Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Science and Stuff > Creation & Alternative Science

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 29 Mar 2012, 09:27 AM   #349425 / #26
Ozymandias
________________
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,881
Default

On that last point, I would certainly regard Dirac as a "scientist" and he never did an experiment as a professional physicist. (Interestingly his degree was in Engineering.)

I think the key point here is, did his belief in ID reduce his ability to work? I suspect it didn't since he was working on the Cassini mission exploring Saturn, which requires no statement about how the universe was created. On the other hand, if he was a "team lead" that was unable to work harmoniously with those around him, I think they have a case for dismissal. But then the dismissal was due to his incompatible personality, not his particular beliefs.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 29 Mar 2012, 01:50 PM   #349471 / #27
BioBeing
Zymurgist
 
BioBeing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
1. There's nothing illogical about ID. It might not fit in with preferred theory (conventional wisdom) and it might ignore the manner in which the preferred theory fits with observed facts: that doesn't make it illogical. As a non-biologist I'm not even sure that makes it wrong! (that's chopping logic but then that's the issue isn't it?).
I'd agree that it is "logical" in the sense that one could set up a series of premises and a conclusion, and it would probably follow a strict formal logic. It is illogical to believe in it (in a less formal sense) as there is no evidence whatsoever to support it!

ID starts with the assumption that there is a designer, and then goes out to look for that evidence. So, for a start, that is throwing the scientific method on its head.

It is unscientific as it encourages people, when they hit something they don't understand, to throw up their hands and say "Here. GodAn Intelligent Designer must have done this!" i.e. at its core it prevents further investigation. ID is ANTI-scientific.

Take the case of the bacterial flagella - it used to be the poster child of the ID movement. It looked so complicated, so many pieces working together to make this perfect little motor in a cell, that people started saying that it couldn't possibly have evolved. Every part was just so, and without any of the others, none of it would function.

Then, real scientists came in and found homologues. Proteins that were a bit different, but related, that did function in the cell in a totally different way. They partnered with homologues of the other proteins in the flagella. Scientists - doing science - figured out that yes, each part was present, doing something else, and it wasn't a huge stretch for them to just rearrange a few bits and get a flagella instead of a secretion system.

To an engineer, it has been said, everything looks engineered. A motor, working in a cell, must have been put there to work as a motor. ID has a certain charm in that regard. It is just that it doesn't work that way. Evolution is a very creative process, and can make new functions from old enzymes. Life, as they also say, will find a way!

Quote:
2. I spent a career doing experimental work. There was nothing therein which touched on ID or qualified me to have an opinion on the subject (as it happens, I don't believe in it for one moment but that is hardly the point: the critical words there are "don't believe").
I do experimental work too, in biochemistry. I use aspects of the theory of evolution in everything I do. If I threw up my hands when I hit something hard and said "God did it", I certainly would lose my next grant to the guy who figured out how it really works.

Quote:
3. Please - what is "normally considered science"? There are many who do not do actual experimentation but without whom the experimenters would not know what to do and their results would be merely isolated facts - theoretical and/or mathematical physicists being an obvious example. How many of those whose work led to, for example, the theory of evolution by natural selection were experimentalists (as opposed to observers and collators of observations)? You appear to be defining "science" and "scientists" to fit in with your views on ID (and the subtext there is "how DARE you").
Obviously, the boundaries of science are fuzzy. Observing and cataloging is an integral part of the process. In lpetrich's other thread, I just described Venter's mission to sequence all the microbes in the sea. That is a cataloging process. But, I'd say, still science. Darwin himself was largely a collector. And a scientist.

For the reasons laid out above though, ID isn't science. It is anti-science. But is an engineer a scientist? A computer programmer? They probably use some of the principles of the scientific method in their approach, but are not (usually) what I would call scientists. Of course, bioinformatics is a huge subject now though - sifting through all that genomic data - and some of them probably do classify as scientists, although they just sit at a computer all day long... As I said, it is fuzzy.
__________________
"Theologians, Christian apologists, and New Age gurus have, for decades now, claimed scientific support for their beliefs. These claims are provably wrong, and scientists who work in the applicable fields know they are wrong. However, their unwillingness to engage in the very real war that exists between science and religion is handing victory to religion by default.” Victor Stenger
BioBeing is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 31 Mar 2012, 01:13 PM   #350128 / #28
phands
Long term atheist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manhattan New York
Posts: 10,967
Default An innovative legal strategy!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...+Pharyngula%29

I don't see this even getting to trial now...

