Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Intelligent Design useful?

Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 8:44:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

This is a fair question, a good discussion can be found in "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. Some of what you describe above is more technology than science, science arose from a desire to understand the workings of a universe that to most parties was taken as designed.

Science in and of itself doesn't really benefit directly, that comes when other leverage what's been learned. Much of science and has no day to day utility (other than keeping researchers paid).

For example the theories surrounding black holes or the Big Bang have zero utility in our day to day lives - do you not consider them science for that reason?

Harry.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 11:57:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 8:44:10 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

This is a fair question, a good discussion can be found in "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. Some of what you describe above is more technology than science, science arose from a desire to understand the workings of a universe that to most parties was taken as designed.

Science in and of itself doesn't really benefit directly, that comes when other leverage what's been learned. Much of science and has no day to day utility (other than keeping researchers paid).

For example the theories surrounding black holes or the Big Bang have zero utility in our day to day lives - do you not consider them science for that reason?

Harry.

How much classroom time do you think you would need to teach me everything I need to know about ID? It seems such a simple concept that I can't imagine it taking much more than fifteen or twenty minutes.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:17:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 11:57:42 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:44:10 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

This is a fair question, a good discussion can be found in "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. Some of what you describe above is more technology than science, science arose from a desire to understand the workings of a universe that to most parties was taken as designed.

Science in and of itself doesn't really benefit directly, that comes when other leverage what's been learned. Much of science and has no day to day utility (other than keeping researchers paid).

For example the theories surrounding black holes or the Big Bang have zero utility in our day to day lives - do you not consider them science for that reason?

Harry.

How much classroom time do you think you would need to teach me everything I need to know about ID? It seems such a simple concept that I can't imagine it taking much more than fifteen or twenty minutes.

The reason we have ID proponents - many of whom are scientists - isn't to "teach ID" but to teach students to retain an open mind and be aware that science offers no kind of evidence that the universe is naturalistic. In addition ID attempts to show how by insisting on naturalism we are in danger of accepting claims (like we all evolved from bacteria) which are scientifically unsound and are better understood as the result of supernatural creative agencies.

Is there anything wrong in teaching students to critically question prevailing dogma when it comes to studying science?

Harry.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:57:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:17:07 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:57:42 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:44:10 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

This is a fair question, a good discussion can be found in "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. Some of what you describe above is more technology than science, science arose from a desire to understand the workings of a universe that to most parties was taken as designed.

Science in and of itself doesn't really benefit directly, that comes when other leverage what's been learned. Much of science and has no day to day utility (other than keeping researchers paid).

For example the theories surrounding black holes or the Big Bang have zero utility in our day to day lives - do you not consider them science for that reason?

Harry.

How much classroom time do you think you would need to teach me everything I need to know about ID? It seems such a simple concept that I can't imagine it taking much more than fifteen or twenty minutes.

The reason we have ID proponents - many of whom are scientists - isn't to "teach ID" but to teach students to retain an open mind and be aware that science offers no kind of evidence that the universe is naturalistic. In addition ID attempts to show how by insisting on naturalism we are in danger of accepting claims (like we all evolved from bacteria) which are scientifically unsound and are better understood as the result of supernatural creative agencies.

Is there anything wrong in teaching students to critically question prevailing dogma when it comes to studying science?

Harry.

I am not asking whether or not it's OK to teach ID, I just want to know how long it would take you to explain it to me enough so I understand it?
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 9:46:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

Great topic. As far as I am concern ID is one of the greatest inhibitors of gaining knowledge. A main tenet of ID is that there exists a level of complexity than can not arise from the elements in the universe. It even extends to organic compounds and would surmise that it is impossible for organic compounds to arrange themselves into life.

By its very nature it puts limits on what can happen in nature, thus it can never be a methodology or belief that challenges our current knowledge and keeps uncovering more reality.

In short ID gets to a point where it says, "that is impossible", something intelligent had to design it and it stops all investigation.

It is a science blocker designed to match people's preconceived faith. It is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs. It is static when we know that knowledge is very dynamic because we have very limited knowledge. It would be fair to call it propaganda.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 10:30:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
It appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.
Intelligent Design is shaped and funded by religious ideology. Its principle purpose is not scientific but social, and set out in a seminal document called the Wedge Document (1998) from which I quote below [http://ncse.com...]:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. [...]

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.


Put simply, the job of the Discovery Institute and its allies, shills and stooges is to confect the perception of scientific controversy and doubt in key modern scientific results, since such controversy and doubt, if it already existed, could be otherwise reported by science journalists.

