ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags intelligent design

Reply
Old 20th April 2009, 05:57 PM   #41
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
 
juryjone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 878
All of these questions are great, but...what's the point? The only answer you get from IDers is "la la la I can't hear you" or its logical equivalent. I had a "discussion" with an IDer this past weekend, and got this logical gem:

Quote:
The fact is - if a person is truly honest - and wants to truly know if there really is a God out there - He can be found by observation in the natural world. And if you want to know what kind of a God He is, you can examine all the religions of the world and see if the "creation story" they give matches up with the observable world. That means the story has to be broad and allow for filling in details as more is discovered.
followed by: "This will be my last communication with you."

This was a person with 36 years experience in a medical profession and studies in microbiology (or so it was claimed). They don't want to answer questions, they don't want to hear answers to their questions - they just want acceptance of their views.

(I tried to go on at this point and describe the difference between IDers and people who see that evolution is true, but it was just an incomprehensible rant, so I'll stop now.)
__________________
"Humanity is slipping into the void of ignorance while you cheer and wave." - Tirdun, in reference to geggy and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists

Last edited by juryjone; 20th April 2009 at 05:58 PM.
juryjone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2009, 07:51 PM   #42
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by juryjone View Post
All of these questions are great, but...what's the point? The only answer you get from IDers is "la la la I can't hear you" or its logical equivalent.
We might have some.... ways... of making them answer....


...that are perfectly legal, ethical, and painless, of course!
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2009, 08:18 PM   #43
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
I guess my question would be. If we accept a God clever enough to design the universe and influenced the evolution on Earth, how would we intellectual pygmies ever be capable of identifing evidence of this design.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2009, 09:26 PM   #44
Fredrik
Graduate Poster
 
Fredrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,912
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Scientists are usually motivated by the thrill of new discovery. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
Wouldn't a moron I.D. believer be a lot more thrilled about discovering evidence of creation than a science nerd would be about discovering evidence of evolution? I mean, many of them think that God is what gives meaning to their lives, so to them evidence of creation is something huge. It would make them feel important, and even loved.
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
I specified NEW discoveries. Not re-hashes of stuff we already considered.
I don't understand your reasoning here. Are you suggesting that there's been a point in history when biologists could get a bigger thrill finding strong evidence of evolution than a creationist today would get if he finds strong evidence of creation? I don't believe that's the case. To a creationist, evidence of creation is also evidence that he will live and be loved forever. Actual science can't offer anything like that. Their pseudoscience can't either of course, but the point is, they think it can.

So I would say that the motivation in the form of the "thrill of new discovery" is stronger for them than for us, assuming that they believe that there's evidence to be found.

But maybe I just don't understand your question (the one in bold above). What sort of answers can they give you? If you wanted to convert a bunch of string theorists to do research on loop quantum gravity, it wouldn't help to tell them it can be thrilling to discover new things. You'd have to convince them there are lots of very promising results already, and that there are many more just waiting to be found. Maybe that's where you were going with this question. You want to encourage the I.D. guys to explain what promising results have been found already and why scientists should believe that there's more to be found. In that case, I think you need to rephrase the question in a way that suggests that more clearly.
Fredrik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2009, 09:28 PM   #45
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
We might have some.... ways... of making them answer....


...that are perfectly legal, ethical, and painless, of course!
Like talking like Captain Kirk?
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2009, 03:08 AM   #46
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
Like talking like Captain Kirk?
Wowbagger: Now, please answer my questions, or we'll move on to William Shatner's reading of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

Intelligent Designer: Nooooooo! No more! Please, Nimoy's "Bilbo Baggins" was too much, I can't take any more!