Quote:
David Coppedge, the creationist who was fired from JPL and is currently trying to sue them, has submitted his legal brief as plaintiff in the case. It is…bizarre. It includes a screenplay in which Coppedge imagines a dialog between a couple of JPL staff — a dialog in which he was not present, which basically makes it a work of fiction.


Are court cases often resolved on the basis of creative writing?


This kind of crankery really seems to be part of a trend: there was Kent Hovind’s “subornation of false muster” defense, Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell lying on the witness stand in the Dover trial, the prolonged whining by Freshwater, accused of burning a cross into a student’s arm. Creationism seems to draw in the wackiest court cretins; I guess it’s not surprising, given that you have to be a bit off to fall for creationism in the first place.
__________________
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
phands is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 31 Mar 2012, 10:32 PM   #350326 / #29
Rodney Dobson
Perpetually Puzzled
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Carbence
Posts: 2,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BioBeing View Post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since the very long post is only a couple of steps above I'll save space: anyway, I only wanted to make a couple of (explanatory) comments rather than answering specific items. And - ask a question.

I'm retired now and free of funding problems thank god. But while working I moved significantly from one field to another with time: I suppose if I were forced to define things I would say solid state physics - and please believe that neither evolution nor ID really had much relevance thereto.
Whilst I would have defined myself as an experimentalist the overwhelming part of my time was spent designing ways of making measurements: which involved significant amounts of engineering and computer modelling. I don't know about biochemistry but my elder son was doing biophysics and his work could be described fairly similarly. (This compares sharply to one patch where the means of measurement were available and we were investigating how different material substances varied).
What irritated me was the implication that such activity was not "science" and that people who collected and analysed facts and/or who spent much of their time analysing things mathematically were not doing "science" either. I was, if you like, being a bit childish!

THE QUESTION(S):

I know little of ID lacking the patience. But do they disbelieve in evolution in any form or just in "natural selection"? Meaning that it is difficult to deny the gradual change in nature with time but god drove the changes directly.

Is the argument wrt bacterial flagella not the "argument from complexity" (something as complex as this could not be the result of random chance)? [blind watchmakers and all that]

I can well believe that there are those who, finding something they don't understand, say "god did it". But are these people working at a lab bench or are they standing back and arguing that one should not waste money on trying to find out unknowns?

I just have a sneaking suspicion that many earlier scientists investigated things simply to find out what they were and how they worked. Some may well have done so believing they are trying to understand god but I suspect that most had no agenda of any variety. And so I wonder why a believer should not make a competent scientist or why a believer should be unhappy at, say, modifying existing life forms or creating new ones.

But one who throws his hands up and says "god did it" when faced with a problem is just mentally lazy: he is certainly is not a scientist - he wouldn't even make a good theologian!
Rodney Dobson is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 04:05 AM   #360333 / #30
WufKar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 10
Default

Rodney,

You bring up a great point. It would appear that the good people of this forum have swept all creationists with the same brush. Natural Selection and steady evolution are undeniable in nature. This is the very thing that causes physiological differences among species and what Farmers utilize to make a living.

However it is entirely possible to be of the mindset based upon Newton's First Law requiring an "outside force" to set evolution in motion that there must be something greater in a Newtonian sense.
WufKar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 09:54 AM   #360368 / #31
phands
Long term atheist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manhattan New York
Posts: 10,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WufKar View Post
Rodney,

You bring up a great point. It would appear that the good people of this forum have swept all creationists with the same brush. Natural Selection and steady evolution are undeniable in nature. This is the very thing that causes physiological differences among species and what Farmers utilize to make a living.
You missed Rodney's point completely. He is saying that creationists are lazy, and non-scientists. Worse still, I'll add that a fair number of them are outright liars, and many are just idiots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WufKar View Post
However it is entirely possible to be of the mindset based upon Newton's First Law requiring an "outside force" to set evolution in motion that there must be something greater in a Newtonian sense.
It is entirely possible to be of that mindset, that mindset is just nonsensical. Trying to conflate evolution with a force in laws of simple mechanics is just specious.

