From Webster.com Main Entry: scientific method Function: noun : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses Science as we are discussing here is based on scientific method. You can not call astrology science because it does not have any hypotheses that can be tested. ID is smiliar, you can call it anything but it is not SCIENCE.
Good point, but I think that could be argued. I don't think system "size" is a good correlation to how much something has evolved. Nor do I think complexity is inherent to "smaller" systems. A good example is the Three body problem, the research of which formed the foundation for modern chaos theory.
it's not inherent to smaller systems. but it is inherent in the smaller systems that Darwin, in his ignorance before nanotechnology, thought were simpler merely because they were small. so they were simple...and first. otherwise you'd have mere chemicals turning into single cells...which sounds fine if cells are very simple...but when you consider DNA and the complexity of the cell, sounds like the punch-line to a bad joke. this is my point. and i hear people here talking about re-entering the dark ages. but read over this thread, for example, and ask yourself who is being closed-minded. i'm not saying you have to get to the point where you acknowledge a creator. but if macro-evolution is questioned, the question and the questioner are dismissed as idiotic. i'm sorry, but macro-evolution is simply not THAT solid.
Intelligent design (ID) is a controversial set of arguments which assert that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID advocates argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. More specifically, ID adherents believe that there exist instances of irreducible complexity, which in their view are impossible to evolve and therefore must have been created by an intelligent designer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design (Note that this article has a bias towards the orthodox evolutionist POV, IMO, but at least it gets the basics straight.) Maybe there are some particular political overtones in you neck of the woods that I’m not familiar with. I’m in Calgary and it’s not a high profile issue here but my take on it is as I described it. Unfortunately I don’t have time to get drawn into a major research project on this but I think I can cut to the chase in a summary for you. There are many huge problems with the theory of evolution that have induced it’s proponents to devise some quite improbable answers to maintain support for it, but no matter how improbable they may be they are usually justified by statements like “it must have been this way,” or "since evolution is a fact ..." In other words supposedly objective scientists are taking evolution as an indisputable fact and are trying to find ways to make the evidence fit the theory. We need to draw on Kuhn heavily to understand how this happens, how scientists become married to a certain theory to the extent that they will go to great lengths to force fit the data into their theory. When evolution was first proposed it seemed like a very plausible explanation and there was a great expectation that the yet to be found evidence would bear it out. It was a revolutionary, progressive idea that swept aside the old boys and opened the door for new generations of scientists whose cause it was to prove evolution. As you know, however, there were huge problems when the facts, or lack thereof, emerged. But by this time many scientists had made their reputations as evolutionists and a generation or two of keen upwardly mobile grad students had decided their best chance at success was to back to the hilt their mentor’s theories. So problems like the Cambrian Explosion were rationalized away in somewhat improbable ways, and the question of the lack of a continuum between species (never mind the “missing link,” there are essentially no links in the chain, only discrete points) was rationalised away in somewhat improbably ways, and the problem that essentially no macroevolution has been witnessed in recorded history was rationalized away in somewhat improbably ways, etc. Eventually, as Kuhn predicts, it begins to become clear that what this groups of scientist that have their careers staked on this theory are doing is trying to make the evidence fit the theory. There are so many improbabilities stacked on top of improbabilities at this point that the whole theory is looking very shaky. I wouldn’t say that we’re at the point of a main stream paradigm shift yet but I think we’re approaching it. You are right that many people are still orthodox evolutionists but more and more people have broken free and are looking for better answers that fit the facts rather than being tunnel visioned in on making the facts fit the theory. Nor has it been proven true. I probably overstated the case if I implied it was a near death theory, but I think it is a theory that is on every shakier ground and more and more people are exploring other possible theories, and this is the precursor to another paradigm shift, IMO. Very nice. First of all you have to be prepared to expand your understanding of the universe we live in. That, of course, is science, and your remark proves that you are not a real scientist. You live in a rigid box. Your statement is reactionary, conservative, fundamentalist and that of an orthodox devotee of the faith of evolution. You are a cog in the wheel that drives “Normal Science.” (Read the Kuhn link.) You are describing microevolution, not macroevolution. Do you know the difference? Microevolution is not at issue. Macroevolution is. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. ID is a theory, right? It’s a theory that addresses the shortcomings of the theory of evolution. I'll be back later today.
I do not believe most of the people are saying evolution or all the parts are 100% correct here. However, that does not make ID a suitable substitute as a science field. Science fields like evolution can refined or even disproved based on new knowledge and data, which ID is not capable of.
Max, I am in no way am trying to call you close-minded. In fact, I generally enjoy conversations with you since you are both adamantly religious, yet reasonable. I agree that the complexity in cells and DNA does pose a rather intriguing logical conundrum for those who espouse simple+simple=complex. I think my previous posts regarded the ID question - which I still think is ridiculous. I am fine with faith and belief in a creator, just don't try to pass it off as science. The two are not mutually exclusive per say, but they do have different approaches to problem solving.
Ask yourself why you are questioning it. Is it purely scientific? Why is this particular science so important to over others? Is there another agenda behind the questioning? That's what annoys me.
