| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/21/2009 4:53:42 AM |
You certainly can't falsify anything that is true. Hmmm? You can't falsify that the sun is hot. There is no science of the sun?
If you are really having so much difficulty with the concept of what it means for a theory to be falsifiable, go read the work by Karl Popper on the subject. It seems a bit silly to try and bring you up to speed on the prerequisite concepts. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/21/2009 5:11:34 AM |
Nevertheless it does appear reasonable in my opinion
Whether or not it seems reasonable is irrelevant. For something to be considered a scientific theory, it has to meet the criteria for a sciebtific theory. ID does not meet that criteria.
The main argument against Intelligent Design as schooling curriculum I think, is the fact that young students may be bullied by older teachers with regards to ideas.
The only argument necessary to exclude ID from science class is that it doesn't meet the standard required to be considered science. The proponents of ID could remedy the deficiency by restating it in such a way that the failure of one of its predictions would falsify its premise of a creator, but ID proponents are not going to be willing to define what creator means nor specify anything well enough to provide the means to falsify that premise. If the proponents of ID wish to have ID be considered science, the means to do so is available. They've chosen to not make it into a scientific theory.
But it is also a fact that capitalist democracy functions upon the the premise of individual responsibility taken, in order to maintain any semblence of benevolent government.
What does that have to do with science? Science is not a democracy, All ideas are not equal. In fact, the purpose of science is specifically to expose those inequalities. | |
|
| |
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/21/2009 4:14:47 PM |
Wouldn't you agree that it makes as much sense to keep the religion & science classes apart for the same reason?
Haha well yes i give you that obviously. More over what bothers me is that one is seen as an alternative to the other, namely because it was created as an alternative. The flying spaghetti monster here comes to mind here. (praise his wheys)
As an alternative Intelligent design misses the point.
God smiles back in every dinosaur bone, people who after hundreds of years are still trying to re-bury dinosaur bones for fear of the upset of the literal translation of their holy book are... i think, rather missing the point in the value of both sides of either experience. | |
|
| |
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/21/2009 5:37:43 PM | | intelligent design is religion packaged as a pseudo-science. it fails all basic tenets of science. it was manufactured by right-wing religious zealots to get god back into schools. the judge got it 100% right when he said that it could be taught in philosophy class but not in science class. the creationists are never going to stop trying to find a way to get religion back into schools. hope this precedent will hold up. | |
|
| |
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:08:10 AM | If you are really having so much difficulty with the concept of what it means for a theory to be falsifiable, go read the work by Karl Popper on the subject. It seems a bit silly to try and bring you up to speed on the prerequisite concepts.
How can you falsify anything which is true?
Give it YOUR best shot. I am not here to descuss it with Mr. Popper.
Are you saying that all theories are false? That is what it boils down to. If it "can be falisified" then it must not be true.
Here is my version:
A theory is a conclusion based on a set of "provable claims" and "reasonable and logical" conclusions derived therefrom.
Now. You claim it something different. Discuss this amongst yourselves, and bring Mr. Popper if he has anything to add. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:12:13 AM |
It seems pretty clear then that we are all agreed that intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory and should therefore NOT be taught in school science classes.
I wouldn't mind seeing ID in science class. The lesson should start off like this:
"Hello class, up until now we've learned about science. Today, we're going to look at pseudoscience and why it fails. This should prepare you for when religious fundies try to deceive you by portraying their religious ideas as science. Who here has heard about intelligent design? " | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:19:18 AM | How about we do this.
Here is a list of provable claims.
Draw your own conclusion.
And then we name it "Science"
then we can put all the conclusions to a vote and name it "politics"
Then we can identify falsifiable conclusions, and call it "propaganda" | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:49:37 AM | 2hi...
The term 'falsifiable' doesn't require that something is indeed false - all it means is that there must be some way to TEST whether it is true or not.
It's like this... if I ask the question "what makes a rainbow", and receive these two answers:
Hypothesis #1 - light is scattered as it passes through water droplets in the air, and we see the scattered light as a series of colours - also called a rainbow.
Hypothesis #2 - God made it for us to appreciate.
How do I go about determining which hypothesis is the right one? I devise experiments that show me how light behaves when it passes through dissimilar materials. By the time I'm done, I can predict that if I produce a spray of water droplets between myself and a light source, I will see a rainbow. If I do so, and FAIL to see a rainbow... then my prediction is incorrect, and the hypothesis is falsified. I have to go back to my original premise to see where I went wrong, and try again.
I CANNOT test the second hypothesis, because God is something that I cannot devise an experiment to test. Thus, I am unable to determine if it's true OR false - which is what is meant by being falsifiable.
Since I can't make predictions to TEST the Intelligent Design Hypothesis, I can't perform experiments to determine if it's true or not. It is NOT, therefore, falsifiable... and therefore NOT scientific in any manner.
Relying solely on reason and logic is not enough - because any manner of claims can be seen as reasonable and logical. It's when you can perform experiments, and observe the results, that real weight can be given to your conclusions.
It's not about being 'right', or 'true', or 'proven' - it's about drawing a conclusion that BEST FITS the evidence, models, predictions, and experiments that we have thus far. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 8:50:58 PM |
The term 'falsifiable' doesn't require that something is indeed false - all it means is that there must be some way to TEST whether it is true or not.
Thanks. | |
|
| |
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 9:11:04 PM | The term 'falsifiable' doesn't require that something is indeed false - all it means is that there must be some way to TEST whether it is true or not.
I just looked in two dictionaries, and they tell it differently, but thank you for defining the word as others use it. I still like my definition of a theory better. You just list the claims, and we can develop a conclusion. An accepted theory requires a consensus of scientists with the same conclusion. You can have alternate theories, but they are not scientific theories until you join the "adopt a school" program, and create the school of thought and then scientists join the school. Why prevaricate around the dictionary definition?
