View Poll Results: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 4.35%
  • no

    66 95.65%
Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 206

Thread: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  1. #171
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    The "Missing Link"....can be a thousand different things, depending on how far back we decide to go:

    "May 19, 2009—Meet "Ida," the small "missing link" found in Germany that's created a big media splash and will likely continue to make waves among those who study human origins. "

    Attachment 67126643

    It is rather obvious that evolution is a better explanation than Some old white guy waving an enchanted potato as he scooped up a chunk of clay he made out of nothing the day before.
    The concept of a creating entity may be so far beyond what we can comprehend that we just make up an old white guy with a magic wand.

  2. #172
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The concept of a creating entity may be so far beyond what we can comprehend that we just make up an old white guy with a magic wand.
    Okay...let's just say you are correct. Why then, would I dismiss massive actual Data, in favor of something I will never comprehend?

  3. #173
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    I suppose depending on how you dice it, it could be several theories. But I would agree that special relativity was the result of the 1905 paper, general relativity the result of the 1916 paper.
    That is more accurate. Special and General Relativity cover two different areas. While Special Relativity was the more groundbreaking, General was the most important since it applied in all situations.



    Really? It doesn't seem so to me. My interlocutor wasn't saying anything about testability; he was talking about testing (i.e. practice, not conceptual) and basing propositions on observations. My point was twofold:

    1) Plenty of science originates from untested propositions.

    2) Other disciplines do testing and revision all the time; if that's what's supposed to distinguish science, it doesn't do a very good job.
    And again you have a failed understanding of the scientific method. Untested is not an issue. To be a scientific hypothesis it has to be testable, ie it has to be falsifiable. It does not have to be already tested. Science is applying the scientific method to natural phenomena. It is possible to apply the scientific method to unnatural phenomena, but they would not still be science.

    Anyway, before we continue, you seem to have the idea that I'm somehow anti-science. This is not correct. I have a great deal of respect for science. I am very critical of certain interpretations of science, however, and I believe I have good reason to be.
    This is not what I have said, I do not think you are anti-science, but ignorant of how science works.

    With that out of the way, let's discuss this



    a little more carefully.

    First, I'm not sure I understand why you'd say special relativity isn't a theory (at least here, though you seem to say that it is elsewhere). But that aside, those two postulates were not determined by the available observations. By that, I just mean that the available observations didn't make the postulates inevitable (indeed, how could they?). Before the experiments that are taken to confirm relativity occurred, it was just as likely (and was in fact proposed) that the MM aparatus was faulty. Or that the properties of the aethyr were not sufficiently understood. Or even that the data was falsified, or etc.

    Einstein revived Galileo's proposition of relative inertial frames, and mixed in the notion that light in a vaccuum has an absolute velocity. From there, as you note, he deduced what might be observed. But just what role can deduction, which is entirely independent of observation, play in science? If it is to play a role, it seems perforce that philosophy plays a role in science. Since my initial point was simply that science is much more difficult to distinguish from other areas than most people believe, this is a relevant point.

    Further, if all it takes for something to be science is to be "based on" observations, then of course special relativity was science. But then, so is a lot of stuff that I bet you wouldn't want to see counted as science. For instance, was Locke's philosophy of mind, "based on" the notion of the mind as Tabula Rasa at birth which was in turn "based on" the best available observations science? I suspect you'd probably think not. But how is that case distinguishable from relativity in principle? If you're going to try to define science, you'll have to do better than this.
    I did not say that Special Relativity is not a theory. I said the paper presented in 1905 was not a theory. It had at that time not been tested. To be a theory, a hypothesis must undergo testing. It is all part of the scientific process. Theories do not leap whole form from observation. That does not mean that prior to being a theory it is not science. Also the postulates where derived from observations at that time, most importantly the Michelson-Morley experiments(which where a wonderful set and the mechanism used was simply brilliant). While the things you mentioned where possible, they where also not nearly as likely. Further, if the Michelson-Morley experiments where faulty, then the predictions made by the 1905 paper would have failed experimental testing. See how wonderful the scientific method is, it checks itself.

    Deduction itself is not science, but deduction that lends itself to testing is. That is in fact what the scientific method is. Make a deduction based on current observation. Make a prediction that can then be tested, test. Again, the problem is not with science, the problem is with your faulty understanding of what science is and how it works. I am not familiar with Locke's work so cannot comment, but did his observations lead to a testable hypothesis that could falsify his hypothesis? If so then it does qualify as science. Whether I agree with a theory or hypothesis is irrelevant to whether it is part of the scientific process.



    Where did I say otherwise?
    Any time you argue that an untested hypothesis, such as the 1905 paper is not yet science.


    Again, this seems either to be false, or to include too much.
    How so?



    Well, I came up with all of it, and didn't visit any websites to find it. I did spend about ten years in undergraduate and graduate courses at reputable and accredited universities in the U.S., several of which were devoted to the practice, history, and philosophy of science, from which I managed to distill most of my views. In any case, I made no similar remarks to my interlocutors; your words here are rather insulting.



    What does that even mean? How do you build something from observation? It seems rather that we build hypotheses from symbols which encode interpretations of observations. Which goes to my point about Quine-Duhem.



    This approach hardly seems fruitful. I might just as easily lambast your entire post, and we could just exchange that way. But what would be exchanged? Certainly not ideas, and it'd hardly be a debate. So I can hardly credit this tactic. And I don't think the moon landing was faked.
    The rest of this is just nonsense. You are trying too hard to sound smart, while espousing a grade school level of understanding of the scientific process.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #174
    Black Is Smart
    Van Basten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The New New Frontier
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,661

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    No, it's not.
    "We have more responsibility than power, I think. The newspaper can create great controversies, stir up arguments within the community or discussion, can throw light on injustices....just as it can do the opposite. It can hide things and be a great power for evil." -- Rupert Murdoch, 1968

  5. #175
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The concept of a creating entity may be so far beyond what we can comprehend that we just make up an old white guy with a magic wand.
    Obviously the concept isn't far beyond what we can comprehend because humans made up various gods to explain what they couldn't. They became ingrained in the human psyche, not as something real, but as something emotionally comforting. That's why people still believe in gods today, even though we've answered just about all the questions that prompted their invention in the first place.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #176
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,553

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Here's how the missing link argument goes:

    You found it! This is one of my favorite clips of all time!
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  7. #177
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Here's how the missing link argument goes:

    Unfortunately, that's pretty accurate to how creationists actually operate.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #178
    Educator AreteCourage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    08-30-13 @ 12:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    790

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    No, it is religious theory
    Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.

  9. #179
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by AreteCourage View Post
    No, it is religious theory
    If by theory, you mean wild-eyed guess based on nothing but wishful thinking, then yes. However, it fails any test of credibility, especially scientific credibility, in that it starts with a foregone conclusion, then seeks evidence and assertion to support it. It doesn't seek to find what is actually real, it seeks to support a particular religious view, whether it is true or not.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  10. #180
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    Okay...let's just say you are correct. Why then, would I dismiss massive actual Data, in favor of something I will never comprehend?
    Don't accept anything, question everything.

Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •