the placebo effect

[_guy sajer]

Hey guy,

ID may be a theory, but it is a non-testable one. It should NOT be taught in public schools--it is NOT science. It is a religion masquerading as science.

Again, the Big Bang is not a testable theory either, but it is taught in schools. ID is a reasonable conclusion given the overwhelming evidence surrounding us. Everything we see has intelligent design written all over it whether some people choose to realize it or not. If we blasted the Mona Lisa into space and 50 billion light years away some aliens came across it, I suppose given this kind of logic, they would have to also conclude that it was also a result of some kind of cosmic accident. I mean the hypothesis that humans on the other side of the galaxy were responsible for it, this would also be untestable right?

Alien visitations is a theory as well to explain certain physical phenomena (have you read "In Search of Ancient Astronauts?") Why do you privilege ID over alien visitation?

As far as I am aware, nobody assumes the existence of aliens explains our exietence and the universe around us. The comparison isn't valid.

Open the door to this one, my friend, and you'll soon see the entire camel trying to shove his body under the tent, and you'll find your children being taught all sorts of religious nonsense toward which you feel decidedly less friendly.

I'm not sympathetic to this kind of paranoia. It strikes me more as intolerance and even bigotry towards theism when scientists respond so defensivley to alternative theories. ID itself is not a religion as you prefer to believe. It is a valid hypothesis that explains the existence of the universe. Is it testable? Perhaps not, perhaps so. But it should not be discounted simply because we don't know any means by which it can be properly tested. The Big Bang cannot be tested either, so do you agree that the Big Bang, as a theory, should be removed from texbooks? Some might get offended (probably 80%+ of the general public) to know their kids are being taught that their existence is merely the the product of a cosmic accident, and that there is no intrinsic or apparent purpose to their lives, anymore than there is purpose for a meteorite to have landed in a desert in Arizona.

Ok, then, what is the nature of God? What are his attributes? How well do these attributes explain the world around us?

These are irrelevant questions that are beside the point that the universe was created at some point in time by a supreme intelligence; the same as it is apparently irrelevant whether or not Neutron Star is a squishy substance, or wether it smells like roses or burnt toast. Science can't answer these questions about this "fact" either, so why must ID answer all tangential questions?

Hey guy,

ID may be a theory, but it is a non-testable one. It should NOT be taught in public schools--it is NOT science. It is a religion masquerading as science.

Again, the Big Bang is not a testable theory either, but it is taught in schools. ID is a reasonable conclusion given the overwhelming evidence surrounding us. Everything we see has intelligent design written all over it whether some people choose to realize it or not. If we blasted the Mona Lisa into space and 50 billion light years away some aliens came across it, I suppose given this kind of logic, they would have to also conclude that it was also a result of some kind of cosmic accident. I mean the hypothesis that humans on the other side of the galaxy were responsible for it, this would also be untestable right?

Alien visitations is a theory as well to explain certain physical phenomena (have you read "In Search of Ancient Astronauts?") Why do you privilege ID over alien visitation?

As far as I am aware, nobody assumes the existence of aliens explains our exietence and the universe around us. The comparison isn't valid.

Open the door to this one, my friend, and you'll soon see the entire camel trying to shove his body under the tent, and you'll find your children being taught all sorts of religious nonsense toward which you feel decidedly less friendly.

I'm not sympathetic to this kind of paranoia. It strikes me more as intolerance and even bigotry towards theism when scientists respond so defensivley to alternative theories. ID itself is not a religion as you prefer to believe. It is a valid hypothesis that explains the existence of the universe. Is it testable? Perhaps not, perhaps so. But it should not be discounted simply because we don't know any means by which it can be properly tested. The Big Bang cannot be tested either, so do you agree that the Big Bang, as a theory, should be removed from texbooks? Some might get offended (probably 80%+ of the general public) to know their kids are being taught that their existence is merely the the product of a cosmic accident, and that there is no intrinsic or apparent purpose to their lives, anymore than there is purpose for a meteorite to have landed in a desert in Arizona.

Ok, then, what is the nature of God? What are his attributes? How well do these attributes explain the world around us?

These are irrelevant questions that are beside the point that the universe was created at some point in time by a supreme intelligence; the same as it is apparently irrelevant whether or not Neutron Star is a squishy substance, or wether it smells like roses or burnt toast. Science can't answer these questions about this "fact" either, so why must ID answer all tangential questions?

The Big Bang isn't testable? That'll be news to a fair number of scientists, I'm sure.

The analogy to alien visitation was not to address your arguments for God but to address your argument that since ID is a "theory," it should be taught alongside other theories. I'm merely pointing out that alien visitation is a theory also that is believed by millions upon millions of people. Why should public schools, therefore, not teach alien visitation as theory to explain certain observable phenomena?

In terms of teaching alternative theories in the classroom, why should we only privilege religious ones? Why not teach all sorts of non-scientific theories as well?
Science isn’t intolerant toward alternative theories, per se, just anti-scientific, non-testable ones, such as, oh let’s see . . . creationism (gussied up in the guise of ID). If science were indeed hostile toward opposing theories, how then to explain the tremendous advances science has made? For a field that’s presumably so adverse to being challenged, it is sure pretty damn dynamic, particularly contrasted to, say, religion, which hasn’t changed its basic dogma in over 2,000 years from that taught by backward, superstitious, misogynist, racist, sheep-herding tribalists, or in around 1,000 years from that taught by thoroughly corrupt, superstitious, misogynist, racist, oppressive, uninspired, often murderous ecclesiastical authorities.
The nature of God is highly relevant to these types of questions. For how can we begin to understand who God is and debate his existence until we’ve settled even basic questions related to his attributes? Even God’s presumed attributes are not explicitly stated, they are nonetheless implicit, so why not get them out in the open so that we can consider them in a transparent way? If you want to inject religion into science, don’t go trying to change the rules as to how science operates.

[_dartagnan]

The Big Bang isn't testable? That'll be news to a fair number of scientists, I'm sure.

Well, some of its assumptions are testable, sure. I think if all its asusmptions were testable then it would no longer be theory, but rather law. There is plenty that we know that is consistent with Big Bang theory, but much is also consistent with ID. The problem with the Big Bang is that it still doesn't answer the question of absolute origin, which is really what everyone is squabbling about. In other words, it doesn't explain where matter comes from; it only explains why the universe is in its current state of expansion. If you see a guy falling out of the sky, a BB equivalent would be explaining why he is falling (i.e. he fell from a cliff), but an ID equivalent actually tells us why he exists.
As I understand it, BB postulates that a ball of matter was extremely hot and it got so hot that it eventually exploded, and all the matter of was tossed about and is continually traveling away from the original "bang" point. The end result is our known universe that is constantly expanding. But where did that matter come from, and why was it so hot? And would hot matter really explode like that or is that just the best thing they could come up with? And I think - and I'm open for correction - the BB also postulates that matter is not traveling through space, but that space is traveling with it. Is this really testable?
In any event, as someone else noted elsewhere, the Big Bang doesn't necessarily contradict creationism.

The analogy to alien visitation was not to address your arguments for God but to address your argument that since ID is a "theory," it should be taught alongside other theories.

Not because it is merely a theory, but because it is a controversial topic that should be recognized as such. There are plenty of scientists who are theists, and this is also the accepted belief of the majority of the world, whether they are religious or not.
Since it is not disproven as falsehood, I see no reason to believe it would be teaching falsehood to our children, especially when it would be taught only as theory.
If I were asking you to teach children that 4+1=12, then I can see how this would seriously damage the next generation, since we use math in virtually every aspect of our lives. However, consider what we are really talking about here. We are talking about something that will have virtually no effect in the lives of our future generations, unless of course your agenda is to exterminate religion in all its forms. In which case, you're not really concerned about their education per se, but rather the type of person they become in a cultural sense.
As far as vocation goes, probably less than 1% of high school students will aspire to become NASA scientists or astronomers or whatever else that would require that they reject ID. And for that 1% who do, I presume that aren't so weakminded as to let alternative theories throw them off their intellectual courses. So I see no reasonable harm in simply noting the controversy as it exists. The atheists are making it sound like we're "damaging" the next generation when in fact they're already hearing about it. Its like you guys don't to hold a monopoly on science and deny anyone the simple knowlege that some scientists do disagree with the conventional wisdom of the academy.
To give you an example of what I am talking about, consider this. When I was taking political science in college, I remember we had an entire chapter that covered Afrocentrism. Afrocentrists contend that virtually everything we have today comes from negro intellectuals in Africa, who, as the theory goes, were robbed of their acheivments by the Europeans. It is just one big racist conspiracy, yaddie yaddie ya. Now no true historian would believe such nonsense, and this is held by a tiny minority, mostly, if not completely, of African decent. Yet, the powers that be felt this alternative perspective was needed to be taught, or at the least, its existence needed to be acknowledged.
Contrast this with ID, which is by far the majority belief among humans. I think you have to do a cost/benefit analysis here. The vast majority of the planet are creationists. What is the harm is simply letting them know that their belief is in fact upheld by at least some scientists?

