Intelligence Inquiry

[RichardY]

To get back to the premise in the OP, the real question the OP ought be asking is this:

Why has ID failed thus far as a science?

Exploring that will yield far more answers than complaining about evolution.

I would say because it's not a science. But that it is closer to metaphysics and mathematics.

Although evolution as far as it is mechanistic is not the end all either. Intelligent design, could apply from extraterrestrials. Depends how far the framework has to be built out. A big Bang that comes from nowhere and proceeds like clockwork til the end of time? The universe as a random windup toy?

Science should ultimately have a tangible benefit to society.

 

[inquiring mind]

Good thing that science doesn't require knowing "exactly" what happened. The past did however leave evidence behind that we are able to look at today and discern with a high degree of accuracy what happened.

Given enough time, of course.

 

[pitabread]

Science should ultimately have a tangible benefit to society.

The funny thing is there is arguably a need for legit ID science.

The premise of ID is to detect intelligent design in organisms without specifically knowing in the first place those organisms were designed. This would fit in perfectly with detection of GM organisms. Yet the ID camp doesn't appear to be pursuing this.

Last I had checked, the only way to detect GM organisms is via pre-existing knowledge of specific DNA sequences. Which makes me wonder how IDists can claim to detect design in life forms if they cannot apply it to that scenario.

If IDists could legitimately crack this, they could arguably self-fund through a real application of ID. Instead they still rely on donations and merchandising...

 

[inquiring mind]

To get back to the premise in the OP, the real question the OP ought be asking is this:

Why has ID failed thus far as a science?

Exploring that will yield far more answers than complaining about evolution.

We know the answer to that... teachers want to keep their job.

 

[pitabread]

We know the answer to that... teachers want to keep their job.

The question isn't about the teaching of ID though. It's about the failure of ID as a science itself.

Care to try again?

 

[inquiring mind]

The question isn't about the teaching of ID though. It's about the failure of ID as a science itself.

Care to try again?

Intimidation, silencing, no one wants to sacrifice their job promoting an alternative to evolution... I'll stick with that.

 

[pitabread]

Intimidation, silencing, no one wants to sacrifice their job promoting an alternative to evolution... I'll stick with that.

This completely ignores what I said earlier in the thread about industry. Evolution has real-world applications.

If ID is allegedly a superior alternative (as was heavily implied in the OP), why aren't we hearing about this from industry? The primary motivator there is competitive advantage. Companies have no vested interest in protecting scientific theories for the sake of it.

Looking to industry is where these conspiracy theories don't hold water.

It also further implies that ID is already a legitimate science (or has the potential to be). Have you ever looked into ID literature/research to see if that is the case?

(To add to this, I mentioned earlier the real-world need for detection of GM organisms. This is something ID could pursue, yet I've never seen any indication of this from the ID camp. Instead, ID seems to be mostly about arguing against evolution.)

 

[inquiring mind]

This completely ignores what I said earlier in the thread about industry. Evolution has real-world applications.

If ID is allegedly a superior alternative (as was heavily implied in the OP), why aren't we hearing about this from industry? The primary motivator there is competitive advantage. Companies have no vested interest in protecting scientific theories for the sake of it.

Looking to industry is where these conspiracy theories don't hold water.

It also further implies that ID is already a legitimate science (or has the potential to be). Have you ever looked into ID literature/research to see if that is the case?

Industry is more vulnerable than teachers.

 

[pitabread]

Industry is more vulnerable than teachers.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

 

[pitabread]

Teachers don't do science and he was asking about ID failing as a science.

Yeah, making this about teaching implies that ID is already a legitimate science with actual material worth teaching.

ID hasn't got anywhere close to that point yet. Thus far, it's largely been just a political movement. Which is why all the drama surrounding it has focused on public education.

I notice that inquiring mind's responses to why ID has failed as a science exclusively focus on external forces, rather than examining anything to do with ID itself.

The real reason ID has failed: because it has yet to produce any useful science.

 

[RichardY]

I remember being at a horse show in Calgary Canada. And seeing the fossil skeleton of a horse native to N.America that went extinct.(in the small visitor museum.) The person I was staying with at the time was a fundamentalist Christian, I was agnostic leaning towards Atheism. Anyway she frowned at the fossil.....

I can understand to some degree getting caught up in religious dogma. But there has to be an overall logos to scripture or perhaps an anti-logos(as I think is the case with some Buddhism), or someone can just write anything, and not have it keep with the plot or theme.