I like that idea.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2009, 04:47 AM   #47
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
Not really. I am just attempting to reply from the perspective of someone interested in fair questions.
Which is why I always enjoy reading your posts.
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2009, 10:05 AM   #48
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Wowbagger: Now, please answer my questions, or we'll move on to William Shatner's reading of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".
That would be unethical. I am not a monster, you know!
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2009, 10:06 AM   #49
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
That would be unethical. I am not a monster, you know!
Lie in bold!
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2009, 11:38 AM   #50
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,857
If creatures are the creations of an intelligent designer, why are there so many examples of poor (even incompetent) design <favorite examples here>, and why does a process of natural selection answer the poor design question so much more effectively?
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2009, 12:35 PM   #51
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,038
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
That is a different usage of the word Intelligence than what I was referring to.
My usage involved Intelligence somehow being special to higher life forms, and NOT being understood as a purely natural process.
If intelligence isn't a purely natural process, then what is it?

Which brings us to perhaps the most important questions to ask a proponent of Intelligent Design:
  1. What is ID's working definition of "Intelligence" and in what ways does it differ from forces assumed to be unintelligent?
  2. What is ID's working definition of "Design" and in what ways does ID presume designed things differ from things that are not designed?

Quote:
Hmmm... I guess in some cases, even if we could anticipate what their answers are going to be, it would be just too delicious to see them give the answer, than to not ask the question.
If they suspect that is the reason you asked the question, then they'll probably refuse to answer. And I wouldn't blame them.
Quote:
Someday we will probably have the power to create life forms from scratch. Why couldn't the Designer use those same methods?
The Designer no doubt could have used such methods, and ID seems to assume that It at the very least did create mechanisms within life forms from scratch.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2009, 09:44 PM   #52
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
I'd like 'em to 'splain endogenous retroviruses.
That would be nice. Here is a rough draft of a question I could add:

"Evolutionary studies include the that of endogenous retroviruses, that is: a concept where traces of DNA, from viral infections, are copied throughout our own DNA strands, that seems to match the data extraordinarily closely, (and even help us understand a variety of diseases such as multiple sclerosis). How does this fit into the Intelligent Design paradigm?"

Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
If we accept a God clever enough to design the universe and influenced the evolution on Earth, how would we intellectual pygmies ever be capable of identifing evidence of this design.
I think they would find that question insulting, and be put off from answering the rest of them.

Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
So I would say that the motivation in the form of the "thrill of new discovery" is stronger for them than for us, assuming that they believe that there's evidence to be found.
It is not the level of thrill. It is the type of thrill. Maybe I should specify: "new discoveries" as those which "no one has ever known, nor could have even fathomed, before".

Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
If creatures are the creations of an intelligent designer, why are there so many examples of poor (even incompetent) design <favorite examples here>, and why does a process of natural selection answer the poor design question so much more effectively?
Too easy to weasel out of. They could just claim that the design is really not as poor as we claim it is. Or, that it is "only a matter of opinion", anyway. (which I would disagree with, since we can judge design objectively, by measuring various criteria) But, either way would sound too reasonable to the folks who would read the answers.

Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
If intelligence isn't a purely natural process, then what is it?
I wouldn't know. This is their claim, not mine.

Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
  1. What is ID's working definition of "Intelligence" and in what ways does it differ from forces assumed to be unintelligent?
  2. What is ID's working definition of "Design" and in what ways does ID presume designed things differ from things that are not designed?
Both are good things to bring up. I will consider asking a series of questions about their working definitions.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2009, 12:16 AM   #53
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 26,840
"Couldn't you find a better public face for your inanity than snivelling bloviator Casey Luskin?"

Though I suppose that specifically would be for the DI.
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2009, 11:13 AM   #54
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
I am surprised no one provided these links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2009, 03:04 AM   #55
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Most of the questions there seem more to address creationism, YEC and Bible literalism than ID. In fact, it could be argued that it's the inability of creationists to come up with satisfactory answers to those questions that led to the change of strategy from creationism to ID.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2009, 07:41 AM   #56
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
(Skipping to the end, so apologies if someone posited this question already...):

Is the designer still alive? If so, how do you know?

Puts the IDiots in the position of either having to acknowledg that the designer is eternal (i.e., God), or that ID has nothing to do with God.
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2009, 10:16 AM   #57
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,128
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
. In fact, it could be argued that it's the inability of creationists to come up with satisfactory answers to those questions that led to the change of strategy from creationism to ID.

