Intelligent Design

[Dr.Who]

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

NOT ALWAYS.. and not by most...

regards
doug

Thank you doug,

Everyone should read and understand all of this:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html

 

[PLC1]

A theory is not considered to be proven. Your source is simply wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

From your link:

A distinction is sometimes made in science between theories and hypotheses, which are theories that are not considered to have been satisfactorily tested or proven.

A theory that is not a scientific theory doesn't have to be proven. In science, it is not a theory until it has been proven. That is the difference between a theory and an hypothesis, and the difference between the term "theory" as used generally and as used by the scientific community.

Moreover, it has to be proven over and over, by different people in different places before it is accepted as a theory. The standard for proof is very high.

 

[Dr.Who]

From your link:



A theory that is not a scientific theory doesn't have to be proven. In science, it is not a theory until it has been proven. That is the difference between a theory and an hypothesis, and the difference between the term "theory" as used generally and as used by the scientific community.

Moreover, it has to be proven over and over, by different people in different places before it is accepted as a theory. The standard for proof is very high.

Read more please because I know you did not read enough of the two links I posted in the few minutes that have elapsed since I posted them. Scientific theories meet more criteria than hypothesis but are not facts or proven. They are the best explanations science has using a very technical set of rules.

 

[Dr.Who]

intelligent design is philosophy.

I wish it were philosophy.

I suspect there is a lot of truth to the claims that intelligent design is religion pretending to be science. Which is a shame because it could be presented as a pure secular train of thought.

 

[PLC1]

I wish it were philosophy.

I suspect there is a lot of truth to the claims that intelligent design is religion pretending to be science. Which is a shame because it could be presented as a pure secular train of thought.

It could, which is why I called it philosophy rather than religion. What it is not is science. That doesn't mean that it is wrong, mind you, just that it isn't based on empirical data.

 

[PLC1]

Read more please because I know you did not read enough of the two links I posted in the few minutes that have elapsed since I posted them. Scientific theories meet more criteria than hypothesis but are not facts or proven. They are the best explanations science has using a very technical set of rules.

The Wiki article you linked to deals with the general meaning of the term "theory", which is quite different from the meaning used in science. There is a clear division between hypothesis, which is the best guess that accounts for all of the known data, and a theory, which is what the hypothesis becomes after it has proven correct. There is a great deal of confusion that arises from the general use of the term as opposed to the scientific use of the term.

 

[numinus]

I wish it were philosophy.

I suspect there is a lot of truth to the claims that intelligent design is religion pretending to be science. Which is a shame because it could be presented as a pure secular train of thought.

It is a purely secular world view. No one religion can lay claim to it. It is supported by purely ontological proofs.

 

[Dr.Who]

It could, which is why I called it philosophy rather than religion. What it is not is science. That doesn't mean that it is wrong, mind you, just that it isn't based on empirical data.

I have never heard anyone claim that ID is believed to be philosophy rather than science by its supporters.

But it turns out I was wrong.

Then I thought, if it is philosophy why are people trying to teach it in science classes?

But it turns out that they have redefined the tenets of science to create a new kind of science.

I fail to see how it belongs in a science class as it is being taught.

I think it could be modified to belong in a science class. They are onto something. Science is indeed built on certain philosophical notions. One could open the door to pointing in the general direction of the supernatural but it would still be inappropriate to actually try to prove something about the supernatural and call that science. Science by definition does not explain the supernatural.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is a purely secular world view. No one religion can lay claim to it. It is supported by purely ontological proofs.

Is it a purely secular view?

If it were not invented by creationists who were attempting to circumvent supreme court decisions I might believe that.

If they were not just rewording Christian ideas using non-christian terms I would believe that.

If they did not need to redefine the meaning of science in order to accomplish their goals I might believe that.

If scientists, advancing science, were proposing these ideas in ways that were consistent with scientific thought I would believe that.

Instead I think it is people making a genuine effort with pseudo motives who are not even aware that a priori reasoning disqualifies it as being science.

That being said there are plenty of other scientific ideas out there that are being advanced for motives that are equally a priori, i.e. evolution and global warming.

 

[PLC1]

I have never heard anyone claim that ID is believed to be philosophy rather than science by its supporters.

But it turns out I was wrong.

Then I thought, if it is philosophy why are people trying to teach it in science classes?

But it turns out that they have redefined the tenets of science to create a new kind of science.

I fail to see how it belongs in a science class as it is being taught.

I think it could be modified to belong in a science class. They are onto something. Science is indeed built on certain philosophical notions. One could open the door to pointing in the general direction of the supernatural but it would still be inappropriate to actually try to prove something about the supernatural and call that science. Science by definition does not explain the supernatural.

Right, except that there is no "new kind of science", only the old kind that depends not on philosophical rumination or speculation, but on hard data and empirical proof. Creationism is offered by some as an alternative to what has stood the test of scientific scrutiny, which of course is absurd. Creationism, meaning that life on Earth is the result of intelligence, is quite compatible with science. It just is not a part of that science.

There is no conflict between the philosophy of creation and science, just between someone's interpretation of ancient writings and known facts.