The role of ID then is not to advance scientific understanding but to exploit layman ignorance of scientific validation and verification, discrediting scientific rigour and promoting pseudoscience as an overlooked, but bold and visionary alternative to existing ideas. In doing so, it seeks to destroy public faith in scientific accountability, and under some deceitful perception of false equivalence. swing it back toward the unaccountable appeals to authority enjoyed by religious tradition.

So of course it offers nothing practical by way of scientific results, nor even improvements to scientific methodology.

It wasn't designed to.

However, what's interesting is that this cynical attack on the intellectual foundations of secular democracy also offers a test of both law and science communication.

Law is tested, since the conflict demands that jurists understand and appreciate the key role of science in a fair and just society, and protect it from misrepresentation.

And science communication is tested, in that scientists and science journalists must explain the history and ethics of science to people, many of whom never cared enough to study science much past middle school.

Those are significant challenges, but there's a good sign that they're being met. So as corrupt and malignant is the ID initiative, it is nevertheless producing unexpected social benefit in a society that may have grown complacent about science.

I hope that may be of use.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 12:59:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:17:07 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:57:42 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:44:10 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

This is a fair question, a good discussion can be found in "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. Some of what you describe above is more technology than science, science arose from a desire to understand the workings of a universe that to most parties was taken as designed.

Science in and of itself doesn't really benefit directly, that comes when other leverage what's been learned. Much of science and has no day to day utility (other than keeping researchers paid).

For example the theories surrounding black holes or the Big Bang have zero utility in our day to day lives - do you not consider them science for that reason?

Harry.

How much classroom time do you think you would need to teach me everything I need to know about ID? It seems such a simple concept that I can't imagine it taking much more than fifteen or twenty minutes.

The reason we have ID proponents - many of whom are scientists - isn't to "teach ID" but to teach students to retain an open mind and be aware that science offers no kind of evidence that the universe is naturalistic. In addition ID attempts to show how by insisting on naturalism we are in danger of accepting claims (like we all evolved from bacteria) which are scientifically unsound and are better understood as the result of supernatural creative agencies.

Is there anything wrong in teaching students to critically question prevailing dogma when it comes to studying science?

Harry.

Why didn't you answer my question?
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 1:35:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
It would be better if the designed creatures were intelligent, which is something I cannot say for most humans.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 4:13:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 5:57:03 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:17:07 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:57:42 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:44:10 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

This is a fair question, a good discussion can be found in "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. Some of what you describe above is more technology than science, science arose from a desire to understand the workings of a universe that to most parties was taken as designed.

Science in and of itself doesn't really benefit directly, that comes when other leverage what's been learned. Much of science and has no day to day utility (other than keeping researchers paid).

For example the theories surrounding black holes or the Big Bang have zero utility in our day to day lives - do you not consider them science for that reason?

Harry.

How much classroom time do you think you would need to teach me everything I need to know about ID? It seems such a simple concept that I can't imagine it taking much more than fifteen or twenty minutes.

The reason we have ID proponents - many of whom are scientists - isn't to "teach ID" but to teach students to retain an open mind and be aware that science offers no kind of evidence that the universe is naturalistic. In addition ID attempts to show how by insisting on naturalism we are in danger of accepting claims (like we all evolved from bacteria) which are scientifically unsound and are better understood as the result of supernatural creative agencies.

Is there anything wrong in teaching students to critically question prevailing dogma when it comes to studying science?

Harry.

I am not asking whether or not it's OK to teach ID, I just want to know how long it would take you to explain it to me enough so I understand it?

It's not (yet) an established branch of epistemology like physics or chemistry with detailed curriculum and an exam at the end. How long it would take is a function of how much you'd want to cover, for example the idea that the universe is the work of a creative agency runs through history in fact back to the greeks and earlier.

So teaching ID might well include a study of the history of Aristotle's theology and scientific writings and their influence on subsequent culture and science.

So it all depends on the scope, your question is like asking how long would it take to teach math - a day might be enough to introduce integer addition, subtraction, multiplication and division with perhaps another day on fractions etc or another year on algebra and trig etc.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 4:23:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 9:46:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

Great topic. As far as I am concern ID is one of the greatest inhibitors of gaining knowledge. A main tenet of ID is that there exists a level of complexity than can not arise from the elements in the universe. It even extends to organic compounds and would surmise that it is impossible for organic compounds to arrange themselves into life.

Why do you object to this claim being subject to critical analysis?


By its very nature it puts limits on what can happen in nature, thus it can never be a methodology or belief that challenges our current knowledge and keeps uncovering more reality.