Dave
It could be argued.. but it would be a statement that denies the facts. The reason for the change of strategy was because Creationism was found to be religious in origin. So, the Creationists simply took their same "arguments" and replaced "God" with "a designer." ID is simply Creationism in disguise.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2009, 10:27 AM   #58
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Most of the questions there seem more to address creationism, YEC and Bible literalism than ID.
That is probably more true with the first link, than the second.

Some of the questions could be transformed into more general I.D. stumpers, such as those refering to specific scientifc findings.

But, I'll work out the wording, later.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 12:52 AM   #59
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
A fasifiable hypothesis is that our Designer is in orbit around Sirius.

If all humans prioritize working together to produce ships capable of travelling to Sirius, we will advance faster than if we embrace evolution and only increase cell phone technology.

Sir, I have just defeated your arguments. Not only is ID falsifiable but it is also more useful to humans.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 08:07 AM   #60
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
A fasifiable hypothesis is that our Designer is in orbit around Sirius.
I wish intelligent design advocates could commit to something like that!

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Not only is ID falsifiable but it is also more useful to humans.
Maybe as far as space travel is concerned.

But, while you are awaiting budget approval for such a massive undertaking, we would like to investigate some other options that will lead to innovative solutions to our biological problems now.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 11:27 AM   #61
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Maybe as far as space travel is concerned.

But, while you are awaiting budget approval for such a massive undertaking, we would like to investigate some other options that will lead to innovative solutions to our biological problems now.
People don't care. People want their bling bling and unless you force them to reach for something greater, you get cell phone innovation.

Going to sirius will require advancements in biological science far beyond what the pursuit of bling leads to.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 12:59 PM   #62
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Going to sirius will require advancements in biological science far beyond what the pursuit of bling leads to.
Until we confirm that the I.D. is on Sirius, do you tihnk we will be able to apply I.D. to help make those advancements necessary?
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 01:17 PM   #63
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by BPSCG View Post
(Skipping to the end, so apologies if someone posited this question already...):

Is the designer still alive? If so, how do you know?

Puts the IDiots in the position of either having to acknowledg that the designer is eternal (i.e., God), or that ID has nothing to do with God.
Where is the designer? Does he/she/it move around? What are his/her/its dimensions? What is he/she/it made of? What does he/she/it now do? How did he/she/it come to be? Will he/she/it die? Is there any shred of scientific evidence that would give us answers to any of the above?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 10:06 PM   #64
MikeSun5
Trigger Happy Pacifist,
 
MikeSun5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,871
Gagglegnash said it best earlier. Anything can be explained by saying "God made it that way."

Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science?
How does one go about using evolution? Either way, I think I get your point, and I've heard IDers explain it like this: When God created Adam, he created him as an adult male. Adam did not have to grow older, he was born old. Same with the Earth. It's only 6,000 years old, but it was created as a 6 billion year old planet.

Getting IDers to answer these questions within your parameters is futile. You can't apply logic to crazy.
__________________
I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell.
--Daniel Tosh
MikeSun5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 04:45 PM   #65
Kthulhut Fhtagn
Graduate Poster
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,956
Acceptance of Intelligent Design would require a redefinition of science to include the supernatural. What benefit would the sciences obtain from accepting supernatural answers? Would a doctor be required to have a woman with an infection consult a priest or merely have the antibiotics blessed?
__________________
-- Everything starts somewhere, although many physicists disagree. There is the constant desire to find out where - where is the point where it all began...The philosopher Didactylos suggested an alternative hypothesis: 'things just happen, what the hell'.
Kthulhut Fhtagn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 06:00 PM   #66
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn View Post
Acceptance of Intelligent Design would require a redefinition of science to include the supernatural. What benefit would the sciences obtain from accepting supernatural answers? Would a doctor be required to have a woman with an infection consult a priest or merely have the antibiotics blessed?
Most of them would say that was a "strawman" question, and that I.D. does not include the supernatural. (And, simply asking how I.D. would affect medicine was already covered by some of the other questions.)
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 10:09 PM   #67
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Until we confirm that the I.D. is on Sirius, do you tihnk we will be able to apply I.D. to help make those advancements necessary?
All joking aside, I think I bring up a good point.

