|
Scientificity (and "intelligent design")
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
As far as I can tell, "intelligent design" is the assertion that natural selection and other currently known physical mechanisms of evolution cannot account for certain complex structures that we observe in different organisms.
The problem with "intelligent design" as a hypothesis is not exactly "unfalsifiability" so much as just that it posits a non-physical mechanism for evolutionary change, and non-physical stuff is not (so far) open to any kind of scientific investigation or theorizing.
About "falsifiability," the idea that gets thrown around so often in this kind of discussion: It works okay as a criterion if you're dealing with "hard reductionist" disciplines like physics and chemistry, but not as good when you're talking about something like evolutionary science. The philosophers of science who developed the falsifiability "test" were mostly interested in explaining how physics worked as a discipline. Later philosophers would note that biology, though certainly a science, just doesn't fit the "physics model of science" that well. If you want to keep falsifiability as a test, you can either throw out much of biology, OR water down to the point of meaninglessness what counts as a "prediction" or "experiment," OR just accept that maybe different sciences operate in different ways, that not all of them conform to the neat "physics model." Reductionism in the "hierarchy of sciences" may not always be very tractable or conceptually useful. But who knows, it might eventually turn out to be useful if technology advances far enough.
A lot of people on both sides of the debate take "criterion for science" as a settled issue when it is far from that. The judge in the Dover case did that, and this was also commented on in the philosophical literature. But not many people have the time for that literature, which admittedly can be pretty dry.
So, do you think "intelligent design" is scientific? Why or why not? And what do you think about the "falsifiability" criterion? |
|
|
| DJ Itchy Tits |
| you know what would be really great? if a place existed here where we can discuss this kind of topic. a place for religion and politics. that would be really something. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
It's not science because in the end it is a matter of faith. When confronted by empirical proof that an alternative - evolution - does exist, the continuation of that faith is somewhat counter-intuitive.
Accepting something on faith is one thing. But that typically means that there is no evident explanation. When an alternative explanation is found that is backed by credible evidence, I think faith can be misplaced. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
ID is nonsense, akin to 9/11 theories.
they spend so much time and effort attempting to illustrate "holes" in evolutionary theory (ie, whenever an intermediate fossil is found, the IDer doesnt see a hole filled, but 2 more holes opening ;)) and nothing actually advancing positions backed by EVIDENCE.
america is the only country that takes IDing seriously, and only because there's too many moronic christians in that country. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
Science is all about abstraction of the observed natural phenomena into laws that relate causes to their effects. The theory of evolution fits into this structure. I don't think the theory of ID does.
Does the evolutionary theory address the primordial cause of our existence ? I don't think so. Does the ID explain how we evolve ? I don't know. We cannot make a prediction of the primordial cause based on the evolutionary laws. And even if there is a creator, it is obvious that we are evolving in a way that we understand and which is based on natural laws. If the theory of ID is true then evolution will be a subset of this theory. If evolution can determine the primordial cause, then we have to abandon the theory of ID. Surely if we are able to understand the cause of our own existence, we have understood the mind of the "creator" which will make us intellectually equal to the creator himself. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
So, do you think "intelligent design" is scientific? |
No.
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Why or why not? |
Because, in order to be scientific, it must:
- Science must explain natural phenomena using other natural (and observable) phenomena (refer to Abelard of Bath for more on this)
- Science must always explain natural phenomena in the most simple way (refer to Occam's razor)
Now, Intelligent Design proponents want to add a superfluous AND supernatural variable simply because it thinks evolution threatens their religion. And, worse yet, they do it all in spite of the fact that this "theory" isn't able to give more accurate predictions. |
|
|
| PoisonJam19 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Now, Intelligent Design proponents want to add a superfluous AND supernatural variable simply because it thinks evolution threatens their religion. |
Yep. ID is just a way to try and sneak religion into something that sounds scientific and credible. |
|
|
| Zharen |
I was watching a documentary on intelligent design on Nova in PBS a few weeks ago. There was a huge debate going in Pennsylvania whether Intelligent Design should be added into school textbooks or not. Apparently, the Pro-Evolution side found an old document that proved that the proponents of Intelligent Design had simply given Creationism another name. The Evolutionists won and Intelligent Design was thrown out.
I can't help but agree. Intelligent Design is not science, it can't be proven or disproven by scientific evidence. And who is to say what life forms or components of life forms are considered to be "irreducibly complex?" It is a religious assertion, an attempt by religion to explain what we as of now do not know, and should only be taught in churches and private schools. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Itchy
you know what would be really great? if a place existed here where we can discuss this kind of topic. a place for religion and politics. that would be really something. |
:stongue:
I like this alt.
//oh right.
Intelligent Design seems like some sort of compromising bull American eduction systems came up with to appease all those wit Evangelicals. It does little more than say "hey, it's possible God, if there is one, is just a big ol' floating alien who thought us up one day, just like the holy bible says, except when he thought us up, we were actually just microbes who turned into fish who turned into apes who turned into s driving too slow in the passing lane, etc.."
It's not that this "theory" is completely bunk or something in terms of discussion, it's just that it shouldn't be policy to teach it, as it has quite little bearing on what kids really need to know in order to function as educated individuals in society (assuming school is all about indoctrination... which it is!)
Both evolution and religion should be taught, if you ask me. Evolution is an important development in man's understanding of how his world works and has volumes of legitimate research attached to its support. Religion may very well be something that can be reduced to mere opinion, but that doesn't make it any less "real" in our world. It's important that people be taught about religious practices all around the world, as religion is really quite an inextricable part of the human condition that has been a part of our history for as long as we have bothered to record it. There really should be no compromise when it comes to educating children in the ways of the world. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
No.
Because, in order to be scientific, it must:
- Science must explain natural phenomena using other natural (and observable) phenomena (refer to Abelard of Bath for more on this)
- Science must always explain natural phenomena in the most simple way (refer to Occam's razor)
Now, Intelligent Design proponents want to add a superfluous AND supernatural variable simply because it thinks evolution threatens their religion. And, worse yet, they do it all in spite of the fact that this "theory" isn't able to give more accurate predictions. |
reading this post reminded me of the whole gay marriage debate where religious folks are saying that marriage is between members of the opposite sex....so it was a question of what is the definition of marriage.
Now IDers (they could or could not be the same people in the gay marriage thingie) say that ID is scientific. well by definition it is not, and we cannot change the definition.....although actually science does change definitions, but I am thinking some other thing/issue doesn't change |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
reading this post reminded me of the whole gay marriage debate where religious folks are saying that marriage is between members of the opposite sex....so it was a question of what is the definition of marriage.
Now IDers (they could or could not be the same people in the gay marriage thingie) say that ID is scientific. well by definition it is not, and we cannot change the definition.....although actually science does change definitions, but I am thinking some other thing/issue doesn't change |
I had never thought about it this way, and you do have a point. And, that irks me quite a bit, because if the idea of an "Intelligent Designer" being behind evolution provided more accurate predictions and results, science would fit it into its theory.
Also, the whole movement seems to be seriously misled. Evolution wasn’t responsible for taking God out of science, if that's what they're trying to say.
Long before Darwin published his theory, Laplace told Napoleon he had no need for God in astronomy. And, prior to that, Berkeley's empiricism had already been a reaction to what he perceived to be a threat to religion in newtonian mechanics and humeian thought.
This "tension" is not recent at all. |
|
|
| rawbound |
| This discussion would be more fun if there'd be someone who actually belives in this crapp discussing :) |
|
|
|
|