There are limits on what can take place in nature, for example these limits in physics are called "the laws of physics" and help ensure your safety when flying in a jet airliner at 35,000 feet.

In short ID gets to a point where it says, "that is impossible", something intelligent had to design it and it stops all investigation.


Well if we did establish that some mechanism cannot be generated naturalistically then what else can one do but consider external intelligence as a contributory factor? You seem to object to ID because you cannot entertain the idea that the universe may not have arisen naturalistically - but it might well have.

It is a science blocker designed to match people's preconceived faith. It is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs. It is static when we know that knowledge is very dynamic because we have very limited knowledge. It would be fair to call it propaganda.

What evidence do you have that the study of ID as a possible explanatory hypothesis is a "science blocker"?

What evidence do you have that it is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs?

In fact what evidence do you have that the universe's presence and continuation is purely the result of naturalistic unthinking forces?

Come on, you're making claims about science so lets have some evidence please.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 4:36:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 10:30:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
It appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.
Intelligent Design is shaped and funded by religious ideology. Its principle purpose is not scientific but social, and set out in a seminal document called the Wedge Document (1998) from which I quote below [http://ncse.com...]:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. [...]

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.


Put simply, the job of the Discovery Institute and its allies, shills and stooges is to confect the perception of scientific controversy and doubt in key modern scientific results, since such controversy and doubt, if it already existed, could be otherwise reported by science journalists.

The role of ID then is not to advance scientific understanding but to exploit layman ignorance of scientific validation and verification, discrediting scientific rigour and promoting pseudoscience as an overlooked, but bold and visionary alternative to existing ideas. In doing so, it seeks to destroy public faith in scientific accountability, and under some deceitful perception of false equivalence. swing it back toward the unaccountable appeals to authority enjoyed by religious tradition.

So of course it offers nothing practical by way of scientific results, nor even improvements to scientific methodology.

It wasn't designed to.

However, what's interesting is that this cynical attack on the intellectual foundations of secular democracy also offers a test of both law and science communication.

Law is tested, since the conflict demands that jurists understand and appreciate the key role of science in a fair and just society, and protect it from misrepresentation.

And science communication is tested, in that scientists and science journalists must explain the history and ethics of science to people, many of whom never cared enough to study science much past middle school.

Those are significant challenges, but there's a good sign that they're being met. So as corrupt and malignant is the ID initiative, it is nevertheless producing unexpected social benefit in a society that may have grown complacent about science.

I hope that may be of use.

There are numerous inaccuracies in what you wrote above (e.g. "it offers nothing practical by way of scientific results" but why should it need to offer anything practical? black hole theory offers nothing practical).

I think you should listen to this lecture on the history of science by David Berlinski, he discusses Galileo and some of the lesser known issues about freedom of expression and freedom of thought that were in effect at that time.

https://www.youtube.com...

He makes a superb case that "modern science" has itself taken on similar attributes to the old Catholic church - only an elite group can dictate truth and daring to question that truth carries a heavy cost.

This is exactly what I see, Berlinski is correct (and cites a great deal of historical evidence for his case) materialism and atheism are now established dogma - not based on evidence but on fear.

Harry.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 4:43:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 9:46:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

Great topic. As far as I am concern ID is one of the greatest inhibitors of gaining knowledge. A main tenet of ID is that there exists a level of complexity than can not arise from the elements in the universe. It even extends to organic compounds and would surmise that it is impossible for organic compounds to arrange themselves into life.

An exception is, of course, made for intelligent life forms, which are capable of design intelligently in turn. Humans are intelligent and thus it stands to reason that humans can design.

By its very nature it puts limits on what can happen in nature, thus it can never be a methodology or belief that challenges our current knowledge and keeps uncovering more reality.

By very nature Evolution limits how the Universe could've formed (it couldn't have been a designer! It must've been all natural!), thus it can never be a methodology or belief that challenges our current knowledge and keeps uncovering more reality.

In short ID gets to a point where it says, "that is impossible", something intelligent had to design it and it stops all investigation.

It could be said likewise that the alternative to ID posits that life must've developed naturally and without a designer, thus stopping all honest investigation into what actually happened.

It is a science blocker designed to match people's preconceived faith. It is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs. It is static when we know that knowledge is very dynamic because we have very limited knowledge. It would be fair to call it propaganda.

