of science?

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:19 PM. Reason : Was science discovered lying in the dirt somewhere, brushed off, and explained?]

9/15/2006 1:19:02 PM

Using what works. What gives results...

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:20 PM. Reason : 32]

9/15/2006 1:19:48 PM

Hey dude congrats, you're engaging in philosophy.

9/15/2006 1:20:01 PM

Im using language and basic communication. If thats philosophy then everything is.

9/15/2006 1:20:59 PM

You are wrong.

If you think that the scientific method didn't get its jumpstart in philosophy, I don't even know what to say to you. You need a basic grasp of history.

9/15/2006 1:21:46 PM

Quote :

"If you think that the scientific method didn't get its jumpstart in philosophy, I don't even know what to say to you."

Yes it was fairly misguided for a while when people were doing philosophy and not simply sticking to what we now know of as the scientific method.

and

Quote :

"When you compare something, you look at what it is, not what it was."

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:23 PM. Reason : 54]

9/15/2006 1:22:49 PM

You're either a really bad troll or a really ignorant pseudo-intellectual.

Explain to me why we don't use Scholastic methods of scientific explanation anymore?

9/15/2006 1:25:42 PM

Is everything humans do, philosophy?

9/15/2006 1:30:52 PM

Of course not. Kicking a soccer ball is not philosophy. Conducting a scientific experiment is not philosophy. Defining the scientific method IS philosophy. edit: Therefore, science is a branch born from philosophy in the sense that philosophy defined its starting point and continues to clarify it over time. Are you really this stupid?

What about this does your closed mind refuse to process, so that I can chop it into easier pieces for you?

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2006 1:32:04 PM

Quote :

"Defining the scientific method IS philosophy"

Why should accept this, you havent given me any reasons. Youve told me what reserach used to be like. Why dont you give me one reason why the process of scientific inquiry is philosophy.

Quote :

"philosophy defined its starting point and continues to clarify it over time"

Since you claim to know so much about the history of the philosophy of science, you know that it is true that the reason why one way of inquiry began to predominate is becuase one was yielded results. For example, Newton. It had nothing to do with the philosophy of the method, one way was correct.



[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:37 PM. Reason : 234]

9/15/2006 1:35:00 PM

The scientific method is designed to lead us towards reasonable inferences (and thus, knowledge).

There are many questions here -- what is knowledge, and what is "good reason" to form knowledge? Also, what is a process by which we might arrive at reasonable conclusions?

The answer that has been provided is our current scientific method. If you cannot identify this as a textbook case of philosophy then you are not a reasonable, intelligent person.

EDIT:

Quote :

"Since you claim to know so much about the history of the philosophy of science, you know that it is true that the reason why one way of inquiry began to predominate is becuase one was yielded results. It had nothing to do with the philosophy of the method, one way was correct."

Where do you think the method came from? Did it drop from the sky, or did a hmmm.... philosopher (Galileo, Descartes, et al) create, refine, and explain it?

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2006 1:37:26 PM

Quote :

"Correct. I was quoting you more because I uncharacteristically wanted to build on what you'd said, not argue with it."

haha oh, I see. carry on

9/15/2006 1:41:45 PM

i think most of you people are really silly

9/15/2006 1:42:55 PM

I am not sure why I have to restate it, but what something WAS doesnt matter since we are talking about the current scientific method.

Quote :

"There are many questions here -- what is knowledge "

Thats in the dictionary.

Quote :

"what is "good reason" to form knowledge? "

Thats logic, and philosophers dont hold a patent on that.

9/15/2006 1:43:46 PM

^

Quote :

"Josh8315: Thats logic, and philosophers dont hold a patent on that."

Better tell all those philosophers currently attempting to define what exactly Logic is in the first place. Or is the concept that logic is yet another branch of epistemology totally lost on you? Somebody's been trying to explain it to you in different terms.

Quote :

"Josh8315: This is of course true. And I think you can tell us that there are HUGE differences between the way the the old research was done and the way we currently to science."

Of course I can. And I can argue as many do with religion that it has attributed a lot of problems in the world. In very similar ways, no less.

But that just leads us into epistemology, the parental (and more relevant) philosophy of both empirical science and spirtualism that concerns itself with truth. To keep it from getting boring, think of the popularity of a particular branch within a society as the measure of success of its teams. Whoever wins gets to be the societal equivalent of the judicial branch, the ideological arbiters of what information people believe.

The role of empiricists and spiritualists is to concern themselves with explaining the phenomena of human experience. They choose to do it differently according to truly objective epistemologists. Evaluating how effective they are at that depends on what views you take within the realm of epistemology.