I'm merely pointing out that alien visitation is a theory also that is believed by millions upon millions of people. Why should public schools, therefore, not teach alien visitation as theory to explain certain observable phenomena?

Do you see anyone complaining because alien invasions aren't taught? Of course not. But there have been perfectly reasonable, non-ET related explanations for all of the UFO sightings I have seen, but I have yet to find any realistic scientific explanation for the obvious intelligent design behind our genetic code (DNA), for example.

In terms of teaching alternative theories in the classroom, why should we only privilege religious ones?

It isn't religious. There is nothing necessarily religious about it. Deists are not religious people, but they believe in ID just the same.

Why not teach all sorts of non-scientific theories as well?

I'm not convinced that it is non-scientific.

Science isn’t intolerant toward alternative theories

Science isn't, but people are. Generally atheists who have an axe to grind with religion in general.

If science were indeed hostile toward opposing theories

People are, not science.

The nature of God is highly relevant to these types of questions.

As is the question, "where did that fireball from the big bang come from"?
And how exactly does a ball of fire explode and produce millions of species of life?
The typical respnse I get is something defensive like, "Well we don't know, but that doesn't mean God is behind it." Well why not? Obviously there is some intelligence behind it. And yes, it is perfectly obvious.

For how can we begin to understand who God is and debate his existence until we’ve settled even basic questions related to his attributes?

This doesn't logically follow. If I step outside and see tiny circles cut into my lawn in lines of 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 11,13,17,19, I don't need to know the height, weight, and sexual orientation of the person responsible, to know that he was an intelligent being.
When you start talking about attributes of God you begin to get out of the science and into theology. That is something for the theologians to bang their heads over, and much of it is determined according to whatever assumptions they operate from (i.e. the Bible).

If you want to inject religion into science, don’t go trying to change the rules as to how science operates.

I don't think anyone is doing that. You guys are so paranoid about religion trying to take over, you can't seem to stay composed long enough to hear basic arguments. Now to me this says more about how you guys approach the issues than it says anything about the quality of the ID argumens.
By the way, I saw a debate online a while back and I just found it again. What struck me more than anything was how the atheist was sitting there smug making wise ass comments and it got so bad he had to fall back on politics by bashing Bush in order to get an applause from his students. It is about an hour I think but I found it interesting: http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cf ... 322&bhcp=1

[_guy sajer]

The Big Bang isn't testable? That'll be news to a fair number of scientists, I'm sure.

Well, some of its assumptions are testable, sure. I think if all its asusmptions were testable then it would no longer be theory, but rather law. There is plenty that we know that is consistent with Big Bang theory, but much is also consistent with ID. The problem with the Big Bang is that it still doesn't answer the question of absolute origin, which is really what everyone is squabbling about. In other words, it doesn't explain where matter comes from; it only explains why the universe is in its current state of expansion. If you see a guy falling out of the sky, a BB equivalent would be explaining why he is falling (I.e. he fell from a cliff), but an ID equivalent actually tells us why he exists.
As I understand it, BB postulates that a ball of matter was extremely hot and it got so hot that it eventually exploded, and all the matter of was tossed about and is continually traveling away from the original "bang" point. The end result is our known universe that is constantly expanding. But where did that matter come from, and why was it so hot? And would hot matter really explode like that or is that just the best thing they could come up with? And I think - and I'm open for correction - the BB also postulates that matter is not traveling through space, but that space is traveling with it. Is this really testable?
In any event, as someone else noted elsewhere, the Big Bang doesn't necessarily contradict creationism.

The analogy to alien visitation was not to address your arguments for God but to address your argument that since ID is a "theory," it should be taught alongside other theories.