Evolution is a science blocker designed to match atheists' preconceived faith. It is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs. It is static when we know that knowledge is very dynamic because we have very limited knowledge. It would be fair to call it propaganda.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 4:46:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will evolution bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will evolution bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will evolution bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will Evolution bring us a better understanding of our Universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

Will evolution bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:07:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 4:23:35 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:46:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

Great topic. As far as I am concern ID is one of the greatest inhibitors of gaining knowledge. A main tenet of ID is that there exists a level of complexity than can not arise from the elements in the universe. It even extends to organic compounds and would surmise that it is impossible for organic compounds to arrange themselves into life.

Why do you object to this claim being subject to critical analysis?

Why put limits on something you can't possibly know to be true?

By its very nature it puts limits on what can happen in nature, thus it can never be a methodology or belief that challenges our current knowledge and keeps uncovering more reality.


There are limits on what can take place in nature, for example these limits in physics are called "the laws of physics" and help ensure your safety when flying in a jet airliner at 35,000 feet.

Let's be honest. you and I don't know where the limits are.

In short ID gets to a point where it says, "that is impossible", something intelligent had to design it and it stops all investigation.


Well if we did establish that some mechanism cannot be generated naturalistically then what else can one do but consider external intelligence as a contributory factor? You seem to object to ID because you cannot entertain the idea that the universe may not have arisen naturalistically - but it might well have.

You can consider it, but considering it and believing it with "faith" are two different things. When it becomes faith is stops all other investigations.

It is a science blocker designed to match people's preconceived faith. It is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs. It is static when we know that knowledge is very dynamic because we have very limited knowledge. It would be fair to call it propaganda.

What evidence do you have that the study of ID as a possible explanatory hypothesis is a "science blocker"?

The evidence is that ID proponents do not propose studies or gather resources to advance scientific understanding of how aboiogenisis may have happened. By its very nature it is not a exploratory type of belief. it is a knowledge blocker belief.

What evidence do you have that it is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs?

In fact what evidence do you have that the universe's presence and continuation is purely the result of naturalistic unthinking forces?

You miss the point I believe is spending human resource and physical resource to define the nature of the world. ID is a blocking belief that would state it is silly to spend money and people's time investigating the posibility of very complex things that the ID'er had to do.

Come on, you're making claims about science so lets have some evidence please.

I'm not making any claim upon science other than ID is not science and it is a belief that inhibits science rather than advancing it.

Harry.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:12:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 4:43:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:46:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

Great topic. As far as I am concern ID is one of the greatest inhibitors of gaining knowledge. A main tenet of ID is that there exists a level of complexity than can not arise from the elements in the universe. It even extends to organic compounds and would surmise that it is impossible for organic compounds to arrange themselves into life.

An exception is, of course, made for intelligent life forms, which are capable of design intelligently in turn. Humans are intelligent and thus it stands to reason that humans can design.

By its very nature it puts limits on what can happen in nature, thus it can never be a methodology or belief that challenges our current knowledge and keeps uncovering more reality.

By very nature Evolution limits how the Universe could've formed (it couldn't have been a designer! It must've been all natural!), thus it can never be a methodology or belief that challenges our current knowledge and keeps uncovering more reality.

In short ID gets to a point where it says, "that is impossible", something intelligent had to design it and it stops all investigation.

It could be said likewise that the alternative to ID posits that life must've developed naturally and without a designer, thus stopping all honest investigation into what actually happened.

It is a science blocker designed to match people's preconceived faith. It is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs. It is static when we know that knowledge is very dynamic because we have very limited knowledge. It would be fair to call it propaganda.

Evolution is a science blocker designed to match atheists' preconceived faith. It is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs. It is static when we know that knowledge is very dynamic because we have very limited knowledge. It would be fair to call it propaganda.

For f's sake. How may times do we have to go through this. Evolution is not a science blocker. It is a theory that describes how life changes over time. The proper way to believe in evolution or any science is to have healthy skepticism and a understanding that the belief has to change as further information is uncovered. Can ID say that about itself? No, it can't.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:39:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

ID isn't an explanatory theory, in that there is nothing that has thus far come from the ID camp that has described the way in which reality works. It is almost universally dedicated to trying to preclude all other explanations, rather than to positively demonstrate a designer.

If you do not have a theory that describes how reality works; there is no aspect of reality, as yet unknown, that can be exploited as a result. Therefore, it's not that ID doesn't have any practical benefit, it's that it can't, by definition have any practical benefit.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2016 8:08:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 5:07:25 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/1/2016 4:23:35 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:46:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

Great topic. As far as I am concern ID is one of the greatest inhibitors of gaining knowledge. A main tenet of ID is that there exists a level of complexity than can not arise from the elements in the universe. It even extends to organic compounds and would surmise that it is impossible for organic compounds to arrange themselves into life.