 

[numinus]

Is it a purely secular view?

If it were not invented by creationists who were attempting to circumvent supreme court decisions I might believe that.

If they were not just rewording Christian ideas using non-christian terms I would believe that.

If they did not need to redefine the meaning of science in order to accomplish their goals I might believe that.

If scientists, advancing science, were proposing these ideas in ways that were consistent with scientific thought I would believe that.

Instead I think it is people making a genuine effort with pseudo motives who are not even aware that a priori reasoning disqualifies it as being science.

That being said there are plenty of other scientific ideas out there that are being advanced for motives that are equally a priori, i.e. evolution and global warming.

I'm sorry but I do not live in the us therefore I do not have direct experience of what you are talking about.

I was educated in primary and secondary school in a catholic school. We had religion classes along with everything else. We were taught early of the worldly and other-worldly spheres of inquiry and that they do not necessarily conflict with one another. We were taught that the islamic segment of our population are our brothers hence need to be respected as much as we demand respect from others. And yes, we have christian fundamentalists preaching divisive nonsense and all they can count as followers are the most ignorant sort.

When I hear 'intelligent design', the first thing that comes to mind is the complexity of creation as described by science and how it merely reinforces what any sane individual would conclude by himself -- this couldn't possibly be random. And you are free to voice this opinion whether you are in a physics classroom or a philosophy classroom.

 

[numinus]

Right, except that there is no "new kind of science", only the old kind that depends not on philosophical rumination or speculation, but on hard data and empirical proof. Creationism is offered by some as an alternative to what has stood the test of scientific scrutiny, which of course is absurd. Creationism, meaning that life on Earth is the result of intelligence, is quite compatible with science. It just is not a part of that science.

There is no conflict between the philosophy of creation and science, just between someone's interpretation of ancient writings and known facts.

I once read about an interesting anecdote about einstein back in the time he was hard at work on his general relativity.

He worked, the story went, in some isolated cabin frequented by many cats. Einstein had numerous cat-doors installed -- big ones for big cats and little ones for little cats. Even then, his genius was manifesting in a way that would seem unconventional or even insane. His sense of order, whether in the universe or simply in his immediate environment, would not permit even the 'nothingness' of a doorway to go without purpose.

And sure enough, in the formulation of general relativity, even empty space exerted a profound purpose in shaping the geometry of space-time.

What exactly is the purpose of philosophy? It drives human knowledge to whatever end this knowledge is applied to -- whether it is a man of science in pursuit of scientific knowledge or an artist in pursuit of beauty.

 

[PLC1]

I once read about an interesting anecdote about einstein back in the time he was hard at work on his general relativity.

He worked, the story went, in some isolated cabin frequented by many cats. Einstein had numerous cat-doors installed -- big ones for big cats and little ones for little cats. Even then, his genius was manifesting in a way that would seem unconventional or even insane. His sense of order, whether in the universe or simply in his immediate environment, would not permit even the 'nothingness' of a doorway to go without purpose.

And sure enough, in the formulation of general relativity, even empty space exerted a profound purpose in shaping the geometry of space-time.

What exactly is the purpose of philosophy? It drives human knowledge to whatever end this knowledge is applied to -- whether it is a man of science in pursuit of scientific knowledge or an artist in pursuit of beauty.

If philosophy has a purpose, then that's it. When it drives scientific research, the research still has to rely on empirical proof, not philosophy.

It was philosophy that made Einstein work on the theory of relativity. It is mathematics that supports that theory. If there were no empirical evidence for space time, then it would be the philosophy of relativity.

The same with creationism. There is a philosophy of creationism, but no proof of a creator. There is a theory of evolution, supported by empirical data, not by philosophy. There is a philosophy that opinions supported by data are more believable than those supported merely by speculation.

 

[numinus]

If philosophy has a purpose, then that's it. When it drives scientific research, the research still has to rely on empirical proof, not philosophy.

It was philosophy that made Einstein work on the theory of relativity. It is mathematics that supports that theory. If there were no empirical evidence for space time, then it would be the philosophy of relativity.

The same with creationism. There is a philosophy of creationism, but no proof of a creator. There is a theory of evolution, supported by empirical data, not by philosophy. There is a philosophy that opinions supported by data are more believable than those supported merely by speculation.

I was talking about the realm of pure ideas and how it is indispensable in the study of science.

And what exactly, do you suppose, is the role of empirical data in all this? From the copenhagen interpration of quantum mechanics -- measuring devices are essentially classical devices and measure only classical properties, such as position and momentum.

Are you seriously considering human knowledge to be limited to this?

 

[PLC1]

I was talking about the realm of pure ideas and how it is indispensable in the study of science.

And what exactly, do you suppose, is the role of empirical data in all this? From the copenhagen interpration of quantum mechanics -- measuring devices are essentially classical devices and measure only classical properties, such as position and momentum.

Are you seriously considering human knowledge to be limited to this?

Scientific knowledge is not in the realm of "pure ideas" That is philosophy. Science depends on empirical data, including mathematical proofs. Of course, science isn't limited to position and momentum.