Not because it is merely a theory, but because it is a controversial topic that should be recognized as such. There are plenty of scientists who are theists, and this is also the accepted belief of the majority of the world, whether they are religious or not.
Since it is not disproven as falsehood, I see no reason to believe it would be teaching falsehood to our children, especially when it would be taught only as theory.
If I were asking you to teach children that 4+1=12, then I can see how this would seriously damage the next generation, since we use math in virtually every aspect of our lives. However, consider what we are really talking about here. We are talking about something that will have virtually no effect in the lives of our future generations, unless of course your agenda is to exterminate religion in all its forms. In which case, you're not really concerned about their education per se, but rather the type of person they become in a cultural sense.
As far as vocation goes, probably less than 1% of high school students will aspire to become NASA scientists or astronomers or whatever else that would require that they reject ID. And for that 1% who do, I presume that aren't so weakminded as to let alternative theories throw them off their intellectual courses. So I see no reasonable harm in simply noting the controversy as it exists. The atheists are making it sound like we're "damaging" the next generation when in fact they're already hearing about it. Its like you guys don't to hold a monopoly on science and deny anyone the simple knowlege that some scientists do disagree with the conventional wisdom of the academy.
To give you an example of what I am talking about, consider this. When I was taking political science in college, I remember we had an entire chapter that covered Afrocentrism. Afrocentrists contend that virtually everything we have today comes from negro intellectuals in Africa, who, as the theory goes, were robbed of their acheivments by the Europeans. It is just one big racist conspiracy, yaddie yaddie ya. Now no true historian would believe such nonsense, and this is held by a tiny minority, mostly, if not completely, of African decent. Yet, the powers that be felt this alternative perspective was needed to be taught, or at the least, its existence needed to be acknowledged.
Contrast this with ID, which is by far the majority belief among humans. I think you have to do a cost/benefit analysis here. The vast majority of the planet are creationists. What is the harm is simply letting them know that their belief is in fact upheld by at least some scientists?

I'm merely pointing out that alien visitation is a theory also that is believed by millions upon millions of people. Why should public schools, therefore, not teach alien visitation as theory to explain certain observable phenomena?

Do you see anyone complaining because alien invasions aren't taught? Of course not. But there have been perfectly reasonable, non-ET related explanations for all of the UFO sightings I have seen, but I have yet to find any realistic scientific explanation for the obvious intelligent design behind our genetic code (DNA), for example.

In terms of teaching alternative theories in the classroom, why should we only privilege religious ones?

It isn't religious. There is nothing necessarily religious about it. Deists are not religious people, but they believe in ID just the same.

Why not teach all sorts of non-scientific theories as well?

I'm not convinced that it is non-scientific.

Science isn’t intolerant toward alternative theories

Science isn't, but people are. Generally atheists who have an axe to grind with religion in general.

If science were indeed hostile toward opposing theories

People are, not science.

The nature of God is highly relevant to these types of questions.

As is the question, "where did that fireball from the big bang come from"?
And how exactly does a ball of fire explode and produce millions of species of life?
The typical respnse I get is something defensive like, "Well we don't know, but that doesn't mean God is behind it." Well why not? Obviously there is some intelligence behind it. And yes, it is perfectly obvious.

For how can we begin to understand who God is and debate his existence until we’ve settled even basic questions related to his attributes?

This doesn't logically follow. If I step outside and see tiny circles cut into my lawn in lines of 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 11,13,17,19, I don't need to know the height, weight, and sexual orientation of the person responsible, to know that he was an intelligent being.
When you start talking about attributes of God you begin to get out of the science and into theology. That is something for the theologians to bang their heads over, and much of it is determined according to whatever assumptions they operate from (I.e. the Bible).

If you want to inject religion into science, don’t go trying to change the rules as to how science operates.

I don't think anyone is doing that. You guys are so paranoid about religion trying to take over, you can't seem to stay composed long enough to hear basic arguments. Now to me this says more about how you guys approach the issues than it says anything about the quality of the ID argumens.
By the way, I saw a debate online a while back and I just found it again. What struck me more than anything was how the atheist was sitting there smug making wise ass comments and it got so bad he had to fall back on politics by bashing Bush in order to get an applause from his students. It is about an hour I think but I found it interesting: http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cf ... 322&bhcp=1

Hey Kevin, this is a fun debate. I am out of time for a while, however. It's so hard to explain yourself in this format that it requires lots of back and forth, and I'm under a deadline, plus my parents are here.

Have a great New Year!!

[_dartagnan]

You too man. I'm about to leave for a party and then I'm flying to Orlando so I won't be back on for the next day or two anyway.

Happy New Year.

[_EAllusion]

Theories and laws do not differ in how much certainty they enjoy or how testable they are. A theory is a coherent explanatory account of a body of data. A law is a description, usually mathematical, of a pattern in nature that holds true in a set of conditions. Germ theory of disease is a theory despite it being believed with utmost confidence by everyone. Newton's laws are laws despite being explicitly rejected by contemporary physics as inadequate. A theory does not become a law by gaining support. It will stay a theory forever.

As for the rest, there is an awful lot wrong with what you have been saying Kevin. I actually wrote a post about it and lost it. I'll write it again.

[_The Nehor]

A "loving father," for example, does not kill his children because they disobey him.

He might bring them back home and ground them though.

[_EAllusion]

For starters, a few papers:

On why ID in particular and design arguments in general fail (Hint: They don't explain anything):

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what's ... 202007.pdf

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/ID&PRword.PDF

On why ID, as a subschool of creationism, is in effect religion and functions as part of a sociopolitical movement to introduce theist apologetics into public schools in particular and the public consciousness in general:

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/For ... report.pdf

(More than any one other thing, it is what ended the IDists in Dover, by the way)

A detailed, accurate paper on why teaching ID in public schools as valid is unconstitutional

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=590882

[_EAllusion]

The first observation I have of Kevin's writings here is that they continually equate denial of ID with atheism. ID is opposed by theists and atheists alike. Indeed. the vast majority of experts in the relevant fields, regardless of their religious status, reject ID. The major anti-ID players are comprised of a healthy mix of religious and non-religious. Rather than explaining this in terms of the vacuity of ID, Kevin might try to see this as dogma and peer pressure ruling the day. That, after all, is the IDist line. But without getting into that, it seriously undercuts the idea that atheists are denying the force of ID with sketchy cognitive biases that dovetail with their views on religion.

The second observation I have is that "Intelligent Design" is a term generally reserved for a specific body of design arguments that point to the alleged inadequacy of evolutionary theory to explain this or that, followed by an inference to design. This is the ID of Dembski, Behe, Wells, Johnson, Meyer, Pearcey, Nelson, Thaxton, and the rest of the IDists. It is what is the concern of recent legal and cultural battles. When people talk about teaching ID in public schools, that is what they are talking about. Kevin is instead focusing on a cosmic design argument. That's ID/creationism of a sort as well, but it is not Intelligent Design in the sense generally meant in these type of discussions.

The third observation I have is Kevin's curious concession that ID might not be testable, but insistence that the evidence for it is overwhelming. How does ID have evidence in favor of it if it is not testable? Testing is the normal means by which evidence is obtained. Perhaps Kevin sees the word "test" in more narrow, experimental terms, but all a test refers to is the idea that a theory must generate predictions which then can be confirmed or disconfirmed. ID is not testable because it does not generate any predictions beyond saying whatever it is already seeking to explain will exist as it does. That, of course, is trivial. I could say lightning has a property such that it causes eyeballs to exist they way they are, then use the existence of eyeballs as evidence of my magic lightning. It would be no more trivial than defining a designer with the ability and desire to obtain eyeballs as they are, pointing to the existence of eyeballs, then claiming I have shown the designer of eyeballs exists.

Finally, Kevin compares seeing intelligent design in the universe like detecting intelligent design in the Mona Lisa. He could've said "watch" and saved us the trouble, but what traits does the Mona Lisa have that allows for a valid inference of design? How does that transfer over to the universe? Perhaps he'll say it is "complex" perhaps something else. But once that question is answered, I think that is the best way to discuss why such arguments go bad. There's a reason they haven't been taken seriously by academia in over a 150 years and it isn't dogma.

[_Ren]

The problem with the Big Bang is that it still doesn't answer the question of absolute origin,

The Big Bang theory doesn't have to answer teh question of the 'absolute origin'. No more than ID theory actually has to grow a backbone and declare their 'ID'er as their God...
The only people who seem to need the answer of the 'absolute origin' answered are the kind of people who think the answer 'Magic man did it' is an impressive one.

The Big Bang isn't testable? That'll be news to a fair number of scientists, I'm sure.

Exactly :D The easy way to say it isn't testable is to ignore the clear tests that have been done, and continue to be made that confirm it.

Where did Kevin get the idea that Big Bang theory is not testable?

Probably the same place as the idea of a necessary master controller for snowflakes, hurricanes and gravitational forces - to make any sense of anything...

ID is opposed by theists and atheists alike.

Doesn't matter how many times you say this - it will NEVER get through.
Evolution IS an atheist conspiracy. Started by one of the most infamous atheists in history - Charles Darwin!! :D

[_Addictio]

Hi EA:

Nice to see you around these parts. Trenchant observations, above, methinks.

by the way, in the "Public Apology" thread, re DCP, you said:

I always took that as a rationalization for his tendency to run from substantial criticism of his thoughts and behavior from intelligent posters while picking on the less informed and thoughtful ones.

As I remember, the ZLMB thread in which he made the referenced "aw shucks" comment was one in which he had (again)immediately wearied of responding to critical points you were raising. The guy had (has?) an extremely uhm, valuable and well-cultivated persona to present and protect. It's the principal commodity he brings to mb discussions, as you discovered.