Why do you object to this claim being subject to critical analysis?

Why put limits on something you can't possibly know to be true?

By its very nature it puts limits on what can happen in nature, thus it can never be a methodology or belief that challenges our current knowledge and keeps uncovering more reality.


There are limits on what can take place in nature, for example these limits in physics are called "the laws of physics" and help ensure your safety when flying in a jet airliner at 35,000 feet.

Let's be honest. you and I don't know where the limits are.

Well recall this whole discussion about limits began when I questioned the assumption that small scale adaptations in biology can account for large scale morphological diversity. I then pointed out that biological systems exhibit a host of self limiting behaviors - blood pressure, oxygentaion levels, physical size, all of these are restricted, limited by the systems themselves - now you tell me how you "know" that natural selection is not limited? Can you prove this please?


In short ID gets to a point where it says, "that is impossible", something intelligent had to design it and it stops all investigation.


Well if we did establish that some mechanism cannot be generated naturalistically then what else can one do but consider external intelligence as a contributory factor? You seem to object to ID because you cannot entertain the idea that the universe may not have arisen naturalistically - but it might well have.

You can consider it, but considering it and believing it with "faith" are two different things. When it becomes faith is stops all other investigations.

But every scientist bases their worldview on faith - axioms - assumption. Many scientists are naturalists (that is they assume the forces of nature alone can account for the observed universe) and many scientists are supernaturalists (they assume that these forces alone cannot account for what is observed). You (and many here) seem to be under the naive impression that it is only the theist that has faith but the atheist too has faith - whichever schools of thought you belong to there's no escaping the fact your worldview IS based on faith in something - if you deny this (or if you were unaware) then it demonstrates very well how little you really understand about science, what it amounts to and its history.


It is a science blocker designed to match people's preconceived faith. It is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs. It is static when we know that knowledge is very dynamic because we have very limited knowledge. It would be fair to call it propaganda.

What evidence do you have that the study of ID as a possible explanatory hypothesis is a "science blocker"?

The evidence is that ID proponents do not propose studies or gather resources to advance scientific understanding of how aboiogenisis may have happened. By its very nature it is not a exploratory type of belief. it is a knowledge blocker belief.

What do you mean by "knowledge blocker" what is such a thing? ID is simply the hypothesis that there are some structures and mechanisms in nature that appear to have been designed and that in fact they may well have been designed. Perhaps you're unaware but the vast majority of scientific thinkers as far back as the greeks (and before) all had no problem with this idea, in fact man y of them considered it almost obvious that the universe has been designed and took delight in discovering how it functions.

You speak of ID as if its a threat of some kind, why? who is threatened? what terrible fate will befall mankind by considering ID?


What evidence do you have that it is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs?

In fact what evidence do you have that the universe's presence and continuation is purely the result of naturalistic unthinking forces?

You miss the point I believe is spending human resource and physical resource to define the nature of the world. ID is a blocking belief that would state it is silly to spend money and people's time investigating the posibility of very complex things that the ID'er had to do.

I dont understand what that paragraph means, I'm sorry but its jumbled. Let me ask again - for this is key - what evidence do you have that the observed universe is purely the result of naturalistic forces? I'll tell you shall I? NONE, there is no evidence so why do insist on promulgating a view of nature that is not based on evidence?


Come on, you're making claims about science so lets have some evidence please.

I'm not making any claim upon science other than ID is not science and it is a belief that inhibits science rather than advancing it.

Evidence? examples? anything???


Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2016 8:18:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 5:39:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

ID isn't an explanatory theory, in that there is nothing that has thus far come from the ID camp that has described the way in which reality works. It is almost universally dedicated to trying to preclude all other explanations, rather than to positively demonstrate a designer.

If you do not have a theory that describes how reality works; there is no aspect of reality, as yet unknown, that can be exploited as a result. Therefore, it's not that ID doesn't have any practical benefit, it's that it can't, by definition have any practical benefit.

This short video from the near the end of a discussion about ID - between Lawrence Krauss (an outspoken atheist and theoretical physicist) and David Berlinski (a well known agnostic, historian of science and a mathematician) is worth listening too - its not very long.

Note how Krauss (not known for hesitation or pussyfooting around) is put on the back foot when confronted by someone with the intellectual credentials of Berlinski:

https://www.youtube.com...

Sadly I cant find the whole debate/discussion - I'd love to watch it all.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2016 10:41:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/2/2016 8:18:19 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2016 5:39:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

ID isn't an explanatory theory, in that there is nothing that has thus far come from the ID camp that has described the way in which reality works. It is almost universally dedicated to trying to preclude all other explanations, rather than to positively demonstrate a designer.