Grizzled, I've read what you said and you're not saying anything new. Are you saying that there are flaws in Evolution and the only way that those flaws can be explained is through a higer being / intelligence /creator? You're missing what a lot of the other posters, including myself, have been saying. Nothing about Evolution precludes the existence of God or a higher power but the problem with science is that belief requires proof. Its very well possible that there is creator but how can you prove that using the scientific method? This is my biggest problem with ID. Its not that it isn't true. I will concede that it very well may be but it can't be proven empiracally. It doesn't require a leap in scientific understanding it requires a leap in faith. No its anything that is unscientific. You keep on accusing others of being unscientific but you've yet to prove how ID is anyway scientific other than as a criticism of Evolution. See my first comment on this posts. Am I wrong about what you've been saying? Are you saying that ID really is something other than claiming that Evolution has flaws that can only be addressed by a creator? Grizzled I've I've touched a nerve here and I apologize if you're taking personal offense to this. I come off as abrasive and pedantic but I'm not trying to deny your belief but am questioning them. As I've said repeatedly on this matter I personally accept science but also have faith. I believe that there is knowledge that pertains to one and knowledge that pertains to another but it is a mistake to try to prove or justify one with the means of the other. Science to me explains the how[/b] of things but faith explains the why of things. These are very different issues because the ultimate why questions I don't think can ever be answered scientifically. That said the understanding of the physical universe is the realm of science and we should be relying on science for explanation.
MadMax; This is a bit of an elaboration on my response to Grizzled. Evolutionary theory is certainly riddled with flaws and unresolved issues and rightfully should be challenged and debated. The problem then is whether ID is only a negative critique of Evolution or is it a positive theory in itself. I have nothing against the negative side but am troubled by the positive side of asserting that because Evolution has problems those can only be reconciled by belief in a creator / intelligent designer. I'll say it again, and I apologize for people taking offense but I can't think of any nicer way of phrasing it, that strikes me as intellectual laziness because it resorts to a metaphysical explanation for physical phenomena and also cuts off further investigation since logically the next step of proof would be to scientifically prove the existence of the creator / intelligent designer / God. That's something that I've yet to hear anyone try without resorting to the circular logic of "Things are complex so there must be a creator."
AARGH! DAMN YOU INTELLECTUAL CLUTCHFANS! I KEEP ON READING AND POSTING INSTEAD OF DOING WORK! LETS TALK ABOUT HOW BONEHEADED FRANCIS' BALLHANDLING SKILLS ARE OR NAIRING MY SACK SO I CAN LEAVE THIS WEBSITE! By the very definition you post illustrates the problem with ID. Why does irreducible complexity absolutely mean there must be an intelligent designer? Brownian motion often purely produces highly complex patterns totally randomly so to assert that complexity has to be the work of an intelligent creator requires proof that there is an intelligent creator. The difference is is that the functions of microevolution are observable and proven so it is a logical inductive leap that macroevolution functions similarly. With ID the mechanism of speciation is divine / intelligent providence. To make the leap that is the case the existence of such providence has to be proven. Without that the whole theory falls apart. Again though it is more than just a theory that addresses the shortcomings of evolution. If it was just that it wouldn't be theory but just a critique. It asserts a positive argument that complexity is the work of a creator.
1. thank you; 2. i have no problem with that. i do not believe i could ever PROVE God using a scientific method. i do not set out to do so. talking to just a few of the guys who "believe" in ID (like the guy in my sig), I don't get the impression they think they can prove it that way either. i think they're merely saying that advances in various fields of science have led them to conclusions which counter macro-evolution and support their own faiths. again...not for a science book, but their own thoughts on it.
why am i questioning it? i'm not enough of a scientist to question anything, really. but some of the core underpinnings of this theory that poses as fact among many are coming undone as we learn more. guys who are scientists are questioning the theory and they're being met with a fair amount of closed-mindedness, frankly. i understand the concerns about ID...but proposing ID and questioning macro-evolution are two entirely different things.
Kathy Martin of Clay Center made the comment while attempting to reassure a witness who said he hadn't read the entire proposal, just parts of it. ... "I've not read it word for word myself," Martin said of the other proposal, eliciting groans of disbelief from a few members of the audience. Is anyone surprised that people who believe in the bible yet don't actually read it are also the same people who believe in ID yet don't read other theories?
I am interested in you telling me that how the core underpinnings of evolution theory are coming undone. Please enlighten me.
the underpinning that the single cell is inherently simple...that it was formed merely from the mix of chemicals...and that evolution led that single cell to organize into more complex systems. the more we discover about the complexity of an individual cell, the more it tears apart the notion that we started with simple and are moving to complex. there is nothing simple about the cell.
And that is the appropraite way to phrase it. ID advocates irritate me when they try to state their "theory" as anything other than a philosophical argument.
there is nothing simple about the cell. We must have taken different biology classes in HS. I vaguely recall that cells were way too complex If you 1,000 cell biologists in a room and ask them what we do not know about cell biology I suspect they would say that our igorance surpasses our knowledge wrt cell biology, evolution, etc. There is so much in science that we still do not understand. We throw together theories to give the best explanation possible. Even when theories become laws (like Newton's law of physics) we still leave the door open to the possibility that our knowledge is not absolute (Einstein). This scientific method is not a good fit for religion, where beliefs can be absolute and never changing.
are you saying that darwin did not assert the theory that we started with simplicity (single cell) and moved to more complex systems?
ok.that's fair. i just think it's borne out of an understanding of science. does that make sense? maybe it's not proveable...but is borne out of discoveries. i agree that it can't be tested...so the word "theory" is used rather loosely with regard to ID.
Yes. Discoveries have been made which are hard for evolutionists to understand or account for. However, a lot of ID seems to be based on the absence of discoveries too. Regardless, I think I know what you're saying: Not every ID advocate is a bible-thumping zealot with an agenda.