Creationists are wrong. They have been proven wrong at every turn. What they say is not science, it is religion, and it doesn't work.
phands is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 10:50 AM   #360378 / #32
kennyc
I'm skeptical!
 
kennyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 8,274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WufKar View Post
Rodney,

You bring up a great point. It would appear that the good people of this forum have swept all creationists with the same brush. Natural Selection and steady evolution are undeniable in nature. This is the very thing that causes physiological differences among species and what Farmers utilize to make a living.

However it is entirely possible to be of the mindset based upon Newton's First Law requiring an "outside force" to set evolution in motion that there must be something greater in a Newtonian sense.
Not in the least. You are attempting to conflate origins and evolution. Both are explainable by science. We get closer to the origin of life every day and it appears more and more to be the result of natural physical forces and laws. No Magic Needed.
__________________
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Poetry&Writing
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
kennyc is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 11:10 AM   #360383 / #33
Rodney Dobson
Perpetually Puzzled
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Carbence
Posts: 2,977
Default

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Everybody's too fast for me: that was supposed to refer to Phand's post #360368 / #31]

I don't know about "liars" but I won't argue with "idiots".

But my primary point was that they are not scientists BECAUSE they are lazy. If one finds an answer to a puzzle that fits the available data and solves the immediate practical problem then one doesn't stop looking. The CERN people have just identified a particle which fits in beautifully with the existing model: but they won't stop looking for more - and they're probably more likely to collect a Nobel prize if they find something that doesn't fit the existing model(s) and thus could result in a complete paradigm shift.
The problem with "god did it" is precisely that one saying that doesn't look further: the scientist's desire continually to disprove existing theory is completely foreign to him..

Note I've no built-in objection to creationists: just so long as they don't deny the observable data. The universe is a vast and complicated place and positing a demiurge that started things off is not inherently illogical - in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The religious belief in an immanent god is another matter entirely. If a creationist argues that his god sticks a finger in directly to manipulate DNA so as to control evolution then, for me, he falls foul of Ockham's Razor. End of story!
Rodney Dobson is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 02:14 PM   #360423 / #34
phands
Long term atheist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manhattan New York
Posts: 10,967
Default

Nicely put, Rodney.

However, I still stand by the "liars" epithet...many of these people have been exposed as wrong, and still persist in the same rubbish....that is lying.
phands is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 02:17 PM   #360427 / #35
BioBeing
Zymurgist
 
BioBeing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
What irritated me was the implication that such activity was not "science" and that people who collected and analysed facts and/or who spent much of their time analysing things mathematically were not doing "science" either. I was, if you like, being a bit childish!
Sounds fairly scientific to me!

Quote:
THE QUESTION(S):

I know little of ID lacking the patience. But do they disbelieve in evolution in any form or just in "natural selection"? Meaning that it is difficult to deny the gradual change in nature with time but god drove the changes directly.
Well, I don't know that "they" are a homogeneous lot! Some will believe in evolution in general, but think that God or their Designer just tweaks things here or there. These would be the more "sophisticated" of the bunch. Others, who are probably more numerous (if I had to guess), think that God oversees the whole process. Except bits like cancer.


Quote:
Is the argument wrt bacterial flagella not the "argument from complexity" (something as complex as this could not be the result of random chance)? [blind watchmakers and all that]
Yes. IC is part of ID.

Quote:
I can well believe that there are those who, finding something they don't understand, say "god did it". But are these people working at a lab bench or are they standing back and arguing that one should not waste money on trying to find out unknowns?
Most IDers don't do research! The Disco Tute promised us some, but it never materialized. About the only bench scientist studying biochemical pathways from an ID perspective that I know would be Behe.

