What does disproving Evolution have to do with proving Intelligent Design? Nothing. Science is a human discipline. We defined it. We created the rules. If a theory is not falsifiable, then it isn't science. Evolution's falsifiability is not relevant. Intelligent Design's falsifiability is, and you dodged that again. Therefore Intelligent Design is not science. And since you said it wasn't philosophy either, then we can call it pseudoscience.
If I’m following what you’re saying then yes this is possible, but not probable. There is no known mechanism for this to happen. You’re falling into the trap again. You’re assuming something unknown and improbable and claiming that it is “simple and logical.” This is a logic based on a faith, not science. Exactly, and here we see just such supernatural explanations being put forward as “truth” to try to justify the theory of evolution. It’s not just the supernatural explanations, of course, because what once seemed supernatural is often later shown to be possible and then even probable. This is the process of discovery after all. It’s more the intolerance to questioning that is the problem. Once upon a time people looked at the sun rising in the east and setting in the west and concluded that the sun must revolve around the earth. When Galileo suggested that the earth revolved around the sun he was thrown in jail. This has been the case when the establishment position has been challenged for years. Again I will refer to Kuhn for further elaboration on this. And now again we see a rigid, fundamentalist evolutionist community trying to put forward their theories as “truth” and to deny any questioning of then. I’m glad you and I stand together against this kind of anti-scientific attitude. And yet that’s exactly where it is. This fundamentalist faith in evolution is the current standard and taught as “truth”, as blatantly unscientific as that is. Sadly, this is the plight of mankind. As Kuhn has shown progress and truth often have to be obtained, even in science, by over throwing the establishment position, and I think we are yet again in the midst of that process. From the perspective of probability, this is a faith based statement that is not based in science which is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the critical thinker. If you flip a coin 9 times and come up with 9 heads, what are the chances that the 10th flip will be a tail? The real answer is 50%. The probability or the improbably of what is happening on earth has to be based on a real probabilities and scientific assessments, I’m sure you will agree. Now, if a person comes to a point in their inquiry where they are prepared to consider some greater force (and this point comes for many around the problem of the generation of matter from the absence of matter) then another form of exploration can begin. This does not negate science but is inextricably linked to it. It completes the picture or much more of the picture anyway.
No offense but this point is the weakest critiques towards evolutionary theory. Modern humans have been around for mayb 300K years, recorded human history has been around for 12K years, the earliest fossil founds are more than 2 BILLION YEARS OLD and the Earth has been around for 4 BILLION YEARS. If a record in human history is the standard for your proof then we can't prove that Continental Drift or that there were ice ages or that the galaxy were in rotates since in recorded human history we've never observed signifigant movement of the continents, or profound climate change and humans themselves haven't existed long enough for one rotation around the galactic center. What's his opinion on ID vs Evolution?
So grizzled, You say a). Evolution is improbable, simple, and based on faith as well. THUS b) You argue against it But a). ID is simple, unverifiable, and based on faith as well. YET b). You promote it. Should you be bashing BOTH ID and evolution? How can you say evolution is the same as ID, thus it's based on faith? and then turn around and say ID is verifiable? If you want to be consistent you should say both theories suck and don't explain anything especially according to your line of reasoning. At least then you would be consistent though still incorrect.
I don’t think anyone is saying that ID has been proved. From what I understand even the people who want it taught in the schools only want it taught as another theory. Am I wrong on this? In it’s simplest form, however, ID is fairly readily provable, at least to high confidence levels. If we show that what exists today is almost certainly not wholly or substantially the result of random mutations, then some non-random or “intelligent” process must have been involved. What that might be is another topic and perhaps another thread that we can start if you would like to acknowledge that non-random causes should be explored. I think I’m missing your point. Why are we concerned with ID’s falsifiability any more than evolution’s? We are comparing the two in this thread are we not? Have you not just admitted that ID is every bit as scientific as evolution? The two are really in the same boat whatever you want to call that boat.
Again you say evolution is similar to evolution yet you bash one while promoting the other. You should be arguing EITHER evolution is good and ID is as good as evolution OR Evolution sucks and so does ID. Arguing evolution isn't good but ID is good is hypocritical using your line of reasoning.
It may not be the strongest point but it is actually another strong point. Continental drift can in fact be measured. It’s a small measurement but it’s there. Likewise glaciers and ice sheets have been seen to advance and recede. Given this one can extrapolate. Extrapolating great distances is a risky business and can’t typically be done with much precision, but at least the basic principles can be established. Not so with evolution (although there is admittedly a claim that some degree of vertical evolution has been reproduced in cells in a lab.) In nature, however, there has essentially been no perceivable vertical evolution in recorded history. In the time line of recorded history you wouldn’t expect much, but you would expect something. There are theories about why the evolution of man and other animals may have stopped but again we’re tying to make the facts fit the theory and at some point you just have to admit that the theory is a bad fit for the facts.
Didn't want to presume anything. Sorry about the length and convolution of the paragraph. Its hard to be simpler or clearer when posting. The issue of testability is that empiracle evidence is always the check for science and while theories, particularly in physics, are derived from the assumed axioms those theories still have to be tested empiracally to see if they are predicative of actual events. So in the case of relativity it has proven to accurately predict most of the observed universe. We've found black holes and have been able to show that clocks slow down relatively when they are accelerated faster relatively to other clocks. Even in testatment to Einstein's latent genius and the power of math we've found that even what he considered empiracally impossible but mathematically necessary is actually true that the universe is rapidly expanding. When mathematical derived scientifically theories have not been proven empiracally they have been discarded or reevaluated to be both mathematically consistent with observed phenomena. The process of science is consistent refinement but to stay true to science it is possible that we get to a point where its impossible to reconcile observed phenomena with mathematically derived theory. At that point I would say that pretty much the whole methodology of mathematic science falls and we have to go back and challenge those axioms underlying it. Are we there yet? I don't think we will ever reach there because that would only be at the point where we can say there is nothing more we can discover in the physical univers. The difference between that and the assumption of a creator is that a world view of a creator isn't bound by empiracle or logical tests. Everything is miraculous so there's no need to logically understand any of it. You could construct a logical system but if everytime things don't fit you fall back on a creator then I would again call that intellectual laziness that ultimately defeats the point of seekeing understanding. If you take it to the other side and assert that there is a creator and construct a scientific theory based upon a creator you have to be able to test that empiracally by being able to accurately predict a result of an empiracal test. That would mean proving revelation (in a general sense of divine inspired vision not just the last book of the Bible). This again comes down to the difference between science and faith. Science is dependent upon empiracism whereas faith is meant to transcend empiracism. So when people talk about falsibility scientific theories are falsible if they fail to predict empirical phenomena but faith isn't because no matter what the result of any test its always the will of the creator.
You need to use a finer analysis here. They are the same in that they are both theories. You can’t call either “truth”. I don’t think anyone (or not many anyway) is calling ID “truth” but there are lots of people erroneously calling evolution truth. ID addresses problems in the theory of evolution so not surprisingly it’s a better fit to the facts. The intelligent design component certainly raises questions which should be explored, and we can do that if you like. But saying that the two are unproven theories does not say that they are the equally good or bad.
I'm just saying that almost everything you said about evolution and it's "holes" can be turned around and used against ID in the same argument. Yet you continue to say that ID is a better fit. You must agree there's more direct EVIDENCE for evolution. Maybe you also feel there's also more evidence against evolution, which is fine. But how you can conclude something is improbable when you are not a scientist with a Ph.d in Evolution and biology is beyond me. Using YOUR line of reasoning, you should be denouncing both ID and evolution.
Strictly speaking I think that many ID people believe in a combination of evolution and intelligent design. I think this is what separates it from straight creationists. Personally I’m fine with genetic drift caused by natural selection and other forms of lateral and degenerative mutations. W.r.t. vertical evolution, however, I agree with the scientists who say there is no real evidence for it. As for how I can have this opinion, well, we are all responsible for analysing situations and coming to decisions about them. You don’t defer every decision in your life to someone with a PhD I hope. There are certainly PhDs who believe what I believe and if you are asking why there are more that don’t I will refer you again to the Kuhn link. You could actually call me a scientist, I suppose, in a general way since I have a degree in applied science and worked for 16 months in a university as a very independent research assistant, more like a researcher. In general us applied guys do view the pure theoretical guys with a bit more of a critical eye because we know that while the do some good work they can miss key real world factors and data and come up with some theories that just don’t work in the real world and don’t apply to the world as it exists.
Sishir Chang, I probably can't comment on everything you said. But I have to admit that your explanation and deduction are very clear and logical. But your premise is that everything including ID needs to be proved using the same approach of proving science - empiracle evidence. Personally, I don't consider ID is science. Therefore, it's not really logical to dismiss it just because it can't be proven like any other science. By no means, I would say that ID is proven to everyone, by using the method and standard everyone agrees. You are absolutely right, that Science and Faith are totally different things, that leads to my belief, that one should not attempt to prove them by the same means. In your examples, we as human beings discover and learn more things based on certain assumptions or premises. The more we know, the more chance we find ourselves wrong in the beginning. At certain point, the system we relied on is no longer valid. We either challenge the premises or the methodology we applied or based on, or we may simply limit the old system, and start a new system to cover new discoveries. I am not convinced of current ways to disprove ID, neither am I convinced of the result to prove Evolution. I really hope that someday, someway, we can prove ID, because it's still the directest way to convince people. I guess it's safe to say, that people believe in Evolution and ID are unable to convince the counterpart why their belief is correct, and why the belief of the counterpart is false, at this point.
If you believe in ID but do not believe it is science, no one on this board will have any problem with that. The problem people have is that there are many that tries to pass off ID as an alternative to evolution in the science field.
Science and spirituality are only separate at one level of abstraction. If you engage the dilemma this poses and work through the Hegelian dialectical process you find that they are part of a unified whole.
real_egal; Thanks and I think our positions are pretty much the same. I personally don't deny that ID could be true only that it can't be proven empiracally and cannot be science. To try to explain speciation or anything else by resorting to a higher power to me strikes me as being a dead end since there is no further explanation than "its the will of the creator/higher power/God."