All you're doing is changing the former dichotomy into one of: Science determines objective truth vs. Religion determines objective truth.

Quote :

"Josh8315: The history means nothing. When you compare something, you look at what it is, not what it was."

I agree with the latter, even though it contradicts your earlier statement. Is the present not caused by the past? Or are you indicting causality in general when you say that history means nothing?

Quote :

"Josh8315: These are contradicting statements to anyone who speaks english."

Are they?

I don't think so.

I was positing that evolution is true according to the data, but explainable by diverse theories. All you've shown is that theories of macroevolution, a subset of evolution, is a theory that has been thoroughly debunked. You realize hopefully that microevolutionary theory can be explained through Lamarck's evolutionary hypothesis and that of panspermia, I hope.

---

Quote :

"It's more than Empiricism. Empiricists believe that your senses are how you know the world. No reason involved -- sensory data IS knowledge. Modern scientific inquiry is more similar to Kant's concept of synthetic a priori ideas, that we must observe the world around us and use our reason to understand and experience."

Agreed. That's why I said science is one philosophical subgrowth beneath it; derived from and defined by Empiricism, not philosophically identitical to. That's a fundamentally important distinction.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ...]

9/15/2006 1:44:47 PM

i bet your mental wrist is starting to hurt

9/15/2006 1:45:00 PM

Quote :

"Thats in the dictionary."

Better tell every philosopher who studies and does research in epistemology that the problem has been solved! OR, you're completely ignorant of contemporary epistemological issues, yet claim to know what the fuck you're talking about.

Quote :

"Thats logic, and philosophers dont hold a patent on that."

"What is a good reason to believe something, and what beliefs constitute knowledge" is an issue for philosophy of science and epistemology.


EDIT:

Quote :

"Agreed. That's why I said science is one philosophical subgrowth beneath it; derived from and defined by Empiricism, not philosophically identitical to. That's a fundamentally important distinction."

Yeah but you could just as easily argue that it was derived and defined by Rationalism too. I guess I didn't get the point of your distinction, as there were only three branches of Epistemology at the time, two of which were useful (Rationalism/Empiricism -- the "third" I'm labeling here is Skepticism, but that's hardly a helpful stance for any mode of explanation).

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2006 1:48:02 PM

Quote :

""What is a good reason to believe something, and what beliefs constitute knowledge" is an issue for philosophy of science and epistemology. "

and is not part of the scientific process, nor is it needed for the scientific process of inquiry.

Quote :

"All you've shown is that theories of macroevolution, a subset of evolution, is a theory that has been thoroughly debunked. You "

I didnt show anything.

9/15/2006 1:50:38 PM

seriously, do you realize how stupid you really sound?

9/15/2006 1:51:38 PM

Quote :

"and is not part of the scientific process, nor is it needed for the scientific process of inquiry."

Haha oh god I have no idea what to say to you other than you're completely incorrect, ignorant of the facts, and in bad need of a history lesson with a dose of reading compression.

9/15/2006 1:53:05 PM

Im not sure why you think people still do research the way they used to. A history book has history in it.

Quote :

"Or are you indicting causality in general when you say that history means nothing?"

Well then I need to educate you. On a quantum scale, many events are indeterminate, and things on the small scale determine what happens on larger scales. Therefor, many macro events are indeterminant.

Or are you going to challenge the existence of microscopic particles?




[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 1:56 PM. Reason : rt]

9/15/2006 1:53:07 PM

People DON'T do it the same way they used to. The scientific method has changed, unless you're suggesting that people subscribe to hylomorphism and Aristotelean demonstrations?

Seriously dude, are you high or are you really that simultaneously confident in your correctness and ignorant of the facts?

9/15/2006 1:54:45 PM

Quote :

"People DON'T do it the same way they used to."

you agree with me then?

9/15/2006 1:55:28 PM

Wow you're a fucking moron. I'm going to say one last thing and stop trying to educate you, because you're either THAT fucking dense (and not worth my time), or you're trolling me successfully (and not worth my time).

People have altered the scientific method over time. This is done through a process of reasoning called philosophy. Good day!

EDIT:

Oh, one last thing that occurred to me:

Quote :

"Well then I need to educate you. On a quantum scale, many events are indeterminate, and things on the small scale determine what happens on larger scales. Therefor, many macro events are indeterminant."

Quantum theory states that some events are indeterminate.
Some macro events are indeterminate.
The development of scientific method is a macro event.
-------------------------------
Scientific method exists without cause.

Do you realize just how fucking stupid you sound?

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2006 1:58:00 PM

9/15/2006 1:58:37 PM