Quote:
I just have a sneaking suspicion that many earlier scientists investigated things simply to find out what they were and how they worked. Some may well have done so believing they are trying to understand god but I suspect that most had no agenda of any variety. And so I wonder why a believer should not make a competent scientist or why a believer should be unhappy at, say, modifying existing life forms or creating new ones.
Indeed, science as a modern endeavor grew out of "Natural Philosophy", where people were indeed trying to catalog and understand God's Handiwork. It's just that as we learnt more, the requirement for a God got smaller and smaller. We could explain things (like weather, or the diversity of life) without having to invoke the supernatural.

Quote:
But one who throws his hands up and says "god did it" when faced with a problem is just mentally lazy: he is certainly is not a scientist - he wouldn't even make a good theologian!
Many people say that about ID - lazy science and lazy theology!

Now - I have no problem with a religious person doing science. As long as you compartmentalize, you can still do good bench work. You can even think of yourself as a natural philosopher as far as I care, studying God's Handiwork. The issue comes when you use your religion to drive your research. If you start looking for God in DNA (cough cough Frances Collins) you've gone out of the realm of science and into woo-ville.
BioBeing is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 03:51 PM   #360455 / #36
Ozymandias
________________
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,881
Default

I don't think it is necessarily lazy to say that god did it. Stupid, yes, but not lazy.

I know a few scientists who are Christians, and even a few who believe in creationism. I admit, I really don't get why they do, but I am sure it isn't laziness. They understand the big bang model and don't deny its predictions - they don't cosmological data like WMAP either and can understand and even come up with perfectly good cosmological models to explain it. However, they would say that they are investigating patterns of creation. God's creation is all internally consistent, so you can apply physical laws (and presumably biological laws) to make predictions and explain observations. The fact that these patterns exist does not, in their mind, contradict creationsim - in fact, it only shows how all-encompassing god is.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 09:12 PM   #360550 / #37
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
As I said, any 'scientist' that believes (note the key word believes) in intelligent design is no scientist. (go ahead and substitute in "Gods" in place of ID if you like).
That's just dumb. are u joking?
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 05:54 AM   #360682 / #38
Wizofoz
Just this Guy, you know?
Mod: Introductions, Lounge, LU&E, Misc. Disc.
 
Wizofoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
As I said, any 'scientist' that believes (note the key word believes) in intelligent design is no scientist. (go ahead and substitute in "Gods" in place of ID if you like).
That's just dumb. are u joking?
It would only be a dumb statement if you mean that people can have two sets of standards which they use to asses truth.

I guess a physicist might be able to be an IDer if he didn't use the critical thinking facility he uses to study physics in examining his belief in ID.

The problem comes when the results of these two different methods come into conflict.
__________________
When it comes to truth, there is no "Opposing opinion"
Wizofoz is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 11:11 AM   #360717 / #39
Rodney Dobson
Perpetually Puzzled
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Carbence
Posts: 2,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
.....It would only be a dumb statement if you mean that people can have two sets of standards which they use to assess truth.
What is truth? More cogently - do you indeed use the same standards when dealing with people on a personal level as you would if you were, professionally, adhering to the classical version of the scientific method. Maybe "standards" is the wrong word? Is there not a certain fuzziness about the logic most people use when dealing with primarily human interactions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
The problem comes when the results of these two different methods come into conflict.
Well THAT is truth!

Obviously a scientist who approaches the lab bench having decided in advance what results he requires is, sooner or later, going to be in trouble. A man who tries to deal with his wife as he would any sort of scientific experiment is going to be in trouble a lot faster.

As a biological ignoramus I have always assumed that ID was the last resort of those who reject Darwinian natural selection because they believe in biblical literalism. But is it really any different from a cosmologist who rejects the Big Bang because he cannot conceive of a beginning without a creator?
And, believing in the Big Bang - capitalised to imply one and only one, as opposed to one of a sequence as in one current variety of continuous creation - still leaves the question of how and why hanging in mid-air. To turn round and say that to ask what came before the Big Bang is to ask a meaningless question is a cop-out, plain and simple. (It's turtles all the way down!)
And that is before you even stop to ask questions about the "quantum" end of the spectrum (that's a bad label but I assume you know what I mean).

