Taking emergence really seriously

Iyace said:
Care to outline the major points of why ID is not genuine scientific inquiry?

Sorry I had to repeat it, but you evaded my question. I didn't ask why it's not a legitimate proposal ( I don't think it is ), or why we shouldn't accept it ( I don't think we should ). I just asked why it wouldn't be a topic that should be inquired about scientifically.
Click to expand...
Well the fact that university biology departments around the world consider ID 'not genuine scientific inquiry' might give a person pause.

Let me guess, all these profs are just dumb sheeple taken in by the conspiracy?
 
malf said:
For clarity, are you either:

a. Denying random mutations occur? or

b. Denying that they can add complexity?

I'll address this generally to supporters of Michael's view, as I think he has me on 'ignore'...
Click to expand...

From what I've read the problem is that random mutation seems insufficient to produce all the varied complexity of life given the vast field of possibilities.

So basically trying to get something like a scorpion's stinger from random mutation alone in the expected time frame faces very high odds of success.
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
From what I've read the problem is that random mutation seems insufficient to produce all the varied complexity of life given the vast field of possibilities.

So basically trying to get something like a scorpion's stinger from random mutation alone in the expected time frame faces very high odds of success.
Click to expand...
Oh ok. Incredulity.
 
The real issue is that atheist-skeptics are lost in their ability to explain how the physics constants are set, how the physics laws are implemented. For all practical purposes, it looks like God did it because God has access to the very laws of physics themselves, to write them, to modify them, to change physics constants. Physicists have no understanding of how these things are implemented. Universe from nothing explanation is a Jedi mind trick.
 
malf said:
Oh ok. Incredulity.
Click to expand...

Well that's part of it. There's also - apparently - a lack of forms that would be explain bifurcation in the fossil record.

I'd suggest at least reading Larkin's summary of Darwin's Doubt. I'm reading the book now, and over time hope to discuss the varied sections of the book in that thread.

I think trying to prove God be finding issues with the current theory is impossible. However, that doesn't mean the proposed flaws in the current theory are in definitively in error.
 
ghost said:
The real issue is that atheist-skeptics are lost in their ability to explain how the physics constants are set, how the physics laws are implemented. For all practical purposes, it looks like God did it because God has access to the very laws of physics themselves, to write them, to modify them, to change physics constants. Physicists have no understanding of how these things are implemented. Universe from nothing explanation is a Jedi mind trick.
Click to expand...

God did it is a 'god-of-the-gaps' and is illogical. Who created the god? All it does is push back the problem, if you are talking about the biblical man in the sky.
 
malf said:
Well the fact that university biology departments around the world consider ID 'not genuine scientific inquiry' might give a person pause.

Let me guess, all these profs are just dumb sheeple taken in by the conspiracy?
Click to expand...
I'll repeat it to you, since you seem to be missing a neuron or so:

Care to outline the major points of why ID is not genuine scientific inquiry?

Let's see your major point so far:

the fact that university biology departments around the world consider ID 'not genuine scientific inquiry'
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think any university would NOT consider ID genuine scientific inquiry. I just don't think they accept the proposition based on a lack of evidence. The proposal, however, is just as genuine as any other scientific activity. They're formulating a hypothesis that tests whether or not certain factors of evolution could be influenced by intelligence. I understand this may be hard for you given your defects, but you're really going to have to offer an argument before you contest.
 
radicalpolitik said:
God did it is a 'god-of-the-gaps' and is illogical. Who created the god? All it does is push back the problem, if you are talking about the biblical man in the sky.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if it's logical. It's about "what works". I want results, something of value, not a bunch of lame excuses about how, "sorry it came from nothing, there's no hope for you." That's what I can't stand about the atheist-cynical point of view. Instead of worrying about where God came from (which is the height of laziness) why don't you figure out how the laws of physics are implemented so that we won't have to rely upon God. There is no reason why the physics constants should be fixed, other than it being a dictate of God.

By implemented, I don't mean what they are. I mean how are they physically implemented. Is it programming, is it written in aetheric stone? What determines what the standard model particles have to be. Can we create our own bosons and fermions? is that a "God power" too? Or is there some deeper physics we don't know about?
 
Iyace said:
Well, I don't think any university would NOT consider ID genuine scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

I mentioned biology departments, not theology ;)

Care to outline the major points of why ID is not genuine scientific inquiry?
Click to expand...
I just don't think they accept the proposition based on a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

You may have partly answered your own question here. But, in some ways your right I guess... You could pull any claim out of your butt and say, "give me a reason why that shouldn't be scientifically investigated!". So well done! Your question/demand is probably unanswerable.

Fewer ad homs would lend you more credibility, btw.
 
ghost said:
It doesn't matter if it's logical. It's about "what works". I want results, something of value, not a bunch of lame excuses about how, "sorry it came from nothing, there's no hope for you." That's what I can't stand about the atheist-cynical point of view. Instead of worrying about where God came from (which is the height of laziness) why don't you figure out how the laws of physics are implemented so that we won't have to rely upon God. There is no reason why the physics constants should be fixed, other than it being a dictate of God.
Click to expand...

