"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

[AProudLefty]

By definition random events are uncaused. But does not mean they do not occur is a context.

Something has to move to make it random. Like lottery machine or dice.

 

[BidenPresident]

Something has to move to make it random. Like lottery machine or dice.

Random does not mean nothing means. Not sure what you mean.

 

[AProudLefty]

Random does not mean nothing means. Not sure what you mean.

I mean things are always in motion. Unexpected events happen all the time.

The only thing that are supposedly uncaused are virtual particles and radioactivity.

 

[Into the Night]

God wasn't self caused and neither was the universe.......there was a time when our universe wasn't......there was no time God wasn't....

Paradox.

If the Universe did not exist, where was God?
If God is outside the Universe, than the Universe isn't the Universe.

Which is it?

 

[Damocles]

ID as a scientific theory is laughable and correctly slapped down by the courts.

ID as a ontological belief system seems perfectly reasonable to me. Absent any tangible data, the idea that the cosmos results from a higher organizing principle beyond human cognition is just as likely as the idea that an ordered, mathmatically structured, and finely-tuned universe just popped into existence for no conceiveable reason.

Yeah, we have basic agreement.

I'd personally say you would use ID to explain why the science applies to their belief systems, not to say that science is "wrong". Basically, to a Christian who is a scientist (a Christian Scientist is a different thing LOL), you would say that God would use this method to create, and evolution is an explanation rather than a replacement of "how" God did it. If you believe in the Magic Sky Walker kind of god that is. I don't necessarily disbelieve, but I have yet to be convinced such an entity exists.

 

[Into the Night]

then you need something to distinguish which ideas are scientific........previously it has always been hypotheses (or ideas) which can be tested in the scientific manner.......why change?.....

This is what philosophy does. It defines words like 'science' and 'religion' and provides the reasoning for that definition.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Mountains of evidence mean NOTHING in science in the face of a single piece of falsifying evidence.
Religion is the opposite. Religion depends on supporting evidence only. Every religion is based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. This is NOT a fallacy. The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith.

Trying to PROVE a circular argument True or False produces the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The initial circular argument for Christianity is that Christ exists, and that He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God.
ALL other arguments stem from this initial circular argument, or argument of faith.

ALL religion relies on faith.

The initial circular argument of the Church of No God is that there is no god or gods. ALL other arguments stem from that initial circular argument, or argument of faith. Most members from the Church of No God, however, are fundamentalists. They try to prove their religion True, creating the circular argument fallacy.

The Theory of Creation states that life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligent act. That may be a God. Most people use this term. It does not require a God, however. For all we know, we are the result of some horrible lab accident on an alien world and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.

Personally, I believe Christ and God created this Earth and everything on it, including all the plants, animals, and us.

As for the Universe, I believe it has always existed and always will, just like God. There is no beginning. There is no end. This is also known as the Theory of the Continuum. It too is an argument of faith.
The Theory of the Big Bang is another theory that is not a theory of science. It is a religion. To say God caused the Big Bang however, produces a paradox.

 

[BidenPresident]

Yeah, we have basic agreement.

I'd personally say you would use ID to explain why the science applies to their belief systems, not to say that science is "wrong". Basically, to a Christian who is a scientist (a Christian Scientist is a different thing LOL), you would say that God would use this method to create, and evolution is an explanation rather than a replacement of "how" God did it. If you believe in the Magic Sky Walker kind of god that is. I don't necessarily disbelieve, but I have yet to be convinced such an entity exists.

The idea of self organizing systems is at least as old as Aristotle and something scientists working in connectionism make use of.

"A defining feature of complex systems is their ability to encode, store, process, and employ functional information. This feature encompasses the elementary gradient sensing capabilities of single cells, through to the large-scale perceptual and decision-making abilities of large populations of neurons. Complex intelligent systems are fundamentally collective, distributed, error-prone, and hybrid. "
https://www.santafe.edu/research/themes/complex-intelligence-natural-artificial-and-collec

 

[Damocles]

This is what philosophy does. It defines words like 'science' and 'religion' and provides the reasoning for that definition.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Mountains of evidence mean NOTHING in science in the face of a single piece of falsifying evidence.
Religion is the opposite. Religion depends on supporting evidence only. Every religion is based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. This is NOT a fallacy. The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith.

Trying to PROVE a circular argument True or False produces the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The initial circular argument for Christianity is that Christ exists, and that He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God.
ALL other arguments stem from this initial circular argument, or argument of faith.

ALL religion relies on faith.

The initial circular argument of the Church of No God is that there is no god or gods. ALL other arguments stem from that initial circular argument, or argument of faith. Most members from the Church of No God, however, are fundamentalists. They try to prove their religion True, creating the circular argument fallacy.

The Theory of Creation states that life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligent act. That may be a God. Most people use this term. It does not require a God, however. For all we know, we are the result of some horrible lab accident on an alien world and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.

Personally, I believe Christ and God created this Earth and everything on it, including all the plants, animals, and us.

As for the Universe, I believe it has always existed and always will, just like God. There is no beginning. There is no end. This is also known as the Theory of the Continuum. It too is an argument of faith.
The Theory of the Big Bang is another theory that is not a theory of science. It is a religion. To say God caused the Big Bang however, produces a paradox.

There is an incredible amount of evidence that the Big Bang happened, this is why it has reached the level of Theory (proven) in science. I fail to see why you would limit your own God to being incapable of planning the universe, setting it into motion, and generating the Big Bang to start it all by saying the words... "Let there be light"...

