An Open Letter to Yo Momma
Rules, schmules! I'm emeryroolz, and I makes my OWN roolz.
Now, I’m not going to bother rehashing everything I said in my last post. I think I demonstrated pretty clearly why I, and most of the non-religious world, think ID is a bunch of hooey. And I’ll admit that I’m not a scientist, unless you count “pimp science,” though I am interested in it and read about it every now and again. Oh, and I work with scientists every day.
With that said, let me tell you where you're wrong:
One criteria for determining "scientific merit" is "Do the hypotheses rest on sufficient evidence, and are they clearly stated, and are they testable." So, a "theory" with no testable predictions, no experiments, no observational analysis, no peer-reviewed scientific papers... that's a theory with scientific merit? No-ah-ah. It might be an interesting thought or an idea, but it ain't a scientific theory.
First, for the record, I have no shame. Second, who do you think this "Designer" is? Who do you think the ID-iots think the "Designer" is? It's god. Or super-intelligent aliens (which, if true, means Scientology is the one true religion… ugh) . Saying "We don't know WHO the designer is, wink wink" is disingenuous. And "Chance" is not exactly what scientists cling to. It's adaptation to environment, the necessity for survival. Living things HAVE been proven to change and adapt to changes in their environment. You know, things like natural forces, as opposed to SUPERnatural forces.
That's not a black box. It's an explanation based on available evidence and backed up by observation, analysis, and experimentation.
Evolutionary Theory - evidence, observation, peer-reviewed scientific papers, experiments…
Intelligent Design - Um... Michael Behe's book?
How is ID's use by the religious nuts in this country irrelevant? Their goal is to stifle knowledge and promote religious doctrine. Their means to that end is to supplant the teaching of evolution is schools with the teaching of intelligent design. You can say that scientist try the same thing when they marginalize ID, but what the hell is the evidence for ID? The facts behind it? The data behind it? If it was a theory worthy of merit, it would stand on it's own, and it would not be so easily dismissible. If only factual or structural problems are enough to dismiss it, I think we've got plenty of those: ID has no facts to support it, and it's structure appears to be based solely on statistical probability analyses and a half-baked theory of "irreducible complexity."
Roman Catholics aren't Christians?
So, provide some proof. Do some experiments. Offer some evidence from the fossil record. Do something, ANYTHING!!!
As of your Galileo argument:
Your point about scientific intolerance is well-taken. A few things: I believe the geo-centric theories were Ptolomy’s, weren’t they? Also, it’s incorrect to say that the bible says (or implies) nothing about geo-centrism. Since I’m too lazy to look up proof in the bible, I’ll let this guy do it for me. It was this RELIGIOUS belief that lead to Galileo’s trail for HERESY. Do you really think that if Galileo had come up with a theory that refuted Ptolomy and Aristotle but fit the scriptures better, they would have tried and persecuted him? To say that the church gave a rat’s ass about science is farcical.
To compare the church’s persecution of Galileo to modern science’s refusal to accept ID is ludicrous. If ID had anything but smoke and mirrors and religious hope behind it, it would certainly gain traction in the scientific community. And for the record, nobody is putting ID-iots on trial for their crack-pot ideas. However, the (religious) people of Kansas are putting evolution on trial as we speak.
Because they have nothing to speak about yet. Again, no research, no data, no evidence, nothing. Why should we waste school time for American kids, who are already light years behind most of the rest of the world in science, on a bunch of religious nonsense? And say what you want about ID NOT being tied to religion. The ONLY reason it's being forced on us now is because RELIGIOUS people want it, because it's compatible with THEIR religion. Evidence and facts be damned!
Now, I’m not going to bother rehashing everything I said in my last post. I think I demonstrated pretty clearly why I, and most of the non-religious world, think ID is a bunch of hooey. And I’ll admit that I’m not a scientist, unless you count “pimp science,” though I am interested in it and read about it every now and again. Oh, and I work with scientists every day.
With that said, let me tell you where you're wrong:
I very much believe that ID has scientific merit
One criteria for determining "scientific merit" is "Do the hypotheses rest on sufficient evidence, and are they clearly stated, and are they testable." So, a "theory" with no testable predictions, no experiments, no observational analysis, no peer-reviewed scientific papers... that's a theory with scientific merit? No-ah-ah. It might be an interesting thought or an idea, but it ain't a scientific theory.
