ID is not creationism

[Warren]

Quote by: RickSp "Teleological evolution" by definition isn't scientific. It might make interesting metaphor or even a methodology, but it doesn't qualify as science.

I could care less if ID meets some arbitrary definition of science. I’m interested in whether an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to weaken or strengthen ID hunches and whether it can help expand our understanding of biotic reality.

[belverron]

Quote by: Warren I could care less if ID meets some arbitrary definition of science.

Quote by: William Strunk Jr. Care less. The dismissive "I couldn't care less" is often used with the shortened "not" mistakenly (and mysteriously) omitted: "I could care less." The error destroys the meaning of the sentence and is careless indeed.

That's one of my pet peeves, as well as one of Strunk's.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: How do you reconcile irreducible complexity with any form of evolution?

[Warren]

What do you ID critics think of theistic evolutionists? About half of all American scientists fall into this category. They believe God directed evolution in some mannner. I don't see you attacking them.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren I could care less if ID meets some arbitrary definition of science. I’m interested in whether an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to weaken or strengthen ID hunches and whether it can help expand our understanding of biotic reality.

So ID is not scientific? What the hell is it then and why should anyone care? If it is not scientific then is it based on faith? What?

[Warren]

Jerry Coyne noted:

"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture."

And if we turn to ID, we're back to this:

When scientists face the question of a teleological origin of life, many view this as an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. Yet what exactly is extraordinary evidence? More problematic is that while a teleological origin of life may be considered an extraordinary event, there is no reason whatsoever to think extraordinary evidence would follow from this event. Put simply, the evidence for ID behind the OOL may be subtle. And if that is the case, can subtle, indirect evidence for X ever overcome the social and psychological dynamics that oppose X?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren What do you ID critics think of theistic evolutionists? About half of all American scientists fall into this category. They believe God directed evolution in some mannner. I don't see you attacking them.

I doubt that this is the case, except perhaps in a metaphorical sense. The vast majority of our society is theistic, so why shouldn't scientists be theistic as well? Their religious beliefs are no problem as long as they do not try impose their religion on the science.

There is no reason that there should be a conflict, except in the minds of the fundamentalists who for some peculiar reason seem to find science to be a threat.

[Warren]

Quote by: RickSp So ID is not scientific? What the hell is it then and why should anyone care? If it is not scientific then is it based on faith? What?

You really need to improve on your reading comprehension skills. If an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to strengthen ID hunches and helps expand our understanding of biotic reality why should I care if it meets some arbitrary definition of science?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren Put simply, the evidence for ID behind the OOL may be subtle. And if that is the case, can subtle, indirect evidence for X ever overcome the social and psychological dynamics that oppose X?

So now you are suggesting that science can not cope with subtle evidence? Really? Social and psychological dynamics make this impossible? Like when Galileo proved Copernican theory by observing the motion of Jupiter's moons with a primitive telescope? He put up with certain opposing social and psychological dynamics if I am not mistaken.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren You really need to improve on your reading comprehension skills. If an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to strengthen ID hunches and helps expand our understanding of biotic reality why should I care if it meets some arbitrary definition of science?

So my reading comprehension is a problem? Not your apparent inability or unwillingness to address the questions posed to you?

[Warren]

Rick SP: The vast majority of our society is theistic, so why shouldn't scientists be theistic as well? Their religious beliefs are no problem as long as they do not try impose their religion on the science.

Warren: Let me get this straight. Theistic scientists are free to believe that God directs evolution based soley on faith but if they find any empirical evidence of this direction they must ignore it. Right? If they see some subtle evidence of design they don't dare investigate it via the scientific method, because if they do, someone might claim what they are doing isn't science. Is this what you are saying?

[Warren]

Warren: You really need to improve on your reading comprehension skills. If an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to strengthen ID hunches and helps expand our understanding of biotic reality why should I care if it meets some arbitrary definition of science?

Rick SP: So my reading comprehension is a problem? Not your apparent inability or unwillingness to address the questions posed to you?

Warren: Why didn't you answer my question? If an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to strengthen ID hunches and helps expand our understanding of biotic reality why should I care if this endeavor is called science?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren Why didn't you answer my question? If an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to strengthen ID hunches and helps expand our understanding of biotic reality why should I care if it meets some arbitrary definition of science?

It is hard to answer your question if I cannot tell what brand of snake oil you are selling. I ask you to define ID, or in your more formal diction "an explicit teleological approach" and I get no answer. I suggest that teleological evolution is not scientific and you respond that you do not care, a very odd reply. If ID can expand our "understanding of biotic reality" why wouldn't it be scientific? There is absoultely nothing arbitrary in the definition of science.

If you want to make a point, why play silly word games?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren What do you ID critics think of theistic evolutionists? About half of all American scientists fall into this category. They believe God directed evolution in some mannner. I don't see you attacking them.

Where do you get your statistics. As of the very early 1900s more than half the scientists in the world have been either atheist or agnostic. Theists represent a minority in the sciences. Accepting magical hocus pocus explanations of reality is not exactly how science is done.

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Warren Warren: Let me get this straight. Theistic scientists are free to believe that God directs evolution based soley on faith but if they find any empirical evidence of this direction they must ignore it. Right? If they see some subtle evidence of design they don't dare investigate it via the scientific method because if they do, someone might claim what they are doing isn't science. Is that what you are saying?

Holy crap, that's not what he said at all.

There is zero evidence supporting a "teleological" approach, and you know it.
Or maybe you have the evidence at hand, and you're just refusing to present us with it?

Also, why are you ignoring my posts?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Starboy Where do you get your statistics. As of the very early 1900s more than half the scientists in the world have been either atheist or agnostic. Theists represent a minority in the sciences. Accepting magical hocus pocus explanations of reality is not exactly how science is done.

And as for the other half, they may believe in "directed evolution", but their beliefs play no role in their actual scientific pursuits. It's just a way for them to rationalize and preserve their faith while still pursuing a scientific career.

[Warren]

Theists are not a minority among American scientists.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren Jerry Coyne noted: "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture."

That is changing very fast. I would contend that biology is rapidly catching up to physics and may soon surpass it. Physicists do not have the foggest idea of how to create gravity but biologists are zooming in on how to create life.

And if we turn to ID, we're back to this: When scientists face the question of a teleological origin of life, many view this as an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. Yet what exactly is extraordinary evidence? More problematic is that while a teleological origin of life may be considered an extraordinary event, there is no reason whatsoever to think extraordinary evidence would follow from this event. Put simply, the evidence for ID behind the OOL may be subtle. And if that is the case, can subtle, indirect evidence for X ever overcome the social and psychological dynamics that oppose X?

What in the world are you talking about? What science presumes to know the purpose of existence? Bible science?

Starboy

[Warren]

Morgan Freeman: There is zero evidence supporting a "teleological" approach, and you know it. Or maybe you have the evidence at hand, and you're just refusing to present us with it?

Warren: Okay, lets cut to the chase. I have no idea what you would count as evidence for ID. Care to spell it out? And while you are at it why don't you present your evidence for a non-teleological origin of life.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren Theists are not a minority among American scientists.

Sure if you say so. Has it ever occurred to you that in science if you attempted to explain something with "and then a miracle occurred" you would be laughed right out of your career? Obvious mumbo jumbo and science do not mix.

Starboy

[belverron]

Quote by: Warren And while you are at it why don't you present your evidence for a non-teleological origin of life.

There is no way we're going to expand the scope of this thread that much. "Creationism vs. Evolution" is listed under "Massive Topics" on the frontpage. Take it there (or just read what others have said).