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 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 206

Thread: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  1. #191
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,258

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The list he gave actually proved my point, he couldn't think of any things that "simply are"" either, or to better put it any concept that simply is.
    The question was about things that simply are, not that are simple. Try again.
    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!

  2. #192
    Professor
    Sig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-13 @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,179

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Perhaps, a better question might be:

    "Is Intelligent Design blasphemy?"

    For all we know, God thinks this particular universe was an intellectual blunder of astronomical proportions and has since introduced eight progressively upgraded universes of which we have no knowledge or experience.
    It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

  3. #193
    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 Cephus View Post
    The question was about things that simply are, not that are simple. Try again.
    I think this conversation is over your head, you are excused. I hear theres brand new shiny toys in the sand box.

  4. #194
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,728

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    True but tequila can make you "simple", does that count?

    Serioulsy though, the queston wasn`t things that are simple but things that simple are, ie things that just exist, if you want things that are simple then the question should have been posted that way. tecoyah gave a good answer to the question, though i suspect the question was meant to be a bit more than it actually was.
    Then it's a question without meaning. To ask what "simply is", without referring to the simplicity of the matter, is questioning the existence of the object, or maybe even suggesting that it exists without reason. Neither of which make any sense at all, and have no place in an intellectual debate. Though maybe I'm mistaken and this wasn't an intellectual debate at all.
    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.

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by 99percenter View Post
    I believe it is creationism and religious doctrine should not be taught in our schools.
    It's an attempt to blend science and faith -- evolution and creation.

    Interesting religious-philosophical discussion. But not appropriate for 10th grade biology.

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    2 people actually said yes...

    Is witchcraft chemistry?

  7. #197
    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 RabidAlpaca View Post
    Not a single one of those things are simple, they are all incredibly complex.
    And yet (as, I was relying to)....they Simply Are.

  8. #198
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,880

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    IMHO...What a frightening thing to believe...that all answers related to every question regarding the existence of the universe and all things in it actually boils down to one solitary answer: "god willed it to be".

    If the human mind should be cognitively stuck with the notion that all questions and answers regarding everything we know empirically is: "god". Then why even wake up in the morning?

    I can't even connect the words "Intelligent Design" with the word "Theory". IN MY OPINION...they don't compute....they aren't related...they don't deserve to be in the same sentence.

    Intelligent Design is a term that shouldn't exist. It doesn't compute.
    Last edited by Removable Mind; 04-29-12 at 01:56 PM.

  9. #199
    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 list he gave actually proved my point, he couldn't think of any things that "simply are"" either, or to better put it any concept that simply is.
    You are attempting to save face for placing frore us a question that even you feel the need to clarify...attacking others for your own failure to communicate makes you seem a bit ignorant.

    But, now that you have moved you goalposts, I will kick again:


    Concepts that simply are;

    Gravity
    Astrophysics
    Metabolism
    Mathematics
    Photosynthesis
    Humor
    Desire

    None are simple, but they simply are.

  10. #200
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,932

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    And again you have a failed understanding of the scientific method.
    And again, I don't think so. Tell me, just what is the scientific method to which you refer? Here's my bet: you tell me, at a reasonable level of detail, what the scientific method is, and it will not actually match the methods used to formulate at least a couple accepted pieces of science. Relativity is one of the most usual examples of this, since Einstein expressly did not follow the usual observation->hypothesis->experiment->revision/proposal model usually put forward by those who haven't studied the history of science.

