Paranoia - Ben Stein - Evolution & No Intelligence FOUND

[_LCD2YOU]

ID never had a leg to stand on. At best it was a mere Postulate, never reaching anything even cose to an Hypothesis. To call it a Theory would be a gross mis-representation at best.

There were four things that the Postulate of ID relied on:

1: That there is a desgn to life. So far, the ID side has no way or even an idea on how to test a "designed" system, from an "ad hoc" arraigment.

2: The there is an intelligence behind the design. The "designer(s)" could have been drunk, insan, blind or just plain mean - note the artery that the human heart relies on.

3: The number and details of the designers(s). This was left out for one purpose: To not identify the speaker's god.

4: The wink and a nod from #3 that, "This was not about supernatural anything, we won't talk about it", bs as not to appear to be religious.

For those who want to know "Postulate" is basically an idea. "Hypothesis" is a "Postulate" that has undergone more thought and has possible tests of challenges it needs to make predictions. A "Theory" is a "Hypothesis" that has undergone these tests and the predictions it made panned out.

[_Moniker]

2: The there is an intelligence behind the design. The "designer(s)" could have been drunk, insan, blind or just plain mean - note the artery that the human heart relies on.

Umhum, this is what gives me the most pause, really. I'm thinking it was a combo of a mean drunk.

[_Moniker]

From the thread on the Ensign Article:

Church education and the ID debate are separate issues. ID simply isn't science. If ID had merit, then equal time would have its place.

This is scientistic propaganda, and is nothing more that a debate avoidance tactic. ID is both a philosophical and scientific critique of Darwinian principles. Its devastating effects are well represented in both the hysteria and well poisoning of Darwinian fundamentalists in opposing any serious confrontation with it. Claiming that it isn't science is a dance; ID theorists are working to create plausible theories of intelligent intervention in nature, and, in the mean time, nothing precludes bright people with degrees in biology, mathematics, and physics from criticizing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has no inherent right to immunity from criticism because such criticism isn't explicitly postulating a counter theory at that particular time. Pointing out the holes and inconsistencies is quite sufficient, and unless problems can be addressed, whining that ID critics have no alternative theory only masks the fact that the criticisms have are lodged in the tissues of the theory. Most of what passes for critique of ID is really just scientists with a vested interest in the status quo performing a gate keeping function for an orthodoxy.

The universe is not a great machine, but a great thought, as Jeans said. Darwinism doesn't come close to actually explaining the development of life except in explicitly limited mechanistic terms, which it very well may do nicely. Origins are completely outside its purview, as is teleology, which its major proponents traditionally deny.

The best ID theory doesn't want to destroy evolutionary theory, just bring its head out of the clouds.

[_Moniker]

Church education and the ID debate are separate issues. ID simply isn't science. If ID had merit, then equal time would have its place.

This is scientistic propaganda, and is nothing more that a debate avoidance tactic.

No, it's more of a summary of a conclusion reached after a lot of thought and debate. See Moniker's thread. I don't simply dismiss ID. I think it might have merit in the future. It simply doesn't have merit at this time. Perhaps I should have been more clear in stating ID simply isn't science at this point in time. If the time comes that ID has merit, then it should be given its place in science classes.

Pointing out the holes and inconsistencies is quite sufficient

I agree with you there. I simply don't think ID currently has any holes to point out. It can point to abiogenesis, but that is not yet a part of science as far as I can tell. However, a criticism of evolution does not mean that a designer did it. Science requires more evidence than just "we can't think of any other way". Science requires predictions. Perhaps the ID movement will come up with a hypothesis that makes predictions and have those predictions validated. If it does, then ID will become science. At this time, however, this has not occurred.

For more debate on the matter, please take it to Moniker's thread on Ben Stein's movie.

[_Moniker]

The best ID theory doesn't want to destroy evolutionary theory, just bring its head out of the clouds.

Huh. Can you go into more detail in the Ben Stein thread? I'd love to hear you muse on the theory of evolution being in the clouds vs where ID is.

Evolutionary theory has traditionally been invoked as an explanation for the origin of organic life on earth, its development, the development of consciousness, mind, and intelligence, and from hence, all human civilization.

Evolution, at its best, explains the origin and development of species, at which point its explanatory power ceases. Any claims for evolution beyond a mechanical, cause and effect explanatory framework delineating the empirically ascertainable developmental dynamics of biological life is scientism, which is a religion in its own right and who's head is in the clouds along with all other forms of scientistic metaphysical assumption masquerading as the conclusions of science.

CFR on origins. I keep seeing that stated -- I don't know why? Evolution is only linked by creationists, usually, as explaining the origin of life. Please read up on abiogenesis.

Okay, I don't even understand your second paragraph -- it reads as such to me "evolution blabblity myth, myth -- blabbity blabbity blabbity religion blabbity blabbity science blabbity blabbity."

Evolution explains the change of organisms over time! It's not that complex -- well it is, but if you're like me and get the Cliff Notes version and some Dennett you'll be halfway there! You want to take the theory and make greater claims than evolutionists do!

[_Ren]

Evolutionary theory has traditionally been invoked as an explanation for the origin of organic life on earth

Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of organic life on earth.
It does claim to explain the diversity and complexity of it.

its development

True

the development of consciousness, mind, and intelligence, and from hence, all human civilization

Essentially true. Since it can be argued that humans are 'self-aware' to an extent other creatures aren't, it's arguable how much we are just 'making up' for ourselves at this point. Overall, I'd say we still generally follow evolutionary programming to a great degree.

Evolution, at its best, explains the origin and development of species, at which point its explanatory power ceases. Any claims for evolution beyond a mechanical, cause and effect explanatory framework delineating the empirically ascertainable developmental dynamics of biological life is scientism, which is a religion in its own right and who's head is in the clouds along with all other forms of scientistic metaphysical assumption masquerading as the conclusions of science.

EDIT: Actually, reading this again - I'm pretty sure I agree with the the above!
It's typically 'wordy', but the important part is here:

Any claims for evolution beyond a mechanical, cause and effect explanatory framework delineating the empirically ascertainable developmental dynamics of biological life is scientism

I agree! Evolution IS a mechanical - cause and effect - explanatory framework delineating the empirically ascertainable developmental dynamics of biological life.
...and anybody that claims anything 'beyond' this would be going 'too far'.

...so then the remaining question is - who, in your mind - DOES claim more? In a scientific sense?

People who claim it explains the 'origins of life itself'? If so - correct. But then - who does this...?

[_Ren]

As far as ID - I've bent over backwards to give 'some' credit to ID in this thread. (And taken a bit of flak for it too! Heh).
I agree that anybody has the right to criticise evolution. That would (if done properly) be perfectly valid science. And I've been trying to make that point very clear in this thread.

However, you DON'T have the right to:

* Try and claim that 'bad' attempts to criticise evolution are actually 'good' attempts. (In a scientific sense).
* Try and claim yourself to be an 'opposing theory', when the proposal you are forwarding doesn't actually meet the requirements of a scientific theory. (i.e. it's one thing to criticise an existing theory, but it's quite something else to say you are putting forward a competing one. They aren't the same thing...).

I would ask you to list - clearly and distinctly - any scientific arguments or points ID have made that you feel have been strong scientific arguments, but I'd be afraid of another copy and paste session - rather than your own understanding of the issues involved...

[_Moniker]

Bumping! It comes out on the 18th!

[_Tarski]

The irreducible complexity idea is probably the closest they come to a rigorous model, but it falls well short when it becomes merely a cataloguing of things they claim couldn't have evolved. These are "intuitive" attempts at disproving evolution. The problem is that intuition isn't acceptable as a standard of proof in science. That's why their ID arguments aren't properly even a scientific topic.

Actually, I'd say you've got to give them a little more credit than this. (Not a whole lot more, but a little bit more).

They didn't just claim 'This thing couldn't have evolved', and then leave it at that. They made a very specific claim. They claimed 'Irreducable Complexity' to be a very specific, objective catagorisation, that could be described thus:

'If any single part is removed from the 'system', then the system ceases to function'..)

Unfortunately there are two problems with that.
1. It does not logically follow that an irreducibly complex thing cannot have evolved. The reason is that the history of its evolution may have had redundancy.
So the whole thing is still born.
2. They have proven that they cannot identify something that could not have evolved since several of their main examples have been debunked (they not only could have evolved but logical pathways have been proposed).

[_marg]

A quote from this site http://www.expelledexposed.com/

The National Center for Science Education will be posting our full response to the Ben Stein movie Expelled on this site on April 15; for now, we hope you will find this collection of resources helpful.