My blog about my experiences defending science

[Gokul43201]

The issue is that natural selection is not grounded in science. Sure there are plenty of ways to determine the age of the Earth at given points and trace transitional and intermediate fossils... but natural selection gets into claiming the motivations or purpose of those transitions. Once you get into the "Why?" of a topic, you're entering the realm of philosophy, not pure science. And in this case, it does not hold up when scrutinized too closely anyway. What Darwin attributed to survival, ID theorists ascribe to a higher purpose.

Yikes ! You've been mislead. I take it you have not read any of the hundreds of papers published in mathematics, physics, biology, computer science and statistics journals that involve Bayesian analysis of distributions within large populations. Natural selection may have started off as nothing but a hypothesis based on initial observations (as virtually every successful physical model does), but it has mountains of evidence supporting it now - both observational, and purely theoretical. There is no philosophical handwaving involved. There is no "why ?" that is being answered.

As for most of the rest of this discussion, I concur with Rach - especially about the "pit" that Newtonian physics was supposedly in. The progress of science will strongly be rooted in the correspondence principle, and this will serve as a powerful test for any new development in science.

 

[Evo]

No... it's not. Perhaps some people try to misuse it as such, just as secular humanists have glommed onto Darwin as their vehicle to take religion OUT of our society. But that is not how I understand ID's intent at all.

You don't seem to know what ID really is, who created it, and the reasons behind it. It is exactly as Rach described. Their own "Wedge" document clearly startes their purpose, you've never read it?

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html

 

[PIT2]

To me, religions have far different requirements that science can allow before being science anymore. Do you have any better suggestions? Any point?

What requirements?

I said what i meant in my previous post pretty clearly. As soon as one believes science is the absolute path to truth, then one has granted science divine power.

 

[silkworm]

What requirements?

I said what i meant in my previous post pretty clearly. As soon as one believes science is the absolute path to truth, then one has granted science divine power.

Well, and I mean this respectfully, the only thing with any power at all is nature. Science is what we use to study nature, and so is limited by its bounds. Religion requires some sort of superbeing or superforce outside of the bounds of nature.

I'd never marry science and religion because they are incompatable and science is what I value, simply because science studies where I am, including what I am. Inserting a superbeing or superforce into science degrades it to the point of no longer being functional.

I don't understand why you felt the need to make the statement you did. I can very much differentiate between reality and make believe.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

None of what you've shown me in ID directly refutes the science of aging the Earth, examining fossils, or studying microbiology. ID seeks to correct the sociological changes that too many misguided men have created by mistreating this science. I read the same things and see a reconciliation of science and faith. But for some reason you all read the same thing through this filter because I guess it's so abhorrent to think of allegedly random chance as God's hand.

It's ironic that when you look at cosmology and physics, you see men of faith, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, even Stephen Hawking, acknowleding God in everything they find. The entire field was founded on the premise of exploring and discovering God's methods.

Why is it so different here?

 

[PIT2]

Well, and I mean this respectfully, the only thing with any power at all is nature. Science is what we use to study nature, and so is limited by its bounds. Religion requires some sort of superbeing or superforce outside of the bounds of nature.

But who is to say that nature is what science requires it to be in order to study it?

Inserting a superbeing or superforce into science degrades it to the point of no longer being functional.

Does nature care what is functional for us?
(No, since the limits of science do not determine what reality is.)

I don't understand why you felt the need to make the statement you did. I can very much differentiate between reality and make believe.

I am only pointing out a danger that I have seen people succumb to in creationism and ID debates. I don't know if any of it applies to u since i haven't read anything uve written about creationism/ID, but just keep these simple and humbling facts in mind:

Was life created / designed? We don't know.
The universe? Idem dito.

Saying that it isn't science to state that it was designed / created, says nothing about whether it was designed / created. It only says something about science itself.

 

[Rach3]

This thread is frayed in several directions; could I ask the Mods to separate the posts which aree actually debating the validty of ID to be branched off, maybe into Biology or Skeptism & Debunking?