Basically, pretending that evidence isn't there doesn't make it go away, man. It's real. It is simpler to accept it as an explanation of how God did things than it is to pretend that the evidence isn't there.

 

[Cypress]

Yeah, we have basic agreement.

I'd personally say you would use ID to explain why the science applies to their belief systems, not to say that science is "wrong". Basically, to a Christian who is a scientist (a Christian Scientist is a different thing LOL), you would say that God would use this method to create, and evolution is an explanation rather than a replacement of "how" God did it. If you believe in the Magic Sky Walker kind of god that is. I don't necessarily disbelieve, but I have yet to be convinced such an entity exists.

That sounds right.

ID obviously doesn't remotely pass muster as a scientific theory or hypothesis.

But there's nothing wrong in principle with believing that physics and mathematical organization is a manifestation of a higher reality that our simian brains cannot access.

The Enlightenment deists basically thought the laws of nature were written by God.

I kind of like how the Confucians and Daoist leave it deliberately vague. Li is the rational organizing principle of nature and the Dao is the natural way of the universe but the Dao can't be put into words because it is beyond human language.

 

[Into the Night]

its either random or caused......there are no other options......

Of the theories being discussed here, yes.

 

[Into the Night]

Here's is where you are utterly confused

Abiogenesis doesn't simply refer to a fully developed prokaryotic cell.

It refers to the process by which life emerges from nonlife.

That process can be tested, as evidenced by the creation of amino acids, peptides, and RNA precursors from prebiotic material under laboratory conditions.

Which would only support the Theory of Creation. If, somehow, someone was able to create a living cell from 'prebiotic' material as you put it, then that someone CREATED that cell. It would actually tend to show the theory of Abiogenesis to be wrong (though it wouldn't falsify it).

 

[Into the Night]

I concur.....the issue is the process, not the existence of organic chemicals.......science has fully established the existence of amino acids, peptides, even RNA.......there have been NO tests of the process of life emerging from those organic chemicals.........

I can recall several tests that involved removing organic chemicals from a living organism, altering it and reinserting it in the living organism, thus creating a new living organism.........some even claimed science had thus created "life"......not true of course, but isn't that actually scientific experimentation in intelligent design?.....

Science is not a substance.
Science is not a creation of anything.
Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

I should get paid for teaching you science. I had to pay tuition $$ and work hard to acquire the knowledge myself.

You deny and discard science. You can teach nothing.

I accept your tacit confession that the process of abiogenesis is being tested.

It is not. It is not possible to test that theory. You cannot go back in time to see what actually happened.

You're jumping ahead to where abiogenesis achieves the status of theory - where cellular life is confirmed by a process originating from prebiotic material.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is already a theory. It is a nonscientific theory. It is no different from the Theory of Creation in that regard. The two theories are mutually exclusive of each other.

That is just a result of your scientific ignorance. A hypothesis is different from a confirmed theory in scientific inquiry.

There is no such thing as a 'confirmed theory'. A hypothesis stems form a theory, not the other way around. Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

A process as complex as abiogenesis is never going to be understood with one single grand test that settles the question for all time.

True, as it is not possible to test the theory at all. You cannot go back in time to see what actually happened.

The Higgs boson was only a hypothesis in the early 1960s.

Nope. It was a theory.

It took 50 years of many baby steps and intermediate steps to confirm the Higgs field.

It has not been confirmed. Circular argument fallacy. It is not possible to measure every particle in the Universe.
The Higgs boson was discovered, yes. The Higgs field has not been confirmed.

 

[Into the Night]

obviously a third grader shouldn't pretend he is teaching anyone anything.....thanks for your tacit admission you are a third grader....



no.....science does not begin testing when an hypothosis becomes a theory......an hypothesis becomes an hypothesis if it can be tested.....it becomes a theory after it shows some sign of success.......show me a potential experiment of the process.....

Miller-Urey was the only attempt I am aware of........has anyone ever attempted to repeat it with the correct mix of organic chemicals?......

No. A theory is an explanatory argument. A hypothesis is like a 'use case' of that argument. A hypothesis stems from an existing theory.

 

[AProudLefty]

No. A theory is an explanatory argument. A hypothesis is like a 'use case' of that argument. A hypothesis stems from an existing theory.

This is a parody account.

 

[Into the Night]

Obviously, you're one of those rare individuals who are unaware that when you look at the stars, you are looking into the past. The night sky is the perfect laboratory for observing past events and developing theories about them.

I am aware of it. Theories can come from anywhere, such as looking at the stars or even from watching an episode of Sponge Bob. Yes, that includes theories of science.

 

[Into the Night]

Feel free to put up a public poll querying members who is more educated, knowledgeable, and honest, you or me??

Two generations of biochemists would be amused, and possibly laugh in your face, if you hollered at them they had not been conducting experiments on the hypothesized process of abiogenesis.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is not a hypothesis. It is a nonscientific theory.

 

[AProudLefty]

I am aware of it. Theories can come from anywhere, such as looking at the stars or even from watching an episode of Sponge Bob. Yes, that includes theories of science.

So you admit you were wrong about the past being unobserved?

 

[Into the Night]

I had a paleontology professor who told the class he was going to teach us the evolution of life on Earth, but if somebody wanted to believe there was a divine hand in it, he said that was fine. He wasn't there to teach or judge religious belief.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution (that 'higher' life evolved from 'lower' life, and in the end produced Man), IS a religion. This is a nonscientific theory. Again, it is not possible to go back and see what actually happened.

 

[AProudLefty]

The Theory of Abiogenesis is not a hypothesis. It is a nonscientific theory.

There is no Theory of Abiogenesis, dumbass.