The best and most obvious example of their similarity is the "black box," or the explanation used when all other explanations have failed. In ID, it's a Designer (not Jesus. Shame on Emery for thinking that the only possible reason to disagree with ET would come from religious dogma). For ET, it's Chance.
First, for the record, I have no shame. Second, who do you think this "Designer" is? Who do you think the ID-iots think the "Designer" is? It's god. Or super-intelligent aliens (which, if true, means Scientology is the one true religion… ugh) . Saying "We don't know WHO the designer is, wink wink" is disingenuous. And "Chance" is not exactly what scientists cling to. It's adaptation to environment, the necessity for survival. Living things HAVE been proven to change and adapt to changes in their environment. You know, things like natural forces, as opposed to SUPERnatural forces.
That's not a black box. It's an explanation based on available evidence and backed up by observation, analysis, and experimentation.
And as stupid as any one person may find the Black Box of the opposing position, the bottom line is this:
they aren't different. In operation, at least. Not at all.
Evolutionary Theory - evidence, observation, peer-reviewed scientific papers, experiments…
Intelligent Design - Um... Michael Behe's book?
The only relevant reason for hating ID is this: ID's Black Box has a different name and a different shape.*
Now I recognize that there are many significant if ultimately irrelevant) reasons for hating ID, the largest being that it has been heavily pushed and promoted by Creation Theorists, the very same who have often ridiculed and decried the scientific establishment and are now clamoring for re-entry. That, however, as irritating as it may be, isn't sufficient reason for throwing out the theory - only factual or structural problems are reason enough.
How is ID's use by the religious nuts in this country irrelevant? Their goal is to stifle knowledge and promote religious doctrine. Their means to that end is to supplant the teaching of evolution is schools with the teaching of intelligent design. You can say that scientist try the same thing when they marginalize ID, but what the hell is the evidence for ID? The facts behind it? The data behind it? If it was a theory worthy of merit, it would stand on it's own, and it would not be so easily dismissible. If only factual or structural problems are enough to dismiss it, I think we've got plenty of those: ID has no facts to support it, and it's structure appears to be based solely on statistical probability analyses and a half-baked theory of "irreducible complexity."
Behe, it should be noted, is not a Christian, and says so very bluntly in the introduction to his book, Darwin's Black Box.
Roman Catholics aren't Christians?
That was it. That was his entire quarrel. "I don't like Evolution's explanation for this event, and I'd like to propose that something else made it."
So, provide some proof. Do some experiments. Offer some evidence from the fossil record. Do something, ANYTHING!!!
As of your Galileo argument:
Your point about scientific intolerance is well-taken. A few things: I believe the geo-centric theories were Ptolomy’s, weren’t they? Also, it’s incorrect to say that the bible says (or implies) nothing about geo-centrism. Since I’m too lazy to look up proof in the bible, I’ll let this guy do it for me. It was this RELIGIOUS belief that lead to Galileo’s trail for HERESY. Do you really think that if Galileo had come up with a theory that refuted Ptolomy and Aristotle but fit the scriptures better, they would have tried and persecuted him? To say that the church gave a rat’s ass about science is farcical.
To compare the church’s persecution of Galileo to modern science’s refusal to accept ID is ludicrous. If ID had anything but smoke and mirrors and religious hope behind it, it would certainly gain traction in the scientific community. And for the record, nobody is putting ID-iots on trial for their crack-pot ideas. However, the (religious) people of Kansas are putting evolution on trial as we speak.
“It's the legitimate ID theorists you should be paying attention to, the ones who have a serious scientific problem wth the current scientific explanation. Why should they not be allowed to speak?”
Because they have nothing to speak about yet. Again, no research, no data, no evidence, nothing. Why should we waste school time for American kids, who are already light years behind most of the rest of the world in science, on a bunch of religious nonsense? And say what you want about ID NOT being tied to religion. The ONLY reason it's being forced on us now is because RELIGIOUS people want it, because it's compatible with THEIR religion. Evidence and facts be damned!
posted by emeryroolz at 1:55 PM
6 Comments:
A few quick comments,
a "theory" with no testable predictions, no experiments, no observational analysis, no peer-reviewed scientific papers... that's a theory with scientific merit?