 

[silkworm]

None of what you've shown me in ID directly refutes the science of aging the Earth, examining fossils, or studying microbiology. ID seeks to correct the sociological changes that too many misguided men have created by mistreating this science. I read the same things and see a reconciliation of science and faith. But for some reason you all read the same thing through this filter because I guess it's so abhorrent to think of allegedly random chance as God's hand.

It's ironic that when you look at cosmology and physics, you see men of faith, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, even Stephen Hawking, acknowleding God in everything they find. The entire field was founded on the premise of exploring and discovering God's methods.

Why is it so different here?

The difference is that science holds no position on the existence of God, and cannot do so because a supreme being cannot be controlled for. If you begin reading scientific journals, you'll be hard pressed to find weighing the existence of God in the conclusion of any article.

 

[Hootenanny]

The difference is that science holds no position on the existence of God, and cannot do so because a supreme being cannot be controlled for. If you begin reading scientific journals, you'll be hard pressed to find weighing the existence of God in the conclusion of any article.

But then again, some people say that 'God' has no choice and therefore will make the same decision everytime when faced with a particular question, i.e. always the 'good' choice. If 'God' always makes the 'good' decsion then its 'actions' can be predicted.

~H

 

[silkworm]

But then again, some people say that 'God' has no choice and therefore will make the same decision everytime when faced with a particular question, i.e. always the 'good' choice. If 'God' always makes the 'good' decsion then its 'actions' can be predicted.

~H

Well, I've always had huge amounts of faith in the thoughts of "some people." Some people would wonder, myself included, why would anyone make such an exception, such an edit? What proof would they have? What would be the point?

I could also say God is the Hamburgler from McDonald's, but is too busy stealing Big Macs to make decisions right now.

Or, I could just not worry about it and conduct my experiments and come to my conclusions based on data and not... whatever that is.

I suppose you could do any of those things and still conduct decent science, I just don't know why you'd need to.

 

[silkworm]

But who is to say that nature is what science requires it to be in order to study it?



Does nature care what is functional for us?
(No, since the limits of science do not determine what reality is.)



I am only pointing out a danger that I have seen people succumb to in creationism and ID debates. I don't know if any of it applies to u since i haven't read anything uve written about creationism/ID, but just keep these simple and humbling facts in mind:

Was life created / designed? We don't know.
The universe? Idem dito.

Saying that it isn't science to state that it was designed / created, says nothing about whether it was designed / created. It only says something about science itself.

Did I respond to this already? I thought I did, but i can't find the post.

Who knows if science goes far enough, but we do know that it works without the consideration of the supernatural, why fix what isn't broke?

Science is limited to nature.

 

[silkworm]

I just skimmed through the OP's blog, and WOW - man, learn to control your temper! Those are NOT productive remarks at all!

Rach3, I'm still waiting for a response on this. If you're going to make a statement like this, please qualify it.

 

[Rach3]

Okay then...

At the end I asked, "Are you expecting to be held accountable for endorsing misreprentations and lies about science?"

He asked, "What lies or misreprentations?"

I said, "We've been addressing them and these meetings are so saturated with lies and misreprentations of science I don't see how anyone honest can endorse them."

He asked for me to give him something specific and we could address it and get to the bottom of it.

I said, "These presentations are so vulgarly scientifically inaccurate to address them you'd win by time limitations alone."

https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/corr-reposted-from-april-21-2006/

 

[silkworm]

Okay then...
https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/corr-reposted-from-april-21-2006/

Yeah, I know that looks like I'm not saying anything, but I'd already established there were several misrepresentations, and at the meeting I did so as well, constantly bringing up points. Saying it out right and watching them act like, "What are you talking about?" led me to say that as default because they didn't have any accountability.

Either way, I'm not sure what the alarm is about on your end.

 

[Rach3]

It is utterly irresponsible to patronize your audience like that - it doesn't even have a semblance of public speaking in it. You're not addressing the audience there or even the speaker; you're talking to yourself. If you have to resort to colorful public insults, you might as well not show up at all.

 

[silkworm]

No, I am talking to the speaker? What are you talking about?

 

[Rach3]

Not addressing the speaker - you are not in any reasonble way attempting to communicate to him, or the audience. You're venting anger in a public display - that's not communication.