The more unprovable each claim is, the stronger the school of thought becomes. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 10:33:40 PM |
The term 'falsifiable' doesn't require that something is indeed false - all it means is that there must be some way to TEST whether it is true or not.
Testing a theory cannot prove the theory true. All it can do is render it indistinguishable from other theories that make the same predictions, so the BEST one can EVER do is to use a test to determine that a theory is false or that it is still viable, i.e., not shown to be false. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 10:43:33 PM | I understand the usage of the word now. It basically means that you must exclude any religious claims, because most scientists are unwilling to test the hypothesis that if you get on your knees and pray in faith, the answer will come. No big.
You could really test the hypothesis if you try. You could make an experiment. You ask a question before they pray. If they get it wrong, you send them into a room to pray for a few minutes, and see they come out with the right one. I call prayer "reflection" sometimes. Others might call it "brainstorming"
I am guessing that the scientists will do better at praying than the Christians do at brainstorming. You could conclude differently from the same results and say that Christianity causes brain defects, but that might seem a biased conclusion. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 10:49:38 PM | | No. Religious claims are excluded because there is no identifiable cause-effect linkage, and no identifiable "cause". The effects of prayer can be and HAVE been tested, but that has little bearing on what exact causal linkages are involved. IE, a correlation between prayer and a desired result would only show *prayer* to be a proximal cause. It would not show whether the root cause was a deity, pheromones, "positive thinking", etc. Furthermore, a deity could not be posited as a legitimate cause, because there is no way to verify said deity's nature or existence. This is the touted spaghetti monster or fairy comparison, since you can insert any entity as a "cause", so long as it's completely unverifiable. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:07:13 PM | Furthermore, a deity could not be posited as a legitimate cause, because there is no way to verify said deity's nature or existence. This is the touted spaghetti monster or fairy comparison, since you can insert any entity as a "cause", so long as it's completely unverifiable. .
Actually, it is completely verifiable, but some people lack the faith to test it completely. You have to have to have the faith to make it work. I prayed for years and it never worked. I prayed with faith and it worked. One time.
I verified it. I am a witness. You don't have to even try. I don't have to argue it. I doubt you could muster the faith. It would be a worthless exercise. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:20:15 PM |
It basically means that you must exclude any religious claims, because most scientists are unwilling to test the hypothesis that if you get on your knees and pray in faith, the answer will come.
The "prayer hypothesis" has been tested scientifically many times, but the difficulty of reconciling scientific methodology with spirituality made construction & implementation of persuasive research difficult and the studies did not show a consistent result. Half the studies found prayer to work and half found it made no difference. Critics in either camp could usually find ways to invalidate the results in any event, owing to flaws in the methodology.
It would seem some progress has been made, however, as this study looks pretty solid if you believe the newspapers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=3
In any event, it is rather deceptive to state that scientists are probably unwilling to test a hypothesis because it is a religious one. It looks to me more like they are unwilling to accept inconclusive results as scientifically valid. Until prayer is demonstrated to be effective, why should they take time away from their search for answers to pray for them? | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:23:19 PM | why should they take time away from their search for answers to pray for them?
Why would a pious (as opposed to religious) person stop turning over every stone to find it if he could ask a scientist what would be under the rock in the first place?
To clarify piety vs. religion: Piety: asking God yourself. Religion: asking a book or a preacher to tell you what God said.
If you start by receiving no answer: Things can only get better after that. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:31:06 PM |
Why would a pious (as opposed to religious) person stop turning over every stone to find it if he could ask a scientist what would be under the rock in the first place?
Beats me! There are a lot of things concealed by unturned stones. Maybe the pious person and the scientist are turning over the same stone and finding different things. As I said, there is a lot to find and people are naturally going to disregard what they aren't looking for. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:35:04 PM | Some religious people turn over the stones, and don't even find the bugs or the worms. They declare they have found nothing. I saw my first evidence of spiritual presence under a 25X microscope. Go figure.
I work with salt water microbials. I hope that helps. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/22/2009 11:43:27 PM |
Some religious people turn over the stones, and don't even find the bugs or the worms. They declare they have found nothing.
More's the pity. They'd rather read about what somebody said God put there than go and look for themselves. Little wonder then that religious fundamentalism and spirituality are such polar opposites. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/23/2009 12:09:02 AM | More's the pity. They'd rather read about what somebody said God put there than go and look for themselves. Little wonder then that religious fundamentalism and spirituality are such polar opposites. .
It's even worse than that. Many had a "spiritual" experience, and attributed it to "God" or "Satan," then joined a church and quit looking. The Bible describes the "spiritual" experience in detail, but the wheat is found among the weeds and must be threshed from the chaff. (metaphors must be learned whether the church agrees or not)
Appearently ID will never become a scientific field, but if they can find the microbes I have seen, they might change their mind. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/23/2009 12:10:38 AM | I think at some point everyone asks "What is it all about?"
Some don't give a sh!t and forget about it.
Some never find the answer and die brokenhearted.
Some quit asking because the answer is too hard for them.
Some enjoy the search and become scientists & philosophers.
Some just look in a text at the "answers" page to get somebody's opinion.
Some finally figure it out. They knew what they were looking for and turned over a lot of stones.
It would be nice to go back and tell those who don't know, but the situation is identical to the man in Plato's cave. Most people fear the light after learning it drives men "mad."
I'm a firm believer in Einstein's formula for happiness. I especially appreciate the value of "Z" (about some things anyway).  | |
|
Home
login 
