| Subject: IS WADE AN ADHERENT OF ID THEORY?!?!?! ANSWER PLEASE, WADE!!!! |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/16/04 7:38am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Assumptions?" on 09/14/04 12:23am
Wade:
>None of those questions fall into the realm of
>testable science (so far). We can test for design
>without being able to answer those questions.
Yes you can. But those "questions" ought to be answered if you expect ID to be considered a competing theory.
>For instance, suppose we found an obelisk on a moon of
>Jupiter. Does the fact that we cannot answer those
>questions mean we should pretend it wasn't designed?
No, Wade. If we found an obelisk on a moon of Jupiter that, to the best of our abilities, seemed to be created by an intelligent entity, we wouldn't pretend that it wasn't designed.
But (and here's the difference between science and ID) WE'D SURE AS HELL TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHO MADE IT.
>>See? You have to defend your assumptions.
>
>What assumptions?
OK. In the context of your "Jupiter Obelisk" hypothetical situation, let's look at something you said. I asked questions about the Intelligent Designer like, who or what was it, where did they/it go, how did they/it do it, etc. to which you said:
"None of those questions fall into the realm of testable science (so far). We can test for design without being able to answer those questions."
This statement only makes any sense if we, right up front, assume that the designer is supernatural, because if it were a designer who existed in our natural universe, we'd be able to look for it! What if the Jupiter Obelisk was made by aliens who're hiding behind Saturn? We'd certainly try to figure out who made it, what it's made out of, etc., as part of our quest to figure out who made it!
It seems that you've already decided that we can't figure out who or what the Intelligent Designer is, and then said, "Hrm. Since we don't know now, we'd better not look."
HOW IS THIS SCIENCE?
>Those questions aren't about the assumptions of ID
>theory.
YES THEY ARE. How can you claim the the theory of "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" assumes nothing about an intelligent designer? Oh. Wait... You said the following:
>Yes there is a designer,
O.K., then, according to you, the existence of this Intelligent Designer IS an assumption of ID theory.
>but none of the
>assumptions ID contains necessarily has answers to
>those questions.
Well, isn't that the point? ID theory doesn't NEED to have answers about the designer. Otherwise, they wouldn't be assumptions - they'd be FACTS.
>And that is not intrinsically problematic.
You're right, it's not. What *is* problematic is that you seem to be saying that it's OK that ID theory makes this extremely significant claim, that certain aspects of certain biochemical systems were designed by an Intelligent Designer, yet it seems that NO ONE who supports ID theory is trying to validate those claims, and even worse, you seem to think that the HUGE HOLE in ID theory (its very namesake, the "Intelligent Designer") shouldn't make a difference when we, as rational people, consider ID as a valid scientific theory!
OK. I'm going to omit our little "quark" side-discussion here, except to respond to one incorrect claim you made.
=======================================================
IGNORE THIS NEXT PART IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT QUARKS
=======================================================
>>(A little background - the problem with subatomic
>>particles is that they are physically smaller than the
>>wavelength of light, which means that photons actually
>>"miss" them, which is why we can't see them using a
>>light microscope. So we'd need to use particles with
>>a shorter wavelength than that of photons, and a
>>detector that can detect them in order to see things
>>smaller than the wavelength of a photon.
>
>Hence they are unobservable. We can of course use
>other particles, but the existence of those particles
>is wrapped up in theories inferred from data
>and...long story short they are still unobservable
>entities even if we can rationally infer their
>existence from empirical data
So, "if we can't see it with our own eyes, or hear it with our own ears, it doesn't exist."
Wade, have you ever used a microwave oven to cook food? For that matter, have you ever used a regular convection oven to cook food? Both rely on wavelengths of energy we can't see, yet they seem to work, and you and I use them regularly.
The point is that, according to our "current best educated guess," these particles exist, and, not only can we show, to the best of our current ability that they do, we can use them to do things for us.
If our human senses were the limits of our knowledge, we'd still be living in the dark ages.
=========================================================
END QUARK REBUTTAL
=========================================================
OK. Let's continue. My apologies for including this whole exchange, but I think it's important to see it.