All of which might go to explain why I class myself as an agnostic. Science works because it adheres to a strict set of standards: but this inevitably means that many ideas are and will remain hypotheses - not even that if you insist that, to be valid, a hypothesis must be testable. I cannot provide - in scientific terms - a valid explanation of why I like or dislike some people, music, books and it would be silly to try. To be truly heretical in this company I'm even prepared to contemplate the reality of a "supernatural" - though my definition thereof might be not a little non-standard.

So YES! - People can have two sets of standards which they use to assess truth. Maybe this will not always be the case - maybe the physical sciences and their sub-sets like biology are the only truth. But like survival after death that is something about which I'm prepared to wait and see: not much choice when you think about it.
Rodney Dobson is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 12:47 PM   #360750 / #40
Wizofoz
Just this Guy, you know?
Mod: Introductions, Lounge, LU&E, Misc. Disc.
 
Wizofoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post

What is truth?

Truth is that which is. If the existence of something is claimed, be it God, Love or Ice Cream, and that thing is given a meaningful definition, it is either existent or it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
More cogently - do you indeed use the same standards when dealing with people on a personal level as you would if you were, professionally, adhering to the classical version of the scientific method. Maybe "standards" is the wrong word? Is there not a certain fuzziness about the logic most people use when dealing with primarily human interactions?
I'm not sure how this is relevent. ID has nothing to do with personal interactions, it is an idea which makes testable claims and fails that test. for a scientist to believe it, he is not using scientific rigour in an area where it would clearly be appropriate to do so.

However, I DO believe that a rational, critical approach can and probably should be used when dealing with Human interaction, so I find youur premise not only irrelevent but wrong.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
As a biological ignoramus I have always assumed that ID was the last resort of those who reject Darwinian natural selection because they believe in biblical literalism. But is it really any different from a cosmologist who rejects the Big Bang because he cannot conceive of a beginning without a creator?
I'm not sure which logical falacy to label that with- there would be no reason for a cosmologist to reject the big bang for that reason as there is no requirement for their to be a creator for the big bamg to have occured, and I have never heard of a cosmologist doing so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
And, believing in the Big Bang - capitalised to imply one and only one, as opposed to one of a sequence as in one current variety of continuous creation - still leaves the question of how and why hanging in mid-air. To turn round and say that to ask what came before the Big Bang is to ask a meaningless question is a cop-out, plain and simple. (It's turtles all the way down!)
No, it's not a cop out, it's just an unavoiable consequence of the theory. Where is the center of the surface of a shpere? What happens beyond the event horizon of a Black Hole? What is infinity plus one?

How do you concieve answering thr question of what existed before there was space to exist in or time to make the idea of "Before" meaningful?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
And that is before you even stop to ask questions about the "quantum" end of the spectrum (that's a bad label but I assume you know what I mean).
You answer questions about the "Quantum end" by examing the evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
All of which might go to explain why I class myself as an agnostic. Science works because it adheres to a strict set of standards: but this inevitably means that many ideas are and will remain hypotheses - not even that if you insist that, to be valid, a hypothesis must be testable. I cannot provide - in scientific terms - a valid explanation of why I like or dislike some people, music, books and it would be silly to try. To be truly heretical in this company I'm even prepared to contemplate the reality of a "supernatural" - though my definition thereof might be not a little non-standard.
Contemplate away. Do you expect you "Contemplations" to resemble anything which acdtually exists without evidence that it does so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
So YES! - People can have two sets of standards which they use to assess truth.
Not that will provide decent results, ESPECIALLY when it comes to something like ID.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
Maybe this will not always be the case - maybe the physical sciences and their sub-sets like biology are the only truth. But like survival after death that is something about which I'm prepared to wait and see: not much choice when you think about it.
Now THAT'S a cop out! If you make the slightest change to your life based on the possibility that something might be true for which there is no good reason to believe so, you are waisting part of the onlt existence you are ever going to get.
Wizofoz is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 01:51 PM   #360778 / #41
Rodney Dobson
Perpetually Puzzled
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Carbence
Posts: 2,977
Default

FOR YOUR INFORMATION
(I'll probably come back on the rest soon/later: but a proper answer needs more time that I've got just now)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
As a biological ignoramus I have always assumed that ID was the last resort of those who reject Darwinian natural selection because they believe in biblical literalism. But is it really any different from a cosmologist who rejects the Big Bang because he cannot conceive of a beginning without a creator?
I'm not sure which logical falacy to label that with- there would be no reason for a cosmologist to reject the big bang for that reason as there is no requirement for their to be a creator for the big bamg to have occured, and I have never heard of a cosmologist doing so.
The person I had in mind was Fred Hoyle.

