The universe is proof of god!

[skepticalbip]

Was the argument whether or not to teach ID in schools or whether to research ID?

ID has offered nothing to study except maybe for psychologists trying to understand why some people believe that their incredulity is meaningful rather than an expression of their ignorance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Was the argument whether or not to teach ID in schools or whether to research ID?

Well, the decision was not to teach ID in public schools as science.

Nothing prevents anyone with an interest from researching ID.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I asked you:
Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

When a proposition is unfalsifiable, it fails because it can't be tested. The sun exists. How can scientists prove it wasn't intelligently designed? Even after being able to show all of the natural processes involved in its life cycle, can't disprove it wasn't intelligently designed.

I don't know if the sun is the subject of the design argument. Mostly it centers around life It gives the "appearance" of design. If ID isn't possible then why not prove demonstrate it scientifically?

You mean prove a snowflake isn't "intelligently designed"?

Your argument is mistaken. "If ID isn't possible" is an odd way of stating the argument. ID isn't scientific, it can not be tested, and generally ID rests its hat on "We can't explain it right now, so it must be intelligently designed". ID presumes that we must stop asking questions at some point to better understand something. ID is extremely unscientific. It fails to even provide a workable hypothesis.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When it appears something is occurring, Don't we normally study it to see if our perceptions are true? That how science works.

Okay.
But IDers have yet to make a good case that 'something' is occurring. At least, not any 'something' that isn't already adequately explained by existing theories.


That is how science works.

Theories are in place and remain in place unless and until someone produces evidence that the theory cannot explain. It will be replaced by a theory that explains the new evidence AND all the existing evidence that supported the previous theory.

How did life begin?

How did god begin?

 

[Random Person]

I don't know if the sun is the subject of the design argument. Mostly it centers around life It gives the "appearance" of design. If ID isn't possible then why not prove demonstrate it scientifically?

You mean prove a snowflake isn't "intelligently designed"?

Your argument is mistaken. "If ID isn't possible" is an odd way of stating the argument. ID isn't scientific, it can not be tested, and generally ID rests its hat on "We can't explain it right now, so it must be intelligently designed". ID presumes that we must stop asking questions at some point to better understand something. ID is extremely unscientific. It fails to even provide a workable hypothesis.

ID is unscientific? I asked how that conclusion was arrived at and was told scientifically. Just declare whatever you want as unscientific and call it a day. I hope actual scientists don't start doing that.

- - - Updated - - -

How did life begin?

How did god begin?

You're going to have to ask someone that believes in god that one.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know if the sun is the subject of the design argument. Mostly it centers around life It gives the "appearance" of design. If ID isn't possible then why not prove demonstrate it scientifically?

You mean prove a snowflake isn't "intelligently designed"?

Your argument is mistaken. "If ID isn't possible" is an odd way of stating the argument. ID isn't scientific, it can not be tested, and generally ID rests its hat on "We can't explain it right now, so it must be intelligently designed". ID presumes that we must stop asking questions at some point to better understand something. ID is extremely unscientific. It fails to even provide a workable hypothesis.

Who said anything about a snowflake?

 

[bilby]

How did life begin?

Good question. There are various theories.
But ultimately we don't know.


Yet.

Indeed. We don't even know yet what exactly 'life' is - there is no definition that encompasses all the things we agree are 'alive' while excluding all of the things we agree are 'not alive'. It would appear that 'life' and 'not life' is something of a false dichotomy - there is a continuum of phenomena which, when ordered in terms of how much like 'life' they appear, have 'non-living' things at one end, and 'living things' at the other, with a wide variety of 'maybe-living' things in between - from rocks, via crystals that 'reproduce' similar crystals, through prions and viruses of various complexities to bacteria. Or from skeletons, through fresh corpses, via comas and persistent vegetative states, to deep sleep and full wakefulness.

Life is just sufficiently complex chemistry; and chemistry is just sufficiently complex physics. Despite centuries of searching by some of the smartest people who ever lived, nobody has ever come close to finding anything that clearly denotes the difference between 'life' and a set of complex cyclic chemical reactions. And medical doctors still argue about how to tell exactly when someone goes from 'alive' to 'dead'. It's far from clear cut.

The questions 'How did life begin?' and 'When does life end?' are apparently good questions; But a close study of 'life' shows that in fact these are not yet coherent questions - they ask about something that is not well defined.



Where does 'yellow' begin?

 

[Random Person]

How did life begin?

Good question. There are various theories.
But ultimately we don't know.


Yet.

Indeed. We don't even know yet what exactly 'life' is - there is no definition that encompasses all the things we agree are 'alive' while excluding all of the things we agree are 'not alive'. It would appear that 'life' and 'not life' is something of a false dichotomy - there is a continuum of phenomena which, when ordered in terms of how much like 'life' they appear, have 'non-living' things at one end, and 'living things' at the other, with a wide variety of 'maybe-living' things in between - from rocks, via crystals that 'reproduce' similar crystals, through prions and viruses of various complexities to bacteria. Or from skeletons, through fresh corpses, via comas and persistent vegetative states, to deep sleep and full wakefulness.