----------------------------
BEGIN INTERESTING EXCHANGE
----------------------------
Duane said:
>>>>The problem with ID is that we, as curious humans,
>>are
>>>>prone to asking questions about our assumptions. In
>>>>fact, this questioning of assumptions is a neccesary
>>>>part of "sanity checking" the assumptions we've made
>>>>about any given theory.
Wade Said:
>>>How is this intrinsically problematic?
Duane Said:
>>I tell you what. Answer my questions about your
>>assumption that "life was artificially created," let
>>us discuss them, and then let's see if you don't think
>>that this question is a little silly.
Wade Said:
>It's not silly at all. Confer my example with the
>obelisk on a moon of Jupiter.
Yeah, I "conferred" with it. It said, "Uh. Yeah. If you think I was designed, you'd be negligent not to look for the designer, or at least figure out a little SOMETHING about it/her/him/them from me."
>Does the fact that we
>can't answer those questions become intrinsically
>problematic?
It is dreadfully problematic that the proponents of ID theory have not EVEN TRIED to answer them. And even worse, if anyone ASKS those questions, its proponents seem to scream, "IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM!!!"
----------------------------
END INTERESTING EXCHANGE
----------------------------
OK. Let's condense that exchange for the Reader's Digest crowd:
Duane: "The problem with ID is that a good scientific theory should have its assumptions questioned."
Wade: "Why is that a problem with ID?"
Duane:"Because I asked a bunch of questions about the assumption of INTELLIGENT DESIGN theory: that there exists an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, and you said that INTELLIGENT DESIGN theory shouldn't have to answer questions about the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER"
Wade: "Why is that a problem with ID?"
I hope this at least partially illustrates "Why that is a problem with ID"
Ah. Finally something that makes sense..
Wade Said:
>A theory by itself cannot do anything.
>The adherents of a theory can discuss the
>assumptions, hence I suspect you were on tenuous
>ground (we're talking about the theory--not its
>adherents).
You're right. A theory by itself cannot do anything. The things that a theory by itself cannot do include the following:
1) Do experiments on itself
2) Try to disprove itself
3) Explain why it should be considered our "current best educated guess" about what it explains
4) Ask questions about its assumptions, and determine if they are reasonable or not.
Hell, a theory can't even write itself!!! Wait a minute...
I think I see the tricky game you're trying to play, and I'm going to call attention to it right now, so we don't go down the road you're trying to take this discussion:
You've basically said the following things:
1) ID theory assumes the existence of a designer
Wade: "Yes there is a designer"
2) ID Theory itself says nothing about the designer
Wade: "none of the assumptions ID contains necessarily has answers to those questions"
NOTE: "those questions" were the 12 very simple questions about the designer - who or what? how? where? etc.
3) That's not a problem with ID theory
Wade: "And that is not intrinsically problematic."
4) It's a problem with the ADHERENTS of ID theory
Wade: "(we're talking about the theory--not its adherents)"
Hold on a second... So you're saying that the assumptions of ID theory are the problems of the adherents of ID theory.
So, then, what about:
5) A theory can't do anything without people to talk about it - proponents and opponents.
Wade: "A theory by itself cannot do anything"
So you're saying the following:
"I'm defending ID theory as a theory, and the fact that it doesn't answer questions about its assumptions isn't intrinsically a problem for the theory itself."
Sure. That of course is true for any theory. But I'm asking about those assumptions. Who's going to answer my questions? Who?!?!
Wade: "The adherents of a theory can discuss the assumptions"
A-HA!! The answer! "The adherents" will answer my questions!!!
OK, Wade, so who are the adherents? Is Michale Behe an adherent? Would he defend the theory's assumption that an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER EXISTS?
Are YOU an adherent? You're defending ID theory. So can YOU answer my questions?
If you answer one question in this entire post, answer this one:
=========================================================
Are you, Wade, an adherent of Intelligent Design Theory?
=========================================================
Answer that, and then we can continue this discussion.
OK. On to the rest of this post.
I said:
>>No. You stated that "life was artificially created."
>>BY WHO OR WHAT?
And you said:
>That is not an issue that is part of the assumptions.
>Do you actually question the assumptions or do you
>have questions of a different sort?
Yeah, I'm questioning the assumptions. Who's going to answer me? You? "The Phantom Adherent"?
Ooh. Another good one...
I said:
>>>>Intelligent Design Theory assumes the existence of a
>>>>sentient being or beings who may or may not exist
>>>>presently, that, through unknown means, created
>>>>specific biological systems in either exactly, or
>>>>close approximation to, the forms in which they
>exist
>>>>today.
Wade Said:
>>>I don't see how that's an assumption of ID theory.
>>>Certainly the notion that a designer exists is
>>>part of the theory, however.
Then I said:
>>OK, then if we assume that a "designer" exists, why
>>aren't we trying to figure out who or what that
>>designer is?
Then Wade Said:
>You think of a scientifically valid means to do that,
>let me know.
Uh - I think that's the as-yet-nameless "Adherent's" problem.
See, here's yet another HUGE HOLE. Not saying that you, Wade, are at fault for this, since you didn't come up with ID theory, and because I don't even know if you support ID theory. If I knew that you were an "adherent" of ID theory, I could ask you, "Hey, Wade - what's the current working idea about this "Intelligent Designer" that you Intelligent Design Adherents have? But I don't know if you are one, so I can't.
So it's not your fault that the inventor(s) never thought of this "minor" (read: hugely significant) problem about the assumption of ID theory.
I wrote a short play to explain this point, but it seemed a bit inappropriate to include it in this post, so I started another thread and put it there. You can look if you want.
Regardless, the point is that SOMEone has to claim this flailing, drowning rat as its baby and give us a reason not to ignore it.
Is that person YOU, Wade?
>Again, we can still rationally infer
>design even if we can't identify the designer.
>Perhaps that is the "assumption" we should focus on.
Yes, the "assumption." Let's focus on it. The assumption is (I'll let Wade say it for me...)
Wade: "Yes there is a designer"
OK - so... Who? What? Where? When? How? The four 'W's and an 'H'. Pretty simple. Learned them in grade school.
Wade said:
>>>ID does not contain much in the way of assumptions as
>>>to what the designer is.
Wait - "does not contain much"??!?!??! How about, "contains NOTHING AT ALL"???
>>>In its current scientific
>>>form, it assumes we can rationally determine if
>>>something is designed even if we can't identify the
>>>designer.
OK - I can buy that.
But if it assumes that we can "rationally determine if something is designed," don't Ya think we ought 'ta investigate WHO DESIGNED IT? Yah??? Fer Shure!!!
If we can determine that some thing - a process, a building, an object, etc. were designed by some being as yet unknown to us, if we're even PRETENDING to be scientists, we'd HAVE TO BE INSANELY CURIOUS ABOUT THE DESIGNER!!!!!!!!
Which, since I haven't heard of any new groundbreaking studies about that "Designer," I can only assume that we, as scientists, and Pretend Scientists, are not convinced.
And here's where we flagellate the horse that's already started to smell bad and not move:
I said:
>>Look. Here's the whole point of this discussion.
>>Biological evolution has an analogous assumption - and
>>here it is:
>>
>>"Life arose from simple spontaneously occurring
>>precursor molecules, which then evolved via currently
>>understood and demonstrable processes into the form
>>that life exists today."
And Wade Respondeth:
>And that does contain the assumption that there
>existed molecules and natural processes back then.
And we're TRYING OUR ASSES OFF to figure out what could've existed back then, and how they could've interacted to create more complex molecules, etc, etc.
Has ID explained those assumptions? If it has, then... WOW! That'd be a clear step above existing theories. But, they haven't. So then, unless the "As-Yet-Unnamed-Intelligent-Design-Adherents/Creator" have revised his/their theory, they/him, too, assume(s) that:
Wade said:
>there
>existed molecules and natural processes back then.
)
Oops.
Did the "Intelligent Designer" make them?
Nope. Not unless ID theory has changed to include the fact that the Intelligent Designer Designed
Wade Said:
>"molecules and natural processes back then"
Well, if the "Intelligent Designer" designed molecules and natural processes "back then", well, then... He'd be a lot like that God in the Bible, wouldn't he? Oops. Sorry, "As-Yet-Nameless-Adherents of Intelligent Design Theory." Didn't mean to give away your secret....
Well, let's finish this.
Wade said:
>Let's see if I can find an analogy to the "who
>designed the designer" objection.
>Attempts to explain
>the origin of life by natural processes are invalid,
>because it fails to explain the origin of natural
>processes.
Huh - here's a funny problem with ID theory - unless it assumes that "natural processes" were "Designed" by the "Intelligent Designer," or that they occurred in some different way than biological evolution assumes they occurred (which, as far as it has been stated to date, it does not) then it, too, does the following:
[Intelligent Design Theory]
>Attempts to explain
>the origin of life by natural processes
Well, since it does so, what does Wade say about it?
Wade Says:
>Attempts to explain
>the origin of life by natural processes
>are invalid,
>because it fails to explain the origin of natural
>processes.
Uh-oh. That's bad news for pretty much EVERY theory that attempts to explain our origins, including biological evolution, intelligent design, etc., etc..
Wade Said:
>And if you appeal to the big bang (or
>anything else) will similarly generate the exact same
>problem with that explanation.
Well Wade, we're all screwed. Guess we can't possibly know anything.
I said:
>>You state an assumption: "There is/was a designer."
>>Then you IGNORE that aspect of your theory, and say,
>>"Whew! Now that THAT'S settled, we can ignore it!"
(I guess Wade said, "yes I can!" or the logical equivalent thereof here...)
So I said:
>>NO, Wade, you can't.
Wade said:
>And you have ignored the origin of matter, natural
>processes etc.
Uh oh... Intelligent Design Theory has also
>ignored the origin of matter, natural
>processes etc.
So what does that mean for ID?
>Therefore origin of life
and "Intelligent Design," since it offers no alternate explanations for ANY OF THIS!!!!
>is completely
>wrong, anti-scientific, religious...
"One of these things is not like the o-ther.."
"One of these things in no-ot the same.."
Wade Said:
>The fact (if it so) that we can't
>identify the designer is not intrinsically problematic
>(again, consider the obelisk scenario).
OOOhOhOHHHH!!!! YOU SAID, "we"!!!!!
Do You Mean That You, Wade, A, Tisthammer, Are An Adherent Of Intelligent Design Theory?!?!?!?!?
The fact that "WE" have "NO FREAKING IDEA" who the designer is is not "Intrinsically problematic" for Intelligent Design Theory, itself. But it sure is problematic for those "As-Yet-Nameless-Adherents-Of-Intelligent-Design-Theory".
continuing...
I said:
>>there are entire periodical
>>publications devoted to trying to figure out if it's
[biological evolution and natural generation of life]
>>true or not, and if it is true, how it happened.
Wade said:
>And I don't think they will ever succeed in showing
>any possible means for organic evolution.
Good for you. I must tell the thousands of men and women working on that problem your decision...
"Well, Wade doesn't "Think" that we'll ever succeed. Better give up."
and yet more continuance...
I Said:
>>If ID were legitimate, why aren't there scientists
>>trying to show how the designing was done, and by who
>>or what? Why aren't we looking for the designer?
Wade Said:
>The explanatory filter allows us to reasonably infer
>design even when we don't know who the designer is.
Hold on... Let's examine Wade's "Explanatory Filter"
Wade's Explanatory Filter should allow us to reasonably infer murder ever when we don't know who the killer is.
>If you have a similar procedure for identifying the
>designer, submit it to the ID scientists.
If you have a similar procedure for identifying the
killer, submit it to the FREAKIN' POLICE.
So you're basically saying that "we know murder was committed," but that you can't, won't, willln't, wasn't, worrn't, wxxzn't, say anything about the murderer?
Wade says:
>please recognize the limitations of science.
I guess I do recognize the limitations of Wade's definition of "science."
I said:
>>I mean, that's a HUGE assumption, that some one or some
>>thing DESIGNED life!!! That's a significant claim you
>>and ID proponents are making!!!
>>
>>WHY AREN'T THEY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT'S TRUE OR
>>NOT???
>
>They are, e.g. explanatory filter, examination of
>biological information and chemical processes etc.