 

[silkworm]

I was talking to him? I can't give a verbatim breakdown of the entire meeting, these things last 3 hours, and then I'm there 2 hours afterwards. I can only recap what I remember. If it's not clear I was talking to speaker and had been talking to him for awhile.

 

[Rach3]

I interpret from your own account of events, you can hardly accuse that source of being unfair to you. You should figure out what your goals are at these places - are you merely there to feel self-righteous and throw around insults? Or do want to appear as a cool-headed representative of science, patiently and methodically refuting points, convincing the audience of your argument with earnest rhetoric? The sleaze and demagogy of the I.D.'er in stark counterpoint to your own straight-talking reason?

 

[silkworm]

I interpret from your own account of events, you can hardly accuse that source of being unfair to you. You should figure out what your goals are at these places - are you merely there to feel self-righteous and throw around insults? Or do want to appear as a cool-headed representative of science, patiently and methodically refuting points, convincing the audience of your argument with earnest rhetoric? The sleaze and demagogy of the I.D.'er in stark counterpoint to your own straight-talking reason?

I'm not accusing the source of being unfair to me. This is what happened, I told them against about misrepresentations of science. I had been delivering examples throughout and I mentioned it. They pretended like I didn't know what I was talking about. I just don't understand why you're acting kneejerk over this. Do you have some sort of chip on your shoulder over me or something? What's the deal? Your interpretation seems bizarre as do your assumptions about me.

 

[Rach3]

They pretended like I didn't know what I was talking about.

That answer your question?

It is absolutely unproductive to ouright tell your speaker he's a liar, especially if it's true!. It makes you look bad, turns off your audience, demolishes your image, and as a good actor he brushes you right off. Fair? Not at all. If you don't know what else to do, I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[silkworm]

Actually, me saying that had him make a concession that we focus on one thing and one thing only at future meetings so this won't happen. It was really the best I could do at the time, as my ally and I were hoping for that. That's the "shotgun sprays" thing he said.

Anyway, thanks for answering.

 

[cronxeh]

(Hello physics forums. I absolutely love the level of discussion here, and I look forward to contributing as soon as I figure out what you're all talking about.)

I attend creationism/ID meetings to defend against misrepresentations of science. Since there is no debate, I don't attend to do so, I just go expecting a valid scientific argument, explain why what was delivered wasn't one, and point out any misrepresentations of science presented at these meetings. I am blogging my experiences doing so here:

https://silkworm.wordpress.com/

I plan on branching out to defending misrepresentations of science in other places, but those presented by the creationism/ID movement are the most pressing and hit closest to home so that's my current focus.

Science doesn't need to defend itself, and by attending such meeting you give them substance of recognition. Ignore the ignorami and be blissful.

 

[silkworm]

Science doesn't need to defend itself, and by attending such meeting you give them substance of recognition. Ignore the ignorami and be blissful.

It really does need defending, I live in a democratic nation and the demographic that supports this attack on science also elected our president. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it obviously only makes it worse. I believe the Dawkins Method as well, however a point should be made that a debate is impossible unitl the 2 sides meet. I refuse to have theological discussions, but I will participate in a scientific argument - but before I do valid science must be presented and valid scientific teminology must be used. When the discussion goes theological, I don't participate because it's not my area.

I'm not giving them a podium, I just go and tell those who are looking for a scientific argument why a valid one has not been presented, and the one that was presented was a lie.

 

[silkworm]

Well, the plot just thickened. CORR is planning to have guest speakers via CCTV, the first being Dr. Lucas and they hope to have Dr. David Menton, etc.

 

[cronxeh]

It really does need defending, I live in a democratic nation and the demographic that supports this attack on science also elected our president. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it obviously only makes it worse. I believe the Dawkins Method as well, however a point should be made that a debate is impossible unitl the 2 sides meet. I refuse to have theological discussions, but I will participate in a scientific argument - but before I do valid science must be presented and valid scientific teminology must be used. When the discussion goes theological, I don't participate because it's not my area.

I'm not giving them a podium, I just go and tell those who are looking for a scientific argument why a valid one has not been presented, and the one that was presented was a lie.