If you do not have a theory that describes how reality works; there is no aspect of reality, as yet unknown, that can be exploited as a result. Therefore, it's not that ID doesn't have any practical benefit, it's that it can't, by definition have any practical benefit.

This short video from the near the end of a discussion about ID - between Lawrence Krauss (an outspoken atheist and theoretical physicist) and David Berlinski (a well known agnostic, historian of science and a mathematician) is worth listening too - its not very long.

Note how Krauss (not known for hesitation or pussyfooting around) is put on the back foot when confronted by someone with the intellectual credentials of Berlinski:

https://www.youtube.com...

Sadly I cant find the whole debate/discussion - I'd love to watch it all.


Harry.

LOL. Seems more that Krauss is taken aback by David Berlinski's staggering idiocy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2016 11:23:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

ID might actually bring us new discoveries in science. Given that everything was designed, we might be able to figure some things out about how it was made.
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2016 11:24:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/2/2016 8:18:19 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2016 5:39:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

ID isn't an explanatory theory, in that there is nothing that has thus far come from the ID camp that has described the way in which reality works. It is almost universally dedicated to trying to preclude all other explanations, rather than to positively demonstrate a designer.

If you do not have a theory that describes how reality works; there is no aspect of reality, as yet unknown, that can be exploited as a result. Therefore, it's not that ID doesn't have any practical benefit, it's that it can't, by definition have any practical benefit.

This short video from the near the end of a discussion about ID - between Lawrence Krauss (an outspoken atheist and theoretical physicist) and David Berlinski (a well known agnostic, historian of science and a mathematician) is worth listening too - its not very long.

Note how Krauss (not known for hesitation or pussyfooting around) is put on the back foot when confronted by someone with the intellectual credentials of Berlinski:

https://www.youtube.com...

Sadly I cant find the whole debate/discussion - I'd love to watch it all.


Harry.

You spend way too much time on youtube and not enough actually writing out what your arguments are.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 3:11:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/2/2016 8:08:50 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2016 5:07:25 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/1/2016 4:23:35 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:46:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

Great topic. As far as I am concern ID is one of the greatest inhibitors of gaining knowledge. A main tenet of ID is that there exists a level of complexity than can not arise from the elements in the universe. It even extends to organic compounds and would surmise that it is impossible for organic compounds to arrange themselves into life.

Why do you object to this claim being subject to critical analysis?

Why put limits on something you can't possibly know to be true?

By its very nature it puts limits on what can happen in nature, thus it can never be a methodology or belief that challenges our current knowledge and keeps uncovering more reality.


There are limits on what can take place in nature, for example these limits in physics are called "the laws of physics" and help ensure your safety when flying in a jet airliner at 35,000 feet.

Let's be honest. you and I don't know where the limits are.

Well recall this whole discussion about limits began when I questioned the assumption that small scale adaptations in biology can account for large scale morphological diversity. I then pointed out that biological systems exhibit a host of self limiting behaviors - blood pressure, oxygentaion levels, physical size, all of these are restricted, limited by the systems themselves - now you tell me how you "know" that natural selection is not limited? Can you prove this please?


In short ID gets to a point where it says, "that is impossible", something intelligent had to design it and it stops all investigation.


Well if we did establish that some mechanism cannot be generated naturalistically then what else can one do but consider external intelligence as a contributory factor? You seem to object to ID because you cannot entertain the idea that the universe may not have arisen naturalistically - but it might well have.

You can consider it, but considering it and believing it with "faith" are two different things. When it becomes faith is stops all other investigations.

But every scientist bases their worldview on faith - axioms - assumption. Many scientists are naturalists (that is they assume the forces of nature alone can account for the observed universe) and many scientists are supernaturalists (they assume that these forces alone cannot account for what is observed). You (and many here) seem to be under the naive impression that it is only the theist that has faith but the atheist too has faith - whichever schools of thought you belong to there's no escaping the fact your worldview IS based on faith in something - if you deny this (or if you were unaware) then it demonstrates very well how little you really understand about science, what it amounts to and its history.


It is a science blocker designed to match people's preconceived faith. It is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs. It is static when we know that knowledge is very dynamic because we have very limited knowledge. It would be fair to call it propaganda.

What evidence do you have that the study of ID as a possible explanatory hypothesis is a "science blocker"?

The evidence is that ID proponents do not propose studies or gather resources to advance scientific understanding of how aboiogenisis may have happened. By its very nature it is not a exploratory type of belief. it is a knowledge blocker belief.