Here's a testable prediction that ID makes: There are biological systems with no possible evolutionary history.
Evolutionary Theory - evidence, observation, peer-reviewed scientific papers, experiments…
Intelligent Design - Um... Michael Behe's book?
ID has had a peer-reviewed article, actually. You can read it here.
How is ID's use by the religious nuts in this country irrelevant?
The improper use of a thing does not invalidate it's proper use. If I find materialist darwinist fanatics who want to kill all Christians that doesn't impugne the theory. It shows there are extremists who believe it.
Do you really think that if Galileo had come up with a theory that refuted Ptolomy and Aristotle but fit the scriptures better, they would have tried and persecuted him?
Uhm, prettymuch yeah, that's what happened. Sorry if you don't like it.
Because they have nothing to speak about yet. Again, no research, no data, no evidence, nothing.
I agree in its current state ID doesn't have a whole lot to offer--it has no significant research program. But I think that might change in the future. And I think calling it "not science" before it has a chance to mature simply because you don't like the religion of its advocates isn't really fair treatment for it. Especially when that particular religion is the one held by the majority of the citizens of this country.
What would you say about Cosmological ID as philosophical argument as opposed to science? That's where I think the atheists are going to be toasted this century.
Two more words for Emery -
How the hell do you test Chance as a viable exlanation (with examples, please), and
Why does ID necessarily have to be SUPERnatural, as you put it? For as much as you keep insisting that supernatural is the only way that ID theorists go...they don´t. "Designer" doesn´t equal "deity."
So, we agree. If you wanna teach ID, put it in Philosophy class. Not science class. What the hell are we arguing about then?
And, if this so-called "Designer" isn't a deity, or some sort of alien, what the hell is it? Just calling something "Designer" is the same thing as calling it "Magic" or "Abba Zabba." The whole thing SCREAMS deity, which is why religious nuts are the ones carrying the ID banner.
And as far as "Chance" goes, you said chance, not me. What you call "Chance" I call evironmental factors as catalyst for change. The environment changes, an animal adapts, it's body changes, it evolves. There's plenty of evidence of this, like this.
Your link doesn't work, Emeryroolz...I'd like to read whatever it is, though.
But, insofar as I understand evolution, it most certainly does ultimately rely on chance. Negative environmental factors don't cause an individual animal to adapt to deal with them--the body of one critter won't change just because change might be conducive to survival. Only a species can adapt and evolve, and only by natural selection. But those "adaptations" are the sum total of a series of random changes in one creature's genome which prove beneficial for survival and hence are passed down to the only members of the species that survive--and millions more changes/mutations occur and don't get passed on, tending rather to diminish the individual critter's chance of survival. The benefit is random, a happy chance.
Or am I just behind on my science?
Incidentally, I'd like to get in on the fun here. Email addy is arandir (at) gmail.com.
Thank you, Mr. Gugg. Of course ET depends on Chance! If Emeryroolz has a special theory of his own, that does not rely on almighty Chance to facilitate change, then I look forward to reading a more thorough explanation soon.
According to the governing rules of this discussion, however, he should not be claiming "scientists" or Evolutionary Theorists as proponents of his posisition, because Chance (often described as "random" in this article... check out Variation specifically) is still the core of their system. Emeryroolz, and other followers of ET, dislike the word "Chance", because it sounds like a risky thing to base a theory on. Alternate terminology (such as "environmental factors as catalyst for change) is therefore being developed to draw attention away from that risky word, until a different stop-gap can be found.
The real risk, however, lies just below the surface: the farther from "Chance" they venture, the closer they come to "Design". For example: ET biologists argue that a random process of genome mutation is too slow to account for the observed variation, so ETheory is creeping into "non-random random changes" and similar dangerously intentional avenues of explanation.
After wading through a lot of wordage on the subject, honestly pursuing a lucid representation of the ET, I find (much to my surprise, actually) that "modern science" has precious little of the proof, evidence, or even physical testability that Emeryroolz so loudly demands of ID. My search is far from over, but the morning has certainly yielded disappointing results.
Post a Comment
<< Home