The usual comment on this is that he was an astronomer not a cosmologist: but then sixty or seventy years ago most people working in the field were physicists, astronomers, mathematicians....
(It's interesting to go back and look at who was working with, trained under and so on, whom. I seem to remember that the "father of cosmology" (Hoyle's PhD supervisor) was an engineer or a physicist. But that needs checking)
Rodney Dobson is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 02:45 PM   #360799 / #42
Wizofoz
Just this Guy, you know?
Mod: Introductions, Lounge, LU&E, Misc. Disc.
 
Wizofoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,662
Default

For YOUR information you misrepresent his objection- he did not consider a creator necessary for the Big Bang.

He said it RESEMBLED a Kalam cosmological argument, but that is quite a different thing.

Besides, he was also wrong!!

So if you're saying his reasons for rejecting the Big Bang are similar to a Physicist believing in ID, it demonstrates that both invoke a means of thinking that leads to incorrect conclusions.
Wizofoz is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 03:31 PM   #360813 / #43
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
As I said, any 'scientist' that believes (note the key word believes) in intelligent design is no scientist. (go ahead and substitute in "Gods" in place of ID if you like).
That's just dumb. are u joking?
It would only be a dumb statement if you mean that people can have two sets of standards which they use to asses truth.

I guess a physicist might be able to be an IDer if he didn't use the critical thinking facility he uses to study physics in examining his belief in ID.

The problem comes when the results of these two different methods come into conflict.
Do you realize that you are making the all-in wager that the only truth is physical truth? That runs into some pretty tough problems once you start thinking about the process of making words.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 04:09 PM   #360823 / #44
BioBeing
Zymurgist
 
BioBeing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Do you realize that you are making the all-in wager that the only truth is physical truth? That runs into some pretty tough problems once you start thinking about the process of making words.
Well, the only scientific "truth" is a physical truth. So, if you do science by ignoring physical truths, then you are doing it wrong.

But what other truths are there? How do we know that they are truths? What mechanisms do we have for testing to see whether they are really true or not?
BioBeing is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 04:43 PM   #360834 / #45
kennyc
I'm skeptical!
 
kennyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 8,274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BioBeing View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Do you realize that you are making the all-in wager that the only truth is physical truth? That runs into some pretty tough problems once you start thinking about the process of making words.
Well, the only scientific "truth" is a physical truth. So, if you do science by ignoring physical truths, then you are doing it wrong.

But what other truths are there? How do we know that they are truths? What mechanisms do we have for testing to see whether they are really true or not?

Precisely.
kennyc is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 05:26 PM   #360844 / #46
Wizofoz
Just this Guy, you know?
Mod: Introductions, Lounge, LU&E, Misc. Disc.
 
Wizofoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Do you realize that you are making the all-in wager that the only truth is physical truth? That runs into some pretty tough problems once you start thinking about the process of making words.
Words are the products of Brains which are physical entities.

No, I don't see any problem there at all.
Wizofoz is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 09:03 PM   #360929 / #47
Rodney Dobson
Perpetually Puzzled
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Carbence
Posts: 2,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
For YOUR information you misrepresent his objection- he did not consider a creator necessary for the Big Bang.

He said it RESEMBLED a Kalam cosmological argument, but that is quite a different thing.
If I have significantly misrepresented his objection then I apologise. I was under the impression that (pre-Craig) the Kalam argument was that if there was an effect then there was a cause: and that Hoyle, a lifelong atheist, thought that resembled the Aquinas argument from a prime effect (the world in those days) to a primal cause (god).

