"Is it science yet?"

Post #230,453 by Another Scott 10/22/05 1:18:44 AM Reply	"Is it science yet?" "IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION," by MATTHEW J. BRAUER, BARBARA FORREST, and STEVEN G. GEY is a [link\|http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf\|Washington University Law Quarterly] article (149 page .pdf). It has 594 references. The article is discussed here at the [link\|http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/ZZ/97_is_it_science_yet__10_20_2005.asp\|National Center for Science Education]. It's a good read. Cheers, Scott.
Post #230,462 by Ashton 10/22/05 6:39:44 AM Reply	Nice sourcebook - for school boards not yet seduced. That we should need to go through this One More Time - priceless.
Post #230,465 by warmachine 10/22/05 9:30:11 AM Reply	ID advocates have different brain structures or something? I came across In Intelligent Design, Dembski does offer a replacement for MN [scientific method]. It hardly meets either criterion and certainly does not qualify as science, but he has little else to which to appeal. In the contest between Christian theism and scientific naturalism, theism wins: Dembski proposes using \ufffdChristology\ufffd to judge a scientific explanation\ufffds \ufffdconceptual soundness.\ufffd (\ufffdChristology is the study of the Person and attributes of Christ, in particular the union in Him of divine and human natures.\ufffd) He means that science must include Christ in its conceptual framework, confirming that ID\ufffds presupposition of religion, enunciated by Meyer, is not only sectarian but explicitly Christian. I just can't envisage how theories of, say, electricity can be measured against the qualities and attributes of an ideal person. In what way can a theory of atomic structure be christ-like or not christ-like. Other than being completely irrelevant to each other. My brain hurts trying to think about it. How can anyone think like that? This Dembski must be completely insane. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #230,467 by Another Scott 10/22/05 10:18:06 AM Reply	They have certain base beliefs and build on them. It's not so much insanity as having a strongly held base belief that gets in the way of the scientific method. If something comes up that challenges the base belief, it has to either be 1) accepted, 2) rejected, or 3) regarded as irrelevant to the base belief. The strong ID people choose #2. The strong ID people reject anything that can be used to argue against the truth of Christianity and the Bible. The hard sciences would be in a similar predicament regarding base beliefs if it were somehow discovered that c (the speed of light in vacuum [1]) wasn't constant throughout the universe, or if the laws of physics varied throughout the universe. It's an important assumption in physics that we can make reasonable inferences and do reproducible experiements because the physics doesn't change with time and position in space. For example, the calculations of the distances to stars and the age of the universe depend on c being constant. There's very good evidence that c is constant, but we don't know that that's the case everywhere and throughout all time. Of course, science has a way around these predicaments - experiments and modification of theories. ID doesn't. That's one of the reasons why ID isn't science. Cheers, Scott. [1] Note that the speed of light through various media is less than c - that's how your glasses work. Light moves slower through lenses than through air, so in general the path is bent. But c - the speed of light in vacuum and the ultimate speed for real particles - is a constant. As far as we know. :-)
Post #230,468 by drewk 10/22/05 10:40:10 AM Reply	Well, it's relatively constant === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #230,479 by bepatient 10/22/05 12:31:48 PM Reply	Overstating the advocacy somewhat. But its the outliers that make the press (and write the books, etc). I think most would assume that laws of physics apply, that evolution pretty much explains the way things went around here for the past several hundred million years, et al...but believe that these things were not necessarily random. That is how someone can actually believe in science and a god at the same time. It isn't necessarily insanity or a case of mass delusion. Though that does make one feel a bit superior, doesn't it? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #230,480 by drewk 10/22/05 12:36:30 PM Reply	He didn't say insanity or delusion At least not as far as the belief itself. The delusion is in claiming any of this as science. I can say that the idea of intelligent design is not scientific without saying that it's wrong. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #230,483 by bepatient 10/22/05 12:39:57 PM Reply	Re: He didn't say insanity or delusion How can anyone think like that? This Dembski must be completely insane. In fairness, this guy may well be...but it strikes me as a common complaint/couterargument that anyone who thinks this stuff is delusional...not simply in ID as science...but in ID in general. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #230,486 by drewk 10/22/05 1:04:12 PM Reply	"This one guy is insane" vs "mass delusion" He said one guy was insane. You pointed out that he's an outlier. You then characterized his position as claiming "mass delusion". === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #230,489 by bepatient 10/22/05 2:55:38 PM Reply	Not really, at least not what I meant to do Weakness of medium, I suppose...or my own brevity. His was but one of may critiques of religion and ID over a very long period of time here that characterizes it this way. Its easy to do so when you focus on the nutcases on opposite sides of the debate. As usual, though, reality is often in the middle. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #230,497 by warmachine 10/22/05 4:03:54 PM Reply	I oppose the message, not any of the messengers I do not dismiss ID because I regard Dembski as a nut. I am well aware that one person may not be typical of a group. Considering Dembski's idea of applying Christology to biological theories, I would consider it likely that ID advocates shun him. I have never used strawman tactics. My post was not an attack on ID (I do that elsewhere). It was an enquiry about a thought process I can't envisage. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #230,481 by drewk 10/22/05 12:36:31 PM 10/22/05 12:37:04 PM Reply	Oops, double-clicked === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com] Edited by drewk Oct. 22, 2005, 12:37:04 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #230,487 by warmachine 10/22/05 2:10:48 PM Reply	My post was an enquiry, not a stroking of ego I declared Dembski insane because I cannot see the mechanism of how Christology can be applied to theories of phenomenon. I cannot see how anyone would think that it might be applicable. I can see why people might choose the bible to explain the existence of life but not why someone applies an ideal person to natural processes. I am not interested in being smug, I am interested in understanding thought processes. Neither am I saying that ID is delusional because of a single nut. I regard the advocates of ID as delusional because ID itself is delusional but that's another thread. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #230,490 by bepatient 10/22/05 2:56:58 PM Reply	Drew? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #230,491 by drewk 10/22/05 3:11:06 PM Reply	I hereby declare Warmachine an outlier So by your standards, he's not representative of those who oppose ID. :-P === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #230,493 by Another Scott 10/22/05 3:31:56 PM Reply	You shouldn't assume. I think most would assume that laws of physics apply, that evolution pretty much explains the way things went around here for the past several hundred million years, et al...but believe that these things were not necessarily random. You shouldn't make assumptions like that. ID is being pushed by the [link\|http://www.discovery.org/csc/\|Discovery Institute]. Dembski, one of the famous proponents of ID, [link\|http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=62\|says]: Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. Evolutionary biology texts often cite the human coccyx as a "vestigial structure" that hearkens back to vertebrate ancestors with tails. Yet if one looks at a recent edition of Gray\ufffds Anatomy, one finds that the coccyx is a crucial point of contact with muscles that attach to the pelvic floor. The phrase "vestigial structure" often merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. The human appendix, formerly thought to be vestigial, is now known to be a functioning component of the immune system. Admitting design into science can only enrich the scientific enterprise. All the tried and true tools of science will remain intact. But design adds a new tool to the scientist\ufffds explanatory tool chest. Moreover, design raises a whole new set of research questions. Once we know that something is designed, we will want to know how it was produced, to what extent the design is optimal, and what is its purpose. Note that we can detect design without knowing what something was designed for. There is a room at the Smithsonian filled with objects that are obviously designed but whose specific purpose anthropologists do not understand. Design also implies constraints. An object that is designed functions within certain constraints. Transgress those constraints and the object functions poorly or breaks. Moreover, we can discover those constraints empirically by seeing what does and doesn\ufffdt work. This simple insight has tremendous implications not just for science but also for ethics. If humans are in fact designed, then we can expect psychosocial constraints to be hardwired into us. Transgress those constraints, and we as well as our society will suffer. There is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that many of the attitudes and behaviors our society promotes undermine human flourishing. Design promises to reinvigorate that ethical stream running from Aristotle through Aquinas known as natural law. [...] William A. Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher, is a fellow of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. His new book, The Design Inference, has just been published by Cambridge University Press. (Italics added.) That doesn't sound to me like he leaves much room for evolution. (Whether a mathematician and philosopher should be relied upon as an advocate against evolutionary biology is left as an exercise for the reader.) Cheers, Scott.
Post #230,477 by broomberg 10/22/05 12:09:58 PM Reply	Quite possibly [link\|http://www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse/religion.html\|http://www.wsu.edu/D...rse/religion.html]
Post #230,552 by jb4 10/23/05 6:40:42 AM Reply	It's the high-school chemestry lab "solution" Get the answer from the back of the book (in this case, the "book is the New Testament", and work you way backwards, filling in various values for Z (the Universal Fudge Factor) as necessry to get bac to the original problem. Note that this presupposes that the Practitioner alreadyhas the answer. Believe me, these yay-hoos already have The Answer\ufffd jb4 shrub●bish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #230,595 by Ashton 10/23/05 10:55:47 PM Reply	Re: It's the high-school chemestry lab "solution" My lab partner and I (Inst. not HS) came up with the exact At. Wt. for a sample - which was in fact, a Magnesium salt. We didn't employ our memory of data from the Periodic Chart, etc. - we just weighed stuff accurately as we could manage. Sometimes the erors Do cancel-out. (I recall the incident because the instructor Didn't smirk. I called that, Class..) But yeah, all science is predicated upon working-backwards from an expected guesstimate. None of us integrates very well; differentiation is sooo much easier. Prolly the same with spawners of new 'theories' to justify What I Know is Right cha cha cha. (Doomed species - by the inescapable warz from that approach,) but W.T.F.

Welcome to IWETHEY!