What do you mean by "knowledge blocker" what is such a thing? ID is simply the hypothesis that there are some structures and mechanisms in nature that appear to have been designed and that in fact they may well have been designed. Perhaps you're unaware but the vast majority of scientific thinkers as far back as the greeks (and before) all had no problem with this idea, in fact man y of them considered it almost obvious that the universe has been designed and took delight in discovering how it functions.

You speak of ID as if its a threat of some kind, why? who is threatened? what terrible fate will befall mankind by considering ID?


What evidence do you have that it is designed to protect belief not uncover new beliefs?

In fact what evidence do you have that the universe's presence and continuation is purely the result of naturalistic unthinking forces?

You miss the point I believe is spending human resource and physical resource to define the nature of the world. ID is a blocking belief that would state it is silly to spend money and people's time investigating the posibility of very complex things that the ID'er had to do.

I dont understand what that paragraph means, I'm sorry but its jumbled. Let me ask again - for this is key - what evidence do you have that the observed universe is purely the result of naturalistic forces? I'll tell you shall I? NONE, there is no evidence so why do insist on promulgating a view of nature that is not based on evidence?


Come on, you're making claims about science so lets have some evidence please.

I'm not making any claim upon science other than ID is not science and it is a belief that inhibits science rather than advancing it.

Evidence? examples? anything???

I already gave an example, which is the complete lack of any contribution to understanding how life functions. Give me one scientific study that ID has completed to explain cellular functioning. Notice they use existing studies from people who don't put silly limits on understanding how life works or how it might change overtime based upon a silly notion that something is complex. How exactly can you claim something is too complex before you even understand how it functions? ID is a knowledge blocker.


Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 8:18:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/2/2016 8:18:19 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2016 5:39:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

ID isn't an explanatory theory, in that there is nothing that has thus far come from the ID camp that has described the way in which reality works. It is almost universally dedicated to trying to preclude all other explanations, rather than to positively demonstrate a designer.

If you do not have a theory that describes how reality works; there is no aspect of reality, as yet unknown, that can be exploited as a result. Therefore, it's not that ID doesn't have any practical benefit, it's that it can't, by definition have any practical benefit.

This short video from the near the end of a discussion about ID - between Lawrence Krauss (an outspoken atheist and theoretical physicist) and David Berlinski (a well known agnostic, historian of science and a mathematician) is worth listening too - its not very long.

Note how Krauss (not known for hesitation or pussyfooting around) is put on the back foot when confronted by someone with the intellectual credentials of Berlinski:

https://www.youtube.com...

Sadly I cant find the whole debate/discussion - I'd love to watch it all.


Harry.

Aside from this having absolutely nothing to do with anything I just said; everything he said is still effectively the argument from ignorance that typifies almost every single argument of ID:

"It is almost universally dedicated to trying to preclude all other explanations, rather than to positively demonstrate a designer."

All of them are based either of "omg evolution is wrong, therefore design," or "things are complex", trying to rule out not-design without the information and data in order to be able to do that. As Krauss pointed out in a roundabout way, it's coming to a data shoehorned into a conclusion rather than a conclusion drawn from the data.

Indeed, the only examples where the quantification of how you can tell information is designed: Dembski's CSI spetactularly backfired when it was pointed out that information matching the definition of CSI can be generated by evolutionary processes without intelligent intervention!
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 7:09:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/2/2016 11:23:10 PM, distraff wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

ID might actually bring us new discoveries in science. Given that everything was designed, we might be able to figure some things out about how it was made.

I have been asking the question is ID useful for about five years in various comments section's and forums on the internet and so far the absolute best anybody can do is to say ID may bring us new discoveries we just haven't figured out what yet.

I'm sorry, but you are going to need to do better than that.
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 7:24:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 7:09:23 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/2/2016 11:23:10 PM, distraff wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

ID might actually bring us new discoveries in science. Given that everything was designed, we might be able to figure some things out about how it was made.

I have been asking the question is ID useful for about five years in various comments section's and forums on the internet and so far the absolute best anybody can do is to say ID may bring us new discoveries we just haven't figured out what yet.

I'm sorry, but you are going to need to do better than that.

You asked if ID will bring us new discoveries in science. If true, it probably will because it will completely transform science. You may not think that is good enough but it is what you asked for.

Plus, these other discoveries may have practical applications. Not all discoveries have practical application. Learning about some new cave species may not really be useful at all, except that it helps us learn about the world.