    Once you actually look at what the best scientists throughout history (and I won't even bother with the Greeks or the Medieval Islamic scientists; there are plenty of examples from Renaissance Europe forward) actually do, you come to realize there isn't really a describable scientific method, per se. There are just, perhaps, a set of guidelines. And that's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Untested is not an issue. To be a scientific hypothesis it has to be testable, ie it has to be falsifiable.
    Yet again with Popper...as I wrote earlier in this thread, W.V.O. Quine and Pierre Duhem laid this to rest, and it's time people realized it generally. There are far fewer supporters of full-on falsificationism among working scientists or philosophers of science than usually appear on boards such as these. There's a reason for that...well, actually three reasons that I think might have a chance of being understood here (for those who haven't studied the theory-ladeness of observation at a graduate level):

    1) Few working scientists actually follow Poppers proposed methods. That is to say, most scientists are verificationists. If some theory T predicts some set of observational consequences O, where other theories U and V predict some modified version of O, O' or O'', where actual observations match O, at some point theory T is treated as confirmed, not merely unfalsified. In other words, theory T is treated as roughly true, while U and V are treated as false.

    2) There's a good reason for 1): full-on falsificationism severely limits what one can and cannot say, to the extent that strict falsificationism leaves us with practically nothing interesting to say about the world. Look: let's consider the theory that the earth is round. According to falsificationism, it's certainly a falsifiable theory. But it can never be confirmed. The best we can say is that no evidence has ever falsified the theory. But perhaps the world is enniakosianekatomeriododecohedral (a roughly round shape with 10.8 billion facets). Just what evidence is there that falsifies that? What evidence that falsified that, might falsify the notion that the earth was hekiakosianekatomeriododecohedral (a roughly round shape with 9.6 billion facets)? It seems, rather than falsifying all the infinite number of possibilities in between "one-sided" (i.e. flat) and round (i.e. no sides), we'd just rather say "the earth is round."

    3) Most importantly, what we consider to be actually falsified depends on which assumptions we make. The classic example given (by both Quine and Popper) is the discovery of Pluto. It began with an observation that the orbit of Uranus (not Neptune, as oft reported) was perturbed by some mass other than that of Neptune. Two hypotheses were competing for which was correct: first, that there was another nearby mass. Second, that Newtonian mechanics was wrong. People assumed (wrongly, it turns out) that Newtonian mechanics was correct, and therefore began searching for a mass. Now, there is such a mass, and we know what that mass is. But it wasn't clear, prior to the confirmation of the existence of Pluto, which hypothesis was really correct. It ought to be clear, that if no mass had been discovered, the question would be left dangling. The hypothesis that comprises Newtonian mechanics (which might have been correct) wouldn't be falsifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    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.
    This must assume you already know what counts as natural and what counts as unnatural. If this had been the method followed to discover the distinction, it obviously wouldn't work. So if this is part of science, it's either philosophy, or it's false.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    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.
    OK, that's a little more clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    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.
    This just leaves the problem under discussion wide open. That you don't see that is quite strange to me. The question is what separates

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    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.
    This was not recognized at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    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.
    I agree that SR was accepted because it explained observation. That hardly rebutts my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    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.
    There's no fault in my understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    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.
    'Tis a pity you aren't familiar with Locke; you've been arguing his position (more or less) throughout this thread.

    Anyway, his notion of the Tabula Rasa was not considered testable at the time, though we now know that it would have easily testable. The tests that caused us to think it false came two centuries later, but they would have been easily done in the 18th century, when the idea was articulated. The testability of this hypothesis (as with practically all hypotheses) depends on what we assume true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Any time you argue that an untested hypothesis, such as the 1905 paper is not yet science.
    I don't recall arguing this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    How so?
    See the bit about Locke...

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    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.
    Let's see...in the bit you called nonsense, I made three points:

    1) To your apparent accusation that I had copied my points from some anti-science website, I replied that I spent a great deal of time getting an actual education, that I am educated in the topic at hand, and that your words are insulting (as they continue to be, though I have not insulted you).

    2) I asked you to clarify what it means for something to be built from observation, and I further pointed out that the interpretation of hypotheses is part and parcel of indeterminism.

    3) I pointed out that simply lambasting someone else's posts, or individual points within those posts, without engaging them, is fruitless.

    So, why are all these points nonsense?

Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 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
  •