In fairness to Hoyle (whatever his reasoning) at the time he originally joined the "continuous creation" camp it was a viable hypothesis that, arguably, fitted the evidence better than the then current version of the "Big Bang". The CBR evidence did not emerge until c.15 years later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
Besides, he was also wrong!!
Well yes: but he was wrong because when the CBR evidence started to emerge he stuck to his original beliefs. And, I was led to believe, for reasons which had little to do with either physics in general or the evidence in particular. But, obviously, on the last point my evidence is hearsay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
So if you're saying his reasons for rejecting the Big Bang are similar to a Physicist believing in ID, it demonstrates that both invoke a means of thinking that leads to incorrect conclusions.
Not quite. I thought I said (certainly intended to say) that a Biologist believing in ID was like a Cosmologist rejecting the Big Bang: the more especially if their position involved ignoring evidence for non-evidential reasons. Tho' I didn't say as much - neither would be behaving as a scientist.

I would have thought that sufficiently close to your "it demonstrates that both invoke a means of thinking that leads to incorrect conclusions" to avoid further argument (if only on that point)
Rodney Dobson is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 09:12 PM   #360935 / #48
Rodney Dobson
Perpetually Puzzled
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Carbence
Posts: 2,977
Default

I originally intended to post a detailed argument about the post(s) referenced below: but I realised that one can "cut the cackle" and focus on the fundamental issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
So YES! - People can have two sets of standards which they use to assess truth.
Not that will provide decent results, ESPECIALLY when it comes to something like ID.
"Especially when it comes to ID"? I can only hope you did not suppose I thought otherwise. Of COURSE not. But I wasn't talking about those things which are the proper study of science.

What we have is a completely different outlook on life. It would appear that you believe that the only truth is that reached by the strict application of the scientific method: and, as an extension, that a question that cannot be answered thus is meaningless and ipso facto its implications untrue. I believe that extension to be invalid: that such things should be viewed sceptically, approached with extreme caution - all the atitude that you would approach a scientifically valid hypothesis - but that you cannot reasonably rule them out.

You, I imagine, see my views as unscientific - woo even. I see yours as blinkered. There are lots of other interesting things to talk about! Can we just agree to differ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Dobson View Post
Maybe this will not always be the case - maybe the physical sciences and their sub-sets like biology are the only truth. But like survival after death that is something about which I'm prepared to wait and see: not much choice when you think about it.
Now THAT'S a cop out! If you make the slightest change to your life based on the possibility that something might be true for which there is no good reason to believe so, you are waisting part of the onlt existence you are ever going to get.
Yes at one level it is a cop-out. I certainly have no intention of wasting my time worying about things that cannot be proven one way or another. My only reservation is that there are many things we can measure now that we could not measure only a few years ago - and the follow-up to that is obvious. What I do not accept is any limitation on the development of measurement methods because of prior positions in religion, politics,.......
Rodney Dobson is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 May 2012, 09:26 PM   #360943 / #49
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Do you realize that you are making the all-in wager that the only truth is physical truth? That runs into some pretty tough problems once you start thinking about the process of making words.
Words are the products of Brains which are physical entities.

No, I don't see any problem there at all.
Brain is a word. So is physical; so is entities.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 May 2012, 02:28 AM   #361104 / #50
Wizofoz
Just this Guy, you know?
Mod: Introductions, Lounge, LU&E, Misc. Disc.
 
Wizofoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Do you realize that you are making the all-in wager that the only truth is physical truth? That runs into some pretty tough problems once you start thinking about the process of making words.
Words are the products of Brains which are physical entities.

No, I don't see any problem there at all.
Brain is a word. So is physical; so is entities.
True.

Let me know when you want to articulate those facts into a point.
Wizofoz is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Science and Stuff > Creation & Alternative Science

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intelligent Design movie available on youtube. Worldtraveller Creation & Alternative Science 2 10 Nov 2011 09:48 PM
Welcome Scientist Silly Sausage Introductions 1 28 Sep 2010 03:27 PM
Intelligent Design comes to Glasgow Aca Life, the Universe, & Everything 1 27 Sep 2010 05:33 PM
'The Mad Scientist' Rie Life, the Universe, & Everything 10 13 Apr 2010 11:37 PM
How could intelligent design be detected? DMB Life, the Universe, & Everything 24 10 May 2009 04:18 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus