How do you detect "design"?

[Brian2]

Um you just demonstrated you've not a clue
either of what is in biology curricula , or what
science is.

In the eyes of the ID people, the science in the classroom does not include a designer, and I am sure you agree.

 

[Pogo]

Yes I believe for faith reasons and think that those who want to push faith aside in their lives are missing an important part of their humanity.
Pushing aside "reason" is also not sensible.

That is fine but assumptions based on faith are not useable in scientific reasoning hence it's agnosticism.
Science however is not all that there is to humanity we agree, but mixing faith with science is to the detriment of both.

 

[Brian2]

This needs further explanation, because the definition of evidence in science is specific and clear. Science requires specific objective verifiable physical evidence that leads to conclusions that are predictive and falsifiable.

Intelligent Design hypothesis does not offer any objective verifiable evidence to support this belief. To be a falsifiable hypotheses it would be necessary to demonstrate the complexity in nature could not come about by natural processes.

OK

 

[wellwisher]

Right. Which means your idea of a designer is right there in the category of leprechauns and easter bunnies, eventhough you denied that earlier. Right?



You also can't conclude that there were no undetectable pixies involved.
So what?



Yes. And that part consists of an INFINITE number of claims that your imagination could potentially come up with.
So what is it about that one claim among an infinite set that you think makes it more credible then all the others?
'evidence' can't be your answer, because then science would be all over it....

One way to address this is with art. If you go to a museum and look at the art, some works of art will move you, The ones that do that the best, for many generations, become classics. The best art is chosen at the unconscious level.

It is often said, that art anticipates the future. The Impressionist Art of the 19th century, where the photographic clarity of the previous generation of art, becomes pixelated, was appealing because it said something of the effect of the Industrial Revolution. More and more people left the clarity of the natural farm life, to live and work in the less characterized world of urban industrialization.

The Abstract Art movement, caused the pixelated picture of reality, to became even less obvious. This appeared in the late 19th century and early 20th century, even before Einstein and Heisenberg defined the relative nature and uncertainty of reality in Physics.

These artistic works, of each generation, touched the soul; art effect, since it came from the unconscious and speaks to the unconscious mind. Now these works are a snapshot, in time, connected to points of anticipation of the evolving design.

Creative things are done unconsciously, with the unconscious mind able to extrapolate. Art is one way to trigger the release; more artist appear in a movement to reach more people. For others, there is a lure and sense of something in the art; sign of the times. Ancient works of art also anticipated the future and came from the same collective human firmware; archetypes of the collective unconscious.

Interesting, the clarity and perfection of say Roman art and sculpture, reflected a sense of clarity beyond today. Today we live more in an abstract world of art, that lacks clarity; taking sides, and thinking half is a whole.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is fine but assumptions based on faith are not useable in scientific reasoning hence it's agnosticism.
Science however is not all that there is to humanity we agree, but mixing faith with science is to the detriment of both.

Well, I will break my promise to the thread starter and ask how you know the bold part?

 

[Pogo]

Methods? It is better to say the Discovery has not proposed a hypothesis that can be falsify the theory of "Intelligent Design." Actually they have not proposed a consistent methodology to falsify any sort of hypothesis. They consistently argue for the negative of what science cannot demonstrate the natural causes of complexity in nature.

I use falsify as specifically used in science defined by Methodological Naturalism

I would have written it that they have not written a hypothesis that allows for it's own potential falsification hence as has been demonstrated their hypotheses are useless.

 

[Brian2]

Believers including scientists, do not "push faith aside in their lives" to support the science of evolution.

I did not say that they do.

 

[Brian2]

You reject the objective verifiable evidence and 170+ years of discoveries and research in the best universities in the world,

Where did I do that?

 

[Brian2]

That is fine but assumptions based on faith are not useable in scientific reasoning hence it's agnosticism.
Science however is not all that there is to humanity we agree, but mixing faith with science is to the detriment of both.

Believing all the conclusions of science sounds like "faith" to me. I think that some of what is called science is not real science. It is not repeatable or falsifiable.

 

[Pogo]

In the eyes of the ID people, the science in the classroom does not include a designer, and I am sure you agree.

And it doesn't include pixies or leprechauns or any other unevidenced entities.
Anecdotal and unreproducible evidence such as for Bigfoot and Nessie is not sufficient to get an idea taught in a High School. Intelligent Design falls into this category. See Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005 and note especially "cdesign proponentsists" as proof of Intelligent Designs creationist background. and Edwards v Aguillard 1987 as to why creationism could not be taught as science.

 

[Pogo]

Well, I will break my promise to the thread starter and ask how you know the bold part?

Observation. see Trial of Gallileo and others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Observation. see Trial of Gallileo and others.

Okay, that is one example or even more, but from there doesn't follow that it is universal.
And as always it depends on how you understand faith and religion.

 

[Pogo]

Believing all the conclusions of science sounds like "faith" to me. I think that some of what is called science is not real science. It is not repeatable or falsifiable.

That is because we don't believe these conclusions but accept them due to the reasoning and evidence behind them. And yes the conclusions are both repeatable and falsifiable which is why we keep exploring.

 

[Pogo]

Okay, that is one example or even more, but from there doesn't follow that it is universal.
And as always it depends on how you understand faith and religion.

No it is a general rule of thumb and you can use anything you want to create your hypothesis but from there you are back to non-faith reliant demonstration.
you can't conclude something just because you have faith it is so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it is a general rule of thumb and you can use anything you want to create your hypothesis but from there you are back to non-faith reliant demonstration.
you can't conclude something just because you have faith it is so.

Well, we don't agree if faith is only relevant to religion in the standard sense in these debates, but with that I will leave for now.

 

[Pogo]

Okay, that is one example or even more, but from there doesn't follow that it is universal.
And as always it depends on how you understand faith and religion.

Charles Lyell hypothesized a flood layer based on his faith in the Genesis flood and went looking for it. He didn't find it and along with James Hutton went on to found the science of modern geology.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You're second-guessing what atheists will answer your question.

I think he's giving you the definitions of atheist, strong atheist, and weak atheist. He (and I) defines an atheist as somebody who answers no to the question of whether he believes in a god or gods. When asked if gods exist, those who answer no again are called strong (gnostic) atheists, and those who say that they don't know are weak (agnostic) atheists. That is not guessing how somebody will answer, but giving names for those who give this answer or that one.

The arguments for the subjective existence or non-existence of Gods has no parallel in court room analogies

The parallel is in the difference between not accepting that something is so as with agnostic or weak atheism versus asserting that it is not as with gnostic or strong atheism, or as it is sometimes pithily phrased, the difference between not believing and believing not. Courtroom verdicts are analogous in the sense that not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean innocent. It doesn't actually mean not guilty, either, just not sufficiently demonstrated to be guilty.

I do not think that those who argue for intelligent design reject natural processes, like natural selection

They reject that biological evolution was a natural process when they add a supernatural element.

I also don't believe in leprechauns or the easter bunny and don't put them in the same category as belief in God.

You offer no reason for that. You offer no argument why people who don't agree with you should change their minds.

Incidentally, I think it should say the same category as a god rather than belief in a god. Gods, leprechauns, and the Easter Bunny have common characteristics that place them in a category with everything else with those characteristics. Nobody can interact with them because they never appear at any time or place. These are the qualities of the nonexistent. These are the qualities that every fictitious creature imagined by man have in common.

If I accept your category boundaries then true. But I don't.

Once again, you give opinions without supporting arguments, which are not helpful to those who don't care what you believe, but rather, what you know and can demonstrate.

It seems to be a matter, at least partially, of what is considered to be "evidence".

I just wrote a fairly complete answer to that yesterday on another thread:

Evidence is whatever is evident to the senses, whether that is seen through a microscope or experienced as an aroma or an impending sneeze. The words are cognates, the former being the noun form and the latter the adjective.

Evidence begins as a bare apprehension - something is present or has changed. This is followed by comprehension (what is the evidence evidence of?) - what we know about this apprehension, such as whether it's familiar, what commonly follows such apprehensions, and similar facts learned from prior experience - and affective judgment - how we feel about it ("Mmmm!" "Run!" "This is interesting / important").

The subject of what are the senses is an interesting one. There are more than five.

Some tell us about remote happenings, like sight, sound, and smell.

Some tell us about the body surface, such as taste, touch, and temperature.

Some tell us about the outer body (musculoskeletal system) such as the position and movements of our bodies and limbs.

Some tell us about our deep organs (viscera), like indigestion or angina.

Some tell us about or chemical status, such as thirst or shortness of breath.

The most fundamental sensory organ is the wakeful brain (consciousness itself including dreams), which senses the self (subject) situated within the theater of the mind (object) as well as the passage of time (was, is, will be).

They all generate evidence for the subject of consciousness. They are all experienced just like visual evidence - bare apprehension followed by some degree of comprehension and often emotion (affect) and/or urge to act (volition).
​

But what science can do is offer educated opinions about how nature might have done stuff but it cannot conclude that there was no supervision or intention,,,,,,,,,, that is part of the conclusion that science cannot add ... you agree that science has not shown and does not say that there are no gods.

Agreed. You seem to think that that is important.

if science in the classroom teaches "no designer" then that is not science.

Agreed, but that isn't taught. I don't recall gods ever being mentioned in any science class I ever took, which is a lot of them given my education (a bachelor's degree in biochemistry including a course on evolution and a doctorate in medicine).

Your science teacher doesn't care what you believe about gods. Unlike your Sunday school teacher, he or she won't ask you if you believe in gods or if you accept the theory. And unlike your Sunday school teacher, he will offer evidenced arguments rather than simple assertion and repetition. You'll just be tested on whether you learned it however you feel about it. This is the difference between education and indoctrination.

I believe for faith reasons and think that those who want to push faith aside in their lives are missing an important part of their humanity.

OK. I disagree. Did you want to try and change minds or just express what it is you have chosen to believe?

In my opinion, belief by faith is a logical error, one committed by all children and many adults. I consider my humanity relatively evolved in the sense that I have learned how and why not to think like that. I see the religious phase of man being the period that connected early man searching for answers and for means for controlling his life (rituals, chants) with the part when he got those answers. None of my beliefs involve gods, and nothing I do to control my life involves gods. That's MY humanity - atheistic humanism. I consider reaching that point an important milestone in personal development and self-actualization.

The way I don't believe there were undetectable pixies involved is by faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where did I do that?

OK, Do you accept the sciences of evolution as a result of Natural LAws and processes?

This does not negate tha God Created our physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did not say that they do.

You clearly implied that. Needs clarification.

 

[Audie]

Believing all the conclusions of science sounds like "faith" to me. I think that some of what is called science is not real science. It is not repeatable or falsifiable.

Find us one (1) person who " believes all the
conclusions of science".

I will find nessie and Bigfoot first.

Yours is a completely pointless point.