Quake3World

lol @ riddla

Riddla, you have to remember that a lot of the ID/evolution argument isn't who is right and who is wrong. It's about what should be taught in science classes. Scientists feel that a supernatural theory should not be taught in a class aiming to explain the natural world. It's the same reason we don't discuss the immaculate conception in embryology classes. It doesn't mean we're trying to prove it didn't happen; it means it's not our job to prove or disprove it.

On this board, I think it has turned into a debate about which is right and which is wrong because most of us feel that evolution is being attacked without any evidence. The simple fact is that there is evidence supporting evolution (and proof that evolution occurs), but none supporting the existence of a god. Just because we don't know exactly which path biological development took, it's not proof that it was a controlled process. I'm not going to tell anyone that evolution proves there is no god/supreme being, but I'm also not going to discuss the possibility in a scientific manner. That's for theologists and philosophers to do.

So science is a futile exercise, entirely, because all we can do is come up with theories. Granted, we can use these theories and their predictable and reproducible nature for all sorts of things (landing things on distant planets, producing nuclear power, etc.), but since, as a result of the definition of the term, they will forever be theories, and thus no better than the random idea cooked up by anybody.

I never said Relativity wasn't a theory, nor that Hawking's black hole work wasn't a theory, but not all theories are equal.

riddla wrote:
If any science vs ID theories were proof whatsoever of the 'how' and the 'why' neither side would feel a need to try and justify or rationalize what they cannot prove.

Its an endless conundrum until time travel into the past becomes reality, which I seriously doubt we'll see in our lifetimes if ever.

You are trading on the natural ambiguity of everyday usage of certain terms in order to cast doubt on the merits of a debate which employs a very technical vocabulary. Bad move, Leo. You should either learn the relevant vocabulary or stay away from these types of discussions.

riddla wrote:...yet the fact remains that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, which is the very core of this entire argument.

It depends on what domains of reality either ID, or evolution, purports to account for, and to what degree.

For instance, one could argue that physics doesn't account for the the reason that the universe exists - some may prefer a recourse to some sort of creative force to account for its existence. Does that mean that within the domain of physics proper, that metaphysics should be taught? I would hope not. There seems to be a logic to the phenomena that we do have access to - science merely tries to uncover and test this logic.

Since it is, to me, inconceivable that the logic of existence be scientifically accounted for, science does not and should not try to do so.

So within (biological) evolution, which is understood to be the scientific enquiry into the logic of unfolding biological phenomena, why should "metabiology" be taught?

Of course, it is entirely possible that there exist a creative intelligence that somehow intervened and designed our DNA, etc. However, this possibility is not one that is meant for exploration within the field of science proper.

It is fine for thinkers to look at scientific evidence, and use it to form ideas about intelligent design - it is just that intelligent design is not a scientific idea.

Therefore, ID should perhaps be discussed and taught within theology, or philosophy.

BUT NOT SCIENCE.

riddla wrote:...yet the fact remains that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, which is the very core of this entire argument.

That really isn't the core, not in the scientific realm.

riddla wrote: Thats why you guys keep stumbling all over your own feet trying to prove me wrong when in fact you cant, no matter which 'side' you're coming from - just as easily as I nor anyone else could prove you're possibly correct :icon34:

I'm not trying to prove you wrong...you are the one who seems obsessed with 'proof'. I'm suggesting that your point is irrelevant barking from the cheap seats.

This isn't about whether God exists...or if that could even be the subject of rational investigation. It's about whether or not 'God's hand or intelligence' needs to be injected into a highly successful empirical theory to account for supposed anomalies or to fill in explanatory gaps. Am I coming through to you yet Kenneth, or have I stumbled again?

And while I am open to listening to any new and improved arguments ID folks may evenutally develop, at this stage I see ID theory as a superfluous hypothesis that is deployed primarily for political and cultural gain.

A 1-2-3 by Julios, tnf and Hannibal... ouch

indeed

The existence of God is not the core of this argument. An evolutionist could believe in both God and the theory of evolution, where their conception of the nature of God is different from that of a person who believes in Intelligent Design.

The reason these three are passionate to persuade the rest that evoution is a valid theory and ID is not, is because there is an equally if not more so passionate group of people out there who are trying to diminish the validity of evolution. This is a political battle, and thus a non-biased attempt to explain events in the world is not the common goal to all parties. If one side does not speak up the other side wins.

riddla wrote:woosh!

The only 'woosh' is the sound of the issue being deflected by you.

Evolutionary biology, at its core, is not a study to prove or disprove the existence of a God.

This is a discussion/debate over the merits of two theories - the EMPIRICAL merits of these theories. As it stands, evolutionary theory has empirical support - and evolution itself (as we define it SCIENTIFICALLY) has been observationally verified.