So I can only conclude that this attack you are making against ID is one of the worst I have ever seen.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 8:11:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 7:24:47 PM, distraff wrote:
At 1/3/2016 7:09:23 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/2/2016 11:23:10 PM, distraff wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

ID might actually bring us new discoveries in science. Given that everything was designed, we might be able to figure some things out about how it was made.

I have been asking the question is ID useful for about five years in various comments section's and forums on the internet and so far the absolute best anybody can do is to say ID may bring us new discoveries we just haven't figured out what yet.

I'm sorry, but you are going to need to do better than that.

You asked if ID will bring us new discoveries in science. If true, it probably will because it will completely transform science. You may not think that is good enough but it is what you asked for.

Plus, these other discoveries may have practical applications. Not all discoveries have practical application. Learning about some new cave species may not really be useful at all, except that it helps us learn about the world.

So I can only conclude that this attack you are making against ID is one of the worst I have ever seen.

How is me asking the question an attack?

If I seem a little surly I am sorry, but not a single person has ever had an answer and I am getting F ing frustrated.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 9:49:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 4:13:23 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/31/2015 5:57:03 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:17:07 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:57:42 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:44:10 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:31:57 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I have been looking (for quite some time) for something that tells me how ID is useful to humans and science, but I can't find anything anywhere that states how ID can forward science or humankind and I am getting a little frustrated.

This is a problem for me because ultimately it appears that ID has no practical benefit and I think that is its greatest failing, but no one seems to be interested in that question.

Will ID bring us the next new miracle drug?

Will ID bring us new discoveries in science?

Will ID bring us new technology?

Will ID bring us a better understanding of our universe?

Will ID bring us a better computer?

The answer is no to all of the above, so far there are no documented cases of ID research contributing to any new scientific discovery or that it does anything useful at all.

Science has uses, it can be used to explain, predict, create or modify most of the things we use all the time as well as providing us with countless useful discoveries, but as far as I can tell at this point ID does not and probably never will.

This is a fair question, a good discussion can be found in "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. Some of what you describe above is more technology than science, science arose from a desire to understand the workings of a universe that to most parties was taken as designed.

Science in and of itself doesn't really benefit directly, that comes when other leverage what's been learned. Much of science and has no day to day utility (other than keeping researchers paid).

For example the theories surrounding black holes or the Big Bang have zero utility in our day to day lives - do you not consider them science for that reason?

Harry.

How much classroom time do you think you would need to teach me everything I need to know about ID? It seems such a simple concept that I can't imagine it taking much more than fifteen or twenty minutes.

The reason we have ID proponents - many of whom are scientists - isn't to "teach ID" but to teach students to retain an open mind and be aware that science offers no kind of evidence that the universe is naturalistic. In addition ID attempts to show how by insisting on naturalism we are in danger of accepting claims (like we all evolved from bacteria) which are scientifically unsound and are better understood as the result of supernatural creative agencies.

Is there anything wrong in teaching students to critically question prevailing dogma when it comes to studying science?

Harry.

I am not asking whether or not it's OK to teach ID, I just want to know how long it would take you to explain it to me enough so I understand it?

It's not (yet) an established branch of epistemology like physics or chemistry with detailed curriculum and an exam at the end. How long it would take is a function of how much you'd want to cover, for example the idea that the universe is the work of a creative agency runs through history in fact back to the greeks and earlier.

So teaching ID might well include a study of the history of Aristotle's theology and scientific writings and their influence on subsequent culture and science.

So it all depends on the scope, your question is like asking how long would it take to teach math - a day might be enough to introduce integer addition, subtraction, multiplication and division with perhaps another day on fractions etc or another year on algebra and trig etc.

Harry.

A one minute speech read to students at school was all that the creationists in Dover, Pennsylvania needed and I agree with them. ID is so easy to understand that only mentally retarded people would not understand it.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 10:46:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Watch the woman speaking from about 58 minutes in, it's pretty short so you won't get board.

https://www.youtube.com...

It's a pretty good documentary too.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 12:38:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Some of the posts in this thread are really ridiculous. No (respectable) intelligent design advocate is telling people to stop investigating abiogenesis and other naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms -- all they're saying is that we should seriously consider the idea that naturalistic mechanisms may be impossible in some cases. Just because it would reduce the scope for future discovery doesn't mean that it's somehow an inherently negative idea; that sort of thinking is incredibly naive, and represents the pinnacle of wishful thinking interfering with honest inquiry. If science is to remain scientific, it must treat all propositions equally, including the proposition that naturalism (the current paradigm of most scientists) may be false.
Call me King Pootie Tang.