Would I.D. be as offensive if IDers, instead of using it as a tool to advance religion, used it as a tool to gather public support for genuine science and research?
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 07:56 AM   #68
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Would I.D. be as offensive if IDers, instead of using it as a tool to advance religion, used it as a tool to gather public support for genuine science and research?
No, of course not! If I.D.ers were enganged in genuine scientific research, they would not be nearly as offensive.

They could be like S.E.T.I., but finding stuff out about life, instead of the cosmos.

S.E.T.I. is more respected by scientists, because (with a few minor exceptions, in the past), they are not prone to false alarms of intelligence.

Funny thing is that I.D. likes to compare themselves to S.E.T.I. The big difference is that I.D. is NOT making any new discoveries about anything, at all! They just sit around affirming their conclusions.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 12:36 PM   #69
Kthulhut Fhtagn
Graduate Poster
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,956
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Most of them would say that was a "strawman" question, and that I.D. does not include the supernatural. (And, simply asking how I.D. would affect medicine was already covered by some of the other questions.)
Of course, but if it is not supernatural then what is the intelligent designer? If Darwinian evolution is a crock like they claim and, assuming a supreme xenosapient force created us, how did it get here in the first place? I have a feeling that we could toss the debate out the window and refer to such beings as Gods/Supernatural Forces anyways.

ETA: On second thought let me rephrase and include it to answer only those IDers who accept a supernatural force or deity as their ID. What benefit does science have by accepting the answer "magic man dun it"
__________________
-- Everything starts somewhere, although many physicists disagree. There is the constant desire to find out where - where is the point where it all began...The philosopher Didactylos suggested an alternative hypothesis: 'things just happen, what the hell'.

Last edited by Kthulhut Fhtagn; 4th May 2009 at 12:45 PM.
Kthulhut Fhtagn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 04:38 PM   #70
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn View Post
Of course, but if it is not supernatural then what is the intelligent designer?
It could be aliens.

Yeah, I know... you then have to ask where the aliens came from, but that is a question they will save for later.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 11:35 AM   #71
Kthulhut Fhtagn
Graduate Poster
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,956
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
It could be aliens.

Yeah, I know... you then have to ask where the aliens came from, but that is a question they will save for later.
Somehow I suspect we just aren't going to get a straight answer
__________________
-- Everything starts somewhere, although many physicists disagree. There is the constant desire to find out where - where is the point where it all began...The philosopher Didactylos suggested an alternative hypothesis: 'things just happen, what the hell'.
Kthulhut Fhtagn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2009, 08:06 PM   #72
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Thanks, everyone, for the contributions, so far! The following is a draft of the questions I chose, so far. I will present them to most target places in parts (not the whole thing at once). (Though, a few places might get the whole thing, at once. It depends on how I judge the "needs" of the audience.)

Any feedback would be appreciated.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1: The Practical Issues
1A. How can I.D. be applied to medical science, to help us fight diseases?

1B. How can I.D. be used as a framework for solving problems in any scientific field?

1C. If I.D. were to completely replace Evolution as the standard theory taught in U.S. schools, how would that give our students a competitive advantage in understanding the science of biology, on the world's stage?

Part 2: The Designer

2A. Where is the evidence that a Designer exists? And, why do so many Creationists act like this question is not even important, when they claim they are doing science?

2B. How are we to assess the engineering skills of the Designer? Can we determine what constraints existed for the Designer, in terms of materials, labor, and so forth? (This would seem important, if we are going to replace Evolution for use in medical research, for example.)

2C. Why are certain common characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms? (such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example) What prevented the Designer from giving us these things?

2D. How can we deduce the motives of the Intelligent Designer?

2E. Does I.D. claim that there is supposed to be a specific purpose for life on Earth? If so, how do you know what it is? (Or what they are? There could be more than one purpose.)