ID theory requires the intervention of the divine, and thus, at its core argues for the existence of a God. Evolutionary theory does not require this divine intervention, however this fact does not mean that evolutionary biology is, at its core, arguing for the non-existence of a God. It's an irrelevant question in the realm of science, but not an irrelevant question in the realm of philosophy.

riddla wrote:woosh!

lol. Good night sweet Prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.

riddla wrote:woosh!

The sound your credibilty just made in this discussion.

riddla wrote:credibility? thats the beauty of this argument, it doesn't even require it. To date there's still no missing link in our fossil record.....

wow. That's really all there is left to say.

It's not about being a 'dunk' - the whole thing is about one theory being more empirically credible than the other. That's what we are discussing here - the scientific merits of ID theory vs. conventional evolutionary theory. You have lept way beyond that.

But since science requires absolutely zero credibility...realize that you have no room to ever badmouth one of Kracus's Random Thoughts again...

riddla wrote:NOW you're starting to see where I'm coming from - when its opinion you have all the room in the universe

I've never said either theory was incorrect, I've only maintained all along that we just dont know for sure. Why is that so hard to accept?

But science is not all opinion.
And theory is not all opinion.
I'd really enjoy watching you in front of my graduate advisory board.
Give them that same story, and you might see where I am coming from.

It's not that I don't accept the philsophical argument about what we can really ever "know" - but I do not accept, in any way, shape, or form, the application of a loose definition of the term theory in such a way that we can throw something like ID around in the realm of 'real' science.

riddla wrote:Present both concepts: evolution and ID in schools then let the students decide on their own and stop trying to sugar coat everything in the fucking world for them.

I'm reminded of The Big Lebowski:

Walter Sobchak: Donny, were you listening to The Dude's story?
Donny: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story?
Donny: No, I was bowling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no point of reference, Donny. You're like a child that wanders INTO THE MIDDLE OF A MOVIE!
Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski: What's your point, Walter?!
Donny: Yeah, Walter, what's your point?

Riddla, there is something fundamental here that you are simply failing to comprehend:

We are not arguing about whether god exists or not, or whether god played a hand in the rise of life.

We are arguing about whether the question of such intervention should be taught as a scientific theory

riddla, I like you, but I have to say that it's almost like you are becoming that which you have trolled in terms of missing the point of this discussion - I can't help but hear echoes of Kracus.

riddla wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:We are arguing about whether the question of such intervention should be taught as a scientific theory

I'm aware of this, I simply went straight to the core of the subject matter to prove a point (err, theory) .

You didn't prove anything though, or at least anything relevant. Based on your posts, we should be teaching every half-baked idea that comes into anyone's mind - because we need no credibility, its all opinion, etc. etc. etc....

Then what was the point? You entered a discussion based on the scientific merits of two theories - one that was rooted in empirical science (and yes, evolutionary biology is) - and one that *requires* the sporadic intervention (and, if you look at ID, it becomes apparent, regardless of their stating otherwise that the intervention would be sporadic - god of the gaps). Once entering this thread, you argued that both sides were exercising futility because both are just 'theories' with no real credibility, or at least equally credible. But they are apples and oranges. And I would also argue that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that we can say with a LOT more certainty that it happened (and we can say by observation that it is happening.) ID theory, in both its scientific and philosphical basis, is flawed. There is no empirical data, save for the musings of those who force directionality/intentionality onto a random process and whose imagination serves as the limiting factor to what can be classified 'irreducibly complex.'
I'll say it again - evolution, as we define it scientifically - does happen. We have seen it happen. As for your bit about there being 'no missing link' - you seem to be implying that the lack of some specific fossil (although there are a number of transitional hominid fossils) means that the theory is simply a mental construct with no tangible data. Again, this is extremely misleading - and is exactly the type of misinformation perpetuated by creation scientists and the ID folks. The evidence for accumulated microevolution across all of life is staggering. Speciation events can rapidly follow geographic isolation. Small changes in an organisms genotype can produce dramatic phenotypical effects. Is the whole story of how evolution occurred complete? Of course not. Neither is the whole story of exactly how campylobacter jejuni is internalized by epithelial cells in the gut. But guess what? We know that it does. And we know that it does NOT work by magic fairies spreading internalization dust across them. The evidence for evolution is about as overwhelming as our certainty in being sure that the fairy dust model for internalization of C.jejuni is not correct.

That evolution occurs is a fact. How evolution occurs is a theory.
That a ball drops to the ground when I let go of it is a fact. How this happens is a theory.
That two entangled photons will have the same spin value when the spin value of one photon along one axis is measured is fact. How the spatially separated photon instantaneously gets this spin (because we know that it didn't have the spin until the first one was measured) is theory (perhaps the consequence of the collapsing of the wave function across the universe.)

evolutionary theory is a slam dunk

He's dead, Jim!!

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:evolutionary theory is a slam dunk

Yes.

Would you also say that the basic ideas behind anarchy are?

tnf wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:evolutionary theory is a slam dunk

Yes.

Would you also say that the basic ideas behind anarchy are?

it's more like a three point play

From the three point line, or a 2 with a foul shot?