Life is just sufficiently complex chemistry; and chemistry is just sufficiently complex physics. Despite centuries of searching by some of the smartest people who ever lived, nobody has ever come close to finding anything that clearly denotes the difference between 'life' and a set of complex cyclic chemical reactions. And medical doctors still argue about how to tell exactly when someone goes from 'alive' to 'dead'. It's far from clear cut.

The questions 'How did life begin?' and 'When does life end?' are apparently good questions; But a close study of 'life' shows that in fact these are not yet coherent questions - they ask about something that is not well defined.

View attachment 16116

Where does 'yellow' begin?

That's funny.

 

[Keith&Co.]

ID is unscientific? I asked how that conclusion was arrived at and was told scientifically.

i don't think that's entirely accurate.

IIRC, Jimmy said it was unscientific AND explained what made it so. I'm pretty sure i remembers that c'rrectly, because you quoted that part.

_I_ said ID was tested scientifically, and already corrected your mistaken assumption on that score, too.

So, you are just dismalizing, here.

Gosh, what a surprise and a let down....

 

[abaddon]

Here's a longer list of reasons why ID is not scientific: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/id_checklist

 

[skepticalbip]

ID is unscientific?

I would say yes. But then you have to understand what science does.

Given two "ideas" which, if either or both, is an idea that could be investigated scientifically? Then specifically how would science proceed in investigating it.

1. An intelligent supernatural force designed and incorporated certain aspects of life (like the eye).

2. An alien species visited earth several hundred thousand years ago and tinkered with the lettering of some genes in a primate species that eventually led, through ensuing evolution, to human intelligence.

 

[Random Person]

ID is unscientific?

I would say yes. But then you have to understand what science does.

Given two "ideas" which, if either or both, is an idea that could be investigated scientifically? Then specifically how would science proceed in investigating it.

1. An intelligent supernatural force designed and incorporated certain aspects of life.

2. An alien species visited earth several hundred thousand years ago and tinkered with the lettering of some genes in a primate species that eventually led to human intelligence.

Pfft. You pick and choose or fabricate farting goats. Hold court with the others.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Can't make it work as science, blames the person who understands science...

 

[Random Person]

Can't make it work as science, blames the person who understands science...

You guys have created your own consensus reality down here. A sort of isolated dimwittery fueled by uncritical validation.

 

[skepticalbip]

ID is unscientific?

I would say yes. But then you have to understand what science does.

Given two "ideas" which, if either or both, is an idea that could be investigated scientifically? Then specifically how would science proceed in investigating it.

1. An intelligent supernatural force designed and incorporated certain aspects of life.

2. An alien species visited earth several hundred thousand years ago and tinkered with the lettering of some genes in a primate species that eventually led to human intelligence.

Pfft. You pick and choose or fabricate farting goats. Hold court with the others.

Well that is disappointing. You keep insisting that science should study ID claims. Science has no idea how they could (being outside of science), so I was hoping you would tell us how to do it. Both those "ideas" currently exist in the public so we should be able to use the same technique in studying both.

 

[Random Person]

Pfft. You pick and choose or fabricate farting goats. Hold court with the others.

Well that is disappointing. You keep insisting that science should study ID claims. Science has no idea how they could (being outside of science), so I was hoping you would tell us how to do it. Both those "ideas" currently exist in the public so we should be able to use the same technique in studying both.

Wrong again. I asked if ID was invalidated by scientific studies. I was told that it was. I was interested in reading them.

Turns out their are no studies. Color me surprised.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I asked if ID was invalidated by scientific studies.

No, you did not.

I was told that it was.

NO, you were not.

 

[Random Person]

I asked if ID was invalidated by scientific studies.

No, you did not.

I was told that it was.

NO, you were not.

You either can't remember what you post or don't realize there's a transcript.

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

How was it tested?

Scientifically.

Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

Then you complained of dismalization or some such.

Sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When ID was before the courts in Dover, the "Wedge Document" from the Discovery Institute was entered into evidence. This document made it clear that ID was about introducing religion, creationism at that" in a guise of being science.

https://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

[h=2]FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY[/h] The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

 

[skepticalbip]

No, you did not. NO, you were not.

You either can't remember what you post or don't realize there's a transcript.

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

How was it tested?

Scientifically.

Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

Then you complained of dismalization or some such.

Sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.

You have a real problem with English.

A scientific study is an experiment or research based on the claims being made. As I have said, ID offers nothing that can be studied scientifically any more than the ancient alien visitation claims do.

Scientific testing can be comparing the claim to what is known and established and failing the claim if it is contrary to or can not be fit into established knowledge.

ETA:
You may note that even Behe had to admit that his "examples" of "irreducible complexity" could not be supported.

 

[abaddon]

Turns out their are no studies. Color me surprised.

Did you look for any scientific studies of the unscientific yourself?

Read this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/id_checklist . It describes the overall reason why ID fails to be science, and touches on how even the very few testable claims made by ID were tested and refuted.