NO - why aren't they looking for the aliens/other-superhumans/whatever who made those specific biochemical processes that were designed?
I mean in a Sherlock Holmes, Cops, investigative (dare I say, "scientific?") way?
I said:
>>I mean, they claim, from within a realism-based
>>framework, that some designer REALLY existed that
>>actually, artificially DESIGNED LIFE! Why aren't they
>>looking for him/it?
>>
>>That's why I say that ID is disingenuous. They're not
>>even trying to legitimize their assumption.
Wade Said:
>What assumption? That such a designer exists?
WADE SAID:
>Of course they are.
And Duane is Asking!!!!!
WHO IS LOOKING? (NAMES, PLEASE)
HOW ARE THEY LOOKING? (METHODOLOGIES, PLEASE)
WHERE ARE THEY LOOKING?(PLACES, PLEASE)
WHEN DID IT DO IT'S THING? (TIME, PLEASE)
>But, as I have said before, that is
>independent of determining the identity of the
>designer.
Well, of course, determining the name, methodology, location, and duration of existence of the designer is COMPLETELY independent of the identity of that designer.
I said:
>>So, explain, in addition to answering my first
>>questions,
>>
>>13) Why don't any ID-scientists study the designer?
>
>Asked and answered.
Uh... Wade, the only conclusion I could possibly draw from this response, based on your post is that
"ID-scientists" do not study the "Intelligent Designer" because they are not adherents of, nor are they proponents of, nor are they defneders of Intelligent Design Theory.
So what, then, ARE "ID-scientists?"
>>14) Why doesn't anybody examine the things that must
>>follow from the assumption of "design?" Such as
>>who/what is the designer? How was the designing done?
>
>Asked and answered (for the first ones).
Right. Let's actually see if these questions have been "answered."
"WHO designed the things that "ID-scientists" say "have been designed?"
Wade says: ... ... ... .. ... ... .. .
"HOW were the things that "ID-scientists" say "have been designed," actually designed?"
Wade says: .... ... ... .. .. . . . ....
>We can
>rationally infer design even if we don't know exactly
>how it was done (e.g. the pyramids).
Uh... Wade, anyone who watches the Discovery Channel knows how the pyramids were built.
I said:
>>15) WHY DO THEY ALL IGNORE THIS?!?!?!?
Wade said:
>The limitations of science etc.
Wow. How profound, Wade.
Finally, Wade, you said:
>>>I never though you'd be this paranoid. Look, there
>>>are a lot of people who don't have any religious or
>>>political agendas here (such as myself). Behe was a
>>>Roman Catholic, and only "converted" to ID theory as
>a
>>>result of the evidence (as he perceived it). That's
>>>true for most in the ID movement. Most are perfectly
>>>willing to modify their religious views if the
>>>evidence demands it (some common examples: the age of
>>>the earth and the big bang theory). But as they see
>>>it, an ID is rationally necessary. The new
>>>“upper-tier” movement is showing some considerable
>>>differences over the “lower-tier” movement (ICR and
>>>the rest).
And I said:
>>Paranoid? I'm only saying what every rational person
>>(including myself) thinks about ID.
And you (FINALLY) (NO, REALLY...) said:
>All these "rational" people are paranoid
Yes, rationality == paranoia when you're trying to "prove" religon, Wade.
Wade said:
>(or at least
>irrational, seriously confused etc.) if they think
>it's being motivated solely by political/religious
>matters, especially given the lack of evidence to
>support that assertion (confer my examples) etc.
I said:
>>I'm only basing
>>my statements on the way ID's proponents have
>>presented it
And Wade said:
>Apparently not. Have you read what Behe has said on
>the matter, for instance?
AAAAAAHHHH!!!!!! IS BEHE A PROPONENT, excuse me, an "Adherent" of Intelligent Design Theory?
Or is this an "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY?"
Can't tell.
As far as I can tell, everyone who knows what Intelligent Design Theory is, seems to say that it assumes an Intelligent Designer.
But NO ONE is willing to defend the assumption that ID theory assumes a desgner.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT ID HAS NO ADHERENTS?
If so, why are we even taling about it?
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 