2F. Some people are under the impression that life looks as though it was either 'designed by committee' or perhaps 'competing contractors'. But, some insist that there was only one Designer. Can you develop a test to determine which is more accurate?

2G. If I were to claim that the "deducing of an Intelligent Designer" was nothing more than a type of paredolia phenomenon, how could you demonstrate otherwise?


Part 3: The Science

3A. Scientists are often motivated by the thrill of discovering new things. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?

3B. Could you define your technical terms, (and other words or expressions), that are likely to be misunderstood? For example: What is I.D.'s working definition of "Intelligence" or "Design"? In what ways do they differ from forces that are not intelligent and things that are not designed? (In other words, we are aiming for empirical definitions.)

3C. Why do so many I.D. proponents often (but not always) get scientific concepts wrong, such as: junk DNA, macroevolution, thermodynamics, Big Bang Theory, and the whole concept of Natural Selection, etc.?
How come so little effort has been made to "do your homework, and "know your enemy" better, before debating these issues on scientific grounds?

3D. What observations were originally predicted by your theory?

3E. Can you design an experiment that could invalidate (or "falsify") Intelligent Design, depending on the results?

3F. Why has Evolution, even in its provisional form, been powerful enough to change what I.D. proponents think, over time. But, I.D. has not been powerful enough to change what Evolution proponents think, so far?

3G. How come it always seems to be the evolutionary biologists who are publishing new, innovative results and findings, and not I.D. researchers? (If it is "luck", then why do they get all the "luck"?)

3H. If I were to claim that Intelligent Design studies do nothing but "affirm their conclusions", how could you demonstrate otherwise?

Part 4: The Competition

4A. Can your theory explain why the present distribution of plant and animals in the world came about, the way it is? Why are tomatoes and potatoes only native to the Americas, for example? Why are monotremes and a few placental mammals restricted to Australia? Why could they not have been distributed anywhere else?

4B. Can your theory explain endogenous retroviruses?

4C. For every example of Intelligent Design given so far, how come Evolution has also discovered a possible way for it to emerge, naturally? And, how come the natural method is usually the one making better predictions about the example's behavior? (For example: Evolutionary theory predicted the behavior of mal-formed bacterial agents, than Intelligent Design.)

Part 5: Politics and Values (These are not as important as the other four sections, though.)

5A. Why is it so difficult for I.D. proponents to distance themselves from religious fundamentalists?

5B. Why has so much of the resources spent promoting I.D. been used to fight court battles and school boards, and virtually nothing on labs or new research?

5C. Many creationists claim that Evolution is all a hoax, and a conspiracy theory. Why has there been virtually no effort, on the part of legitimate I.D. researchers to point out how Evolution science has already impacted our lives in positive ways? (Such as in the fields of medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc.) How do you answer the accusation that you are "endorsing madness through inaction"?

5D. Some people are under the impression that the values behind the Intelligent Design movement are only based on fear, oppression, and guilt. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2009, 02:08 AM   #73
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Thanks, everyone, for the contributions, so far! The following is a draft of the questions I chose, so far. I will present them to most target places in parts (not the whole thing at once). (Though, a few places might get the whole thing, at once. It depends on how I judge the "needs" of the audience.)

Any feedback would be appreciated.

...
I'd like to see a question asking what the crux of the ID theory is. Until you got a clear definition of what's under discussion there is too much wriggle room. It's already clear from the thread so far that there's a diversity of opinion on what ID implies, and that, I suspect, is due to there being no clear definition given.
Alternatively you might want to state what you regard as the central claim(s) of ID at the beginning. Proponents can then self-identify even if they hadn't realised they were ID proponents.
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2009, 02:40 AM   #74
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
(For example: Evolutionary theory predicted the behavior of mal-formed bacterial agents, than Intelligent Design.)
Minor nitpick: this sentence appears to be missing a word or two.

Otherwise, this looks like a very good set of questions. I look forward to your accounts of how they were evaded.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2009, 02:51 AM   #75
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 3,184
Quote:
Why are certain characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms, such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example?
I am not a fan of this one as worded. Some things humans design do not have the items specified.