It takes intelligence to understand higher truth. Would you play chess with a gorilla? So why are you trying to level with the theologians? IMHO, they are all obsolete generations walking amongst us. You'd think I'm young and arrogant, but work in ER for a while and you'll come to terms with "some people are too stupid to live" statement.

http://cronx.freeshell.org/hehe.jpg

 

[PIT2]

Who knows if science goes far enough, but we do know that it works without the consideration of the supernatural, why fix what isn't broke?

The question of the origin of life, the universe, etc. have not been answered by science. Faith that science one day will answer this and that the answer will be what one believes it will be, is still merely faith.

A monk might well say that his meditation skills arent broken, so why fix what isn't broken? Why search for a supernatural physical explanation for his experiences, like "electrons collided and viola: the experience is born"?

Btw u might want to u avoid using the natural/supernatural wording (however bizarre some ideas may be), because in essence this simply boils down to circular reasoning. We just cannot decide in up front what nature is, without knowing what it is.

 

[silkworm]

It takes intelligence to understand higher truth. Would you play chess with a gorilla? So why are you trying to level with the theologians? IMHO, they are all obsolete generations walking amongst us. You'd think I'm young and arrogant, but work in ER for a while and you'll come to terms with "some people are too stupid to live" statement.

http://cronx.freeshell.org/hehe.jpg

[/URL]

The supporters are generally good people who were raised in a culture that demonized science and they were lied to about it. They also vote.

 

[silkworm]

The question of the origin of life, the universe, etc. have not been answered by science. Faith that science one day will answer this and that the answer will be what one believes it will be, is still merely faith.

A monk might well say that his meditation skills arent broken, so why fix what isn't broken? Why search for a supernatural physical explanation for his experiences, like "electrons collided and viola: the experience is born"?

Btw u might want to u avoid using the natural/supernatural wording (however bizarre some ideas may be), because in essence this simply boils down to circular reasoning. We just cannot decide in up front what nature is, without knowing what it is.

Here's a little help.

Dictionary.com:

Nature:

1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein).
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.

Supernatural:

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Basically, if something exists physically inside of our material universe we can test it because it is not supernatural, otherwise it is outside the realm of science. This is easy to understand.

 

[PIT2]

Basically, if something exists physically inside of our material universe we can test it because it is not supernatural, otherwise it is outside the realm of science. This is easy to understand.

So the big bang was a supernatural event (or had a supernatural cause) and we human beings have a supernatural consciousness?

Also do u mean that what is outside the realm of science is supernatural?

 

[silkworm]

So the big bang was a supernatural event (or had a supernatural cause) and we human beings have a supernatural consciousness?

Also do u mean that what is outside the realm of science is supernatural?

What would make the big bang a supernatural event?

 

[PIT2]

What would make the big bang a supernatural event?

Its cause does not exist inside our material universe?

But anyway, we both know that intelligent beings exist in our universe, so everything may still be caused by an intelligent being and still not be supernatural. It may in fact be supernatural to create intelligences from non-intelligences

It is pointless deciding up front what nature is...

 

[silkworm]

Its cause does not exist inside our material universe?

But anyway, we both know that intelligent beings exist in our universe, so everything may still be caused by an intelligent being and still not be supernatural. It may in fact be supernatural to create intelligences from non-intelligences

It is pointless deciding up front what nature is...

It's cause does not exist inside out material universe? Can you scientifically support that?

If there is an intelligent being that exists in our universe that did somehow designed the living things on this planet, where is your support for it? Should we just trust your judgement?

What do you mean it may in fact be supernatural to create intelligences from nonintelligences? If it exists in the material universe, scientific data and methodology can support it. It can also falsify it. If such a thing is falsified, it can no longer be a scientific theory.

Again, this isn't difficult to understand.

 

[cronxeh]

The supporters are generally good people who were raised in a culture that demonized science and they were lied to about it. They also vote.

And since when is this a true democracy?

 

[silkworm]

And since when is this a true democracy?

Cronxeh, look at who's in power, look at who voted for them, and look at who supports creationism/ID.

Do you see any similarities? There is cause for alarm.