Actually Josephson proposes observer-participancy as the source of these laws, basically taking up Wheeler suggesting eternal cycles as an alternative to infinite regress in need of a First Cause. Here's the paper & video.

He seems to be at least partially taking up Wheeler's "It from Bit" idea, more on that discussed in the Information Thread.
 
Go back to alchemy; you'll make more progress that way. But replace the Michelson-Morley aether with a set, a set, of quantum fields. What are the missing standard model particles that set the physics constants?
 
Max_B said:
I'll point out that because of my own ideas about both internal and external field effects on the brain, my main interest in Adrian's work is the unexpected and spontaneous way that the circuit evolved to apparently take advantage of Electromagnetic fields, by utilizing completely unconnected circuits.
Click to expand...

Have you described those ideas somewhere, Max? I'd be interested to take a look.
 
Arouet said:
Sure many conceive it as such, but AFAIK actual ID papers tend not to be specific about who the designer is. Whatever the motive the papers rise or fall on their own merits.
Click to expand...
ID is smoke and mirrors. The former creationists tried very hard to get their ideas their god back into the public schools that didn't work out. Along comes a new kind of creationist, a savvy bunch. They rebranded themselves by creating a new identity, but it's the all the same. Their purpose is to discredit evolutionary theory, get their beliefs and their God back in science class and ultimately into all levels of society.
 
Last edited:
Michael Larkin said:
Just put him on ignore, Ian: he'll go away. He can be told till you're blue in the face that many sympathetic to ID (like myself) don't believe in the conventional Christian (or in general Abrahamic) God, but he won't desist. I doubt he believes what he says: I think he's just trolling you and enjoying taking the mickey. That's because he couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag, let alone hold a civilised and intelligent conversation.
Click to expand...
Unless you live here in the states I would not comment. ID'ers and creationists can teach their ideas in religious schools. It has no place in public school science class. You got that Ferris?
P.S. I remember how "convincingly" you presented the anti climate change argument.
 
Last edited:
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
Perhaps from a political point of view, but I actually think it's better to examine ID on its own claims. I'm sympathetic to the concerns Steve001 and Paul bring up about the political/theological movement which takes any flaw in evolution as proof of particular religious beliefs are true.

But I don't think that changes the fact that merely inquiring as to the possibility of intelligences influencing evolution is a perfectly scientific question. It's at least, to some degree, falsifiable even if for reasons I gave above it can never suggest the definitive presence of a deity.

And if we say Psi is true, and the current paradigm fails to explain evolution in its entirety, perhaps that's how we got design - PK at the genetic level.

Seems like there's more reason to accept it as a scientific pursuit than there is for the Multiverse.
Click to expand...
By wondering if some intelligence, say aliens, is a different inquiry and something to consider. Theology disguised as science should remain in church, seminary schools and other religious schools, but not public schools.
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
Actually Josephson proposes observer-participancy as the source of these laws, basically taking up Wheeler suggesting eternal cycles as an alternative to infinite regress in need of a First Cause. Here's the paper & video.

He seems to be at least partially taking up Wheeler's "It from Bit" idea, more on that discussed in the Information Thread.
Click to expand...

If reality is made of particles and fields, like the Higgs field/Higgs boson, is there a particle-field that enforces the speed of light/permittivity/permeability?
 
malf said:
I mentioned biology departments, not theology ;)




You may have partly answered your own question here. But, in some ways your (sic) right I guess... You could pull any claim out of your butt and say, "give me a reason why that shouldn't be scientifically investigated!". So well done! Your question/demand is probably unanswerable.

Fewer ad homs would lend you more credibility, btw.
Click to expand...
It's you're, not your. You used the form improperly.

Actually, what is and what is not a scientific claim is very clearly defined. As I can tell you're not well versed in these matters, let me elaborate.

Scientific claims are claims that which can be studied scientifically. ' For instance, what causes the sky to be blue? ' is a legitimate scientific inquiry. It's asking a question about nature that can be studied scientifically.

What if I wanted to study whether or not sentient bunnies who are invisible and don't interact with the physical world come to my room every night and tickle my cat before disappearing into another dimension? There doesn't seem to be a reliable scientific test we can do on that hypothesis. Thus, any inquiry would not be scientific.

You seem to not be able to differentiate between me saying that ID is a legitimate scientific question, and me saying that ID is legitimately proven scientifically. We can probably write this off as you merely thinking in terms of black and white, which is kind of ironic.
 
malf said:
I mentioned biology departments, not theology ;)




You may have partly answered your own question here. But, in some ways your right I guess... You could pull any claim out of your butt and say, "give me a reason why that shouldn't be scientifically investigated!". So well done! Your question/demand is probably unanswerable.

Fewer ad homs would lend you more, btw.
Click to expand...
That's Iyace's modus operandi. If you don't answer a question to his satisfaction he'll call you stupid.
Here's a good answer.
ID is a theology based premise.
You can't put God under a microscope.

I should keep a record of how many times Iyace makes grammatical errors, spelling errors. It
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top