First, you are constrained by the materials chosen. The designers tried attaching a 2 inch label to a single cell, but the rivets kept popping and they gave up. I hear there is a project to attach a labels to the new elements at the end of the periodic table, but we can't seem to get our labels attached within the lifetime of the particles.

Perhaps the designers were not worried about glactic patents. Why bother to encode DNA that would print "Proudly made in Xhtwb Galaxy with union labor" on the skin?

We constantly replace individual cells within the body as part of our life cycle. Heck - stem cells can be anything, including cells that makes more stem cells. It is only the bigger structures that would fall under your replacement part category. Which leads to...

Why don't we make writing paper with detachable and easily replaceable parts? The cost of doing so dwarfs that of making another piece. Similarly, I venture to guess that the majority of life forms reproduce prolifically. Replacing the entire unit with 10 (100, 1000, etc) offspring may be "eaiser" than designing the individual unit to replace/repair large parts. Given the nature of biological materials, this may be the most efficient approach, though not optimal for the individual needing a new part.

CT
__________________
T-Mobile customer service sucks.
Happiness should not be a zero sum game.
Did I mention T-Mobile customer service sucks?
CriticalThanking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2009, 07:45 AM   #76
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Minor nitpick: this sentence appears to be missing a word or two.
(For example: Evolutionary theory predicted the behavior of mal-formed bacterial agents, better than Intelligent Design.)
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2009, 09:10 AM   #77
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
I am not a fan of this one as worded. Some things humans design do not have the items specified.
I did rephrase it slightly, in the draft:

2C. Why are certain common characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms? (such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example) What prevented the Designer from giving us these things?

But, perhaps I can word slightly better than that:

2C. Why are certain characteristics commonly found in many designed products absent in most life forms? (such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example) What prevented the Designer from giving us these things?
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2009, 02:32 AM   #78
ArmillarySphere
Muse
 
ArmillarySphere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 829
I think 2C still begs the question of why the designer *should* give us those labels.

I think that if you want to make the ID believers (note: as opposed to proponents who are likely going to covet their ignorance), you need to make the questions free of obvious bias/confrontational mindset against the theory. When trying to actually change someone's mind, it helps a lot to actually come off as giving the theory a fair chance while asking exactly those questions which highlight the weak spots.

You mentioned not putting all these questions to the same person, so I suppose you've already thought of this. I'd just like to flag those questions that will aggravate your opponent AND come across to neutral observers as unfair and aggressive. You may not respect their position, but you need to at least appear to give them a fair chance.

So, going over the questions:
1A-B: Very good.
1C is slightly biased, but not too bad

2A mentions Creationists, not "design proponentists" and is a little biased - rephrase somehow
2B is great
2C begs the question as mentioned
2D-F are great
2G is fine if you're preaching to the choir.

3A could be rephrased along the lines of "Assuming the theory is accepted, list some of the top most interesting research avenues for Intelligent Design" The first part of that is simply to avoid a laundry list of "show evolution is wrong about X"
3B, 3D-E are great.
3C is exactly the sort of thing *not* to ask someone supporting ID - instant hostile reaction.
The rest of section 3 is also pretty bad, but not as much as 3C

4A is good
4B triggers the honest response "What about them?". Clarify the question
4C is biased

5B deserves to be asked, I think - someone who is on the fence deserves to hear the answer to that one.
The rest of section 5 is a little too confrontational.
ArmillarySphere is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2009, 03:44 PM   #79
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,152
Originally Posted by ArmillarySphere View Post
I think 2C still begs the question of why the designer *should* give us those labels.

(snip)
You make some good points I will take into consideration.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2009, 08:00 AM   #80
pupdog
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 627
An exciting field in science and engineering is the fabrication of materials based on designs originally found in nature. Why doesn't the Original Designer bring suit against such activity on the grounds of infringement of intellectual property? Can this question be answered without assuming some characteristics of that Designer?
__________________
Professor Pupdog
pupdog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.