If someone tore Genesis out of the Bible, because the world isn't 6,000 years old would it matter? Perhaps there is some bizarre stream of time going on. I can't buy into the mass conspiracy of fossils planted by Satan, what difference does it make.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why wouldn’t it be better for education to present accurately, and in detail, what the theory of evolution can and can’t show with a comparison to Intelligent Design, instead of just presenting their dogma? Wouldn’t an opposing theory be good for education?

That's if you had an opposing theory to present. Intelligent Design isn't an opposing theory. It's not even an opposing hypothesis. It's just... religious nonsense disguised as science by people who can't do science.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If evidence can point to evolution, with all its discrepancies, why can’t it point to intelligent design?

Pretty simple in my view....because admitting ID would suggest there is a God, the last thing the world wants to allow themselves to believe.

Why wouldn’t it be better for education to present accurately, and in detail, what the theory of evolution can and can’t show with a comparison to Intelligent Design, instead of just presenting their dogma? Wouldn’t an opposing theory be good for education?

The world is selfish, so they don't care about the kids or what they teach is going to do to the kids in the long run. They only want what they want, what perpetuates their own agenda to pretend there is no God, or in their mind, get rid of the "God myth". Since they/Satan has control for a short time at this point in time, they won't be changing their minds.

Soon, all that will be left, at least for the most part, will be them that want no God to exist, and a false religion that pretends to worship God but allows those who use it to do whatever they want, not what God wants, and to pretend they are going to heaven. That takes care of a majority... those who want no God to exist, and those that aren't quit comfortable with that, so they pretend they can have the best of both worlds.

Welcome to the end of the world as we know it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's if you had an opposing theory to present. Intelligent Design isn't an opposing theory. It's not even an opposing hypothesis. It's just... religious nonsense disguised as science by people who can't do science.

Opposed to what? What do you have? Something that fizzles away quickly ones we look into it even the slightest bit?

 

[pitabread]

Pretty simple in my view....because admitting ID would suggest there is a God, the last thing the world wants to allow themselves to believe.

Some ID proponents are pretty adamant about this *not* being the case though. Especially since if one is talking about teaching ID as legitimate science, one cannot simultaneously promote supernatural deities lest they run afoul of the U.S. Constitution (see the Dover trial as a prime example).

Plus, we do have legitimate examples of intelligent design in biology in the form of genetic engineering. There is no reason to implicitly assume a supernatural intelligence nor assume there are any religious connotations associated with ID.

 

[pitabread]

I find it telling that in a thread started about ID, there hasn't been a single attempt to offer a scientific defense of ID.

 

[pitabread]

And that has what to do with my post?

The first quoted reply wasn't a reply to you. It was just an observation that in a thread wondering why ID isn't promoted as a legitimate alternative to evolution, nobody has offered a scientific defense thereof.

The second quote goes back to the topic of the thread: wondering why ID isn't presented as a valid alternative to evolution.

Your reply to the topic is makes reference to ID being religious in nature. Ironically, you've correctly answered the thread topic, but in a manner which many ID proponents would try to divorce themselves from.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I find it telling that in a thread started about ID, there hasn't been a single attempt to offer a scientific defense of ID.

I find it telling that no one has offered an REAL scientific defense to the alternative to begin with, or basically answered my question in post 118. You are jumping the gun until you do that.

Intelligence Inquiry post 118.

 

[pitabread]

I find it telling that no one has offered an REAL scientific defense to the alternative to begin with, or basically answered my question in post 118. You are jumping the gun until you do that.

Intelligence Inquiry

This thread is (allegedly) about ID and why it isn't taught as a viable alternative to evolution. Do you have anything to say about the scientific viability of ID?

 

[Kenny'sID]

The first quoted reply wasn't a reply to you. It was just an observation that in a thread wondering why ID isn't promoted as a legitimate alternative to evolution, nobody has offered a scientific defense thereof.

The second quote goes back to the topic of the thread: wondering why ID isn't presented as a valid alternative to evolution.

Your reply to the topic is makes reference to ID being religious in nature. Ironically, you've correctly answered the thread topic, but in a manner which many ID proponents would try to divorce themselves from.

You can discuss what you wish, but I don't think it has a thing to do with my post, and since my posts are my priority here, just hang in there and i may eventually look at what you are getting at.