Evidence for God from Science

August wrote:This all started with me asking:

What is science? What demarcates science from non-science, and why?

and your answer here was:

Let's go over the scientific method again.

and elsewhere:

Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.

It's the body of knowledge accumulated by the application of the method.

For you to claim now that you somehow distinguished between the scientific method and the definition of science is a cop-out. I asked for a definition and you gave it. All I asked is that we then apply your definition to science as an overall discipline.

I still don't understand what you mean. Go ahead apply it to science.

August wrote:Anyhow, if the method is not the defnition of science, then what is it?

As I stated you can apply the scientific method, but is the body of knowledge a result of experimentation? Did the discovery of the ability to forcast events come from experimentation? I doubt it.

Did you read the link? They claim to all of those things.

You tell me, do you think that their conclusion came from observation first and then lead to the development of personal forcasting, OR do you think that the beleif in forcasting came first and the application of the method followed?

August wrote:

By having others repeat the experiment. Be realistic no scientist has such levels of skepticism.

Repeated experimentation has nothing to do with what you said. If you cannot rely on your general powers of observation, then how do you know that the repeated experiments are giving a reliable result, or is the result just the same illusion? You have just moved the problem, not gotten rid of it.

I don't understand what you mean here, in the real world there is a standard of observation, it's the human condition we share the same sences. If I conduct and experiment and you repeat it, producing the same results one would have to think that these results can be expected.

August wrote:

Wrong. Testing of a hypothesis can take many forms. For example the fishpod found recently fit into a predicted time period with predicted features. Pottery found in an archaelogical dig can be used to verify the time period of a find through comparative analysis and carbonn dating.
The theory being tested here is that potery of a certain kind was created during a specific period. Carbon dating verifies or disproves this theory.

Is fitting something into a prediction experimentation?

It is a test of the theory used to make the prediction, no? Applying the theory to new observations is the definition of testing.

August wrote:And dating is experimentation that fully confirms the theory? Just want to be sure.

Any theory is subject to new observations, yes.

August wrote:So you are saying that we can see observable results from unobservable causes?

We cannot attribute as the cause something which we have never observed, can we? What are you trying to say here?

August wrote:

We can compare events, and we can see paterns of development which still do occur today. Like an observation of a supernovae can be used to create a theory for lifecycle of a star. Give me an example of a theory I cannot experimentally confirm.

Right, but that is not all that rare. The big bang or the emergence of life, or the cambrian explosion are rare or one-time events where we cannot compare to regular occurring phenomena, and we cannot experimentally repeat since the conditions at the time are unknown or do not exist any more.

Incorrect the large particle colliders in existence today are an attempt to reproduce the conditions of the early universe, thus enabling us to test the latest theories in physics. The theory is on particle behaviour and how it explains the big bang, not on the big bang itself.

The evidence for the big bang is in the background radiation.

In the case of the Cambrium explosion the various body plans which exist then can be seen in todays lifeforms. This opens up the question of whether they are related to modern fauna. Thus leading to the development of mechanisms for change which have lead to the current theory of the evolution of life. It is an observation not a confirrmation of the theory.

August wrote:That is why we compare to what we do know, and arrive at hypothesis and theories through (gasp) both inductive and abductive inference.

Yes, of course but then we must go on and test these hypothesis.

August wrote:

You ignored the rest of my post, such inferences cannot be considerd as an observation until tested. For example the strata can be dated using index fossils, but this will not be a reliable test until it is shown that this is a reliable method. For instance using argon/argon testing at other sites to verify the date.

I did not ignore anything, it was just not relevant to the point. I don't know what you are misunderstanding here. If you arrive at several possible explanations, one of those explanations are likely to best explain the observation. Arriving at that best explanation for the specific case is called abductive reasoning, and the result is an abductive inference.

Yes but that is a conclusion based on observations made in the past. For instance a Doctor can say that certain symptoms lead to such and such diagnosis, only due to the collection of knowledge from the past.

August wrote:

Then it is no longer abductive but deductive as a series of observations lead to a general rule. Then in turn this general rule is applied to a specific case.

Uh, no. That would be induction. Let's argue.

So using argon/argon tests to date a rock formation is induction? Sure lets argue, I apply a general rule to a specific case, and this gives me a specific answer.

Induction - The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
http://www.dictionary.com

August wrote:

So when I determine that the ball fell from the roof due to gravity this is abductive inference? I don't agree at all.

How many feasible possible scientific explanations do you have for that scenario? How about a medical condition, where there can be several possible explanations, and you have to arrive at the best possible explanation for a specific condition? What is that called?

That's called formulating a hypothesis. It can be abduction.

Then we test the hypothesis by applying the prescribed treatment, and seeing if there are any improvements.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I still don't understand what you mean. Go ahead apply it to science.

What the heck? It's your definition, you said it is what distinguishes science from non-science. It became clear that it is logically inconsistent, because it is self-defeating, and now you want me to apply it?

At this point we have two choices:
1. The definition you gave is not accurate, or
2. You still have not defined science.

If you are going to argue whether something is scientific or not, then surely you should know what science is before you can decide.

You tell me, do you think that their conclusion came from observation first and then lead to the development of personal forcasting, OR do you think that the beleif in forcasting came first and the application of the method followed?

The difference between controlled and uncontrolled observation is not relevant, both are recognized as scientifically valid.

I don't understand what you mean here, in the real world there is a standard of observation, it's the human condition we share the same sences. If I conduct and experiment and you repeat it, producing the same results one would have to think that these results can be expected.

Sure but this was not the same argument you had before.

It is a test of the theory used to make the prediction, no? Applying the theory to new observations is the definition of testing.

Ok.

Any theory is subject to new observations, yes.

That did not answer my question.

We cannot attribute as the cause something which we have never observed, can we? What are you trying to say here?

I am not trying to say anything, I am trying to understand what you are saying. Have you ever observed gravity, or just the effects of gravity? Or, closer to home, has anyone ever observed natural selection, or just the effects?

Incorrect the large particle colliders in existence today are an attempt to reproduce the conditions of the early universe, thus enabling us to test the latest theories in physics. The theory is on particle behaviour and how it explains the big bang, not on the big bang itself.

What is you point then? Big bang theory is an origins theory, not a particle behavior theory.

The evidence for the big bang is in the background radiation.

Ok, so what? What event did you compare that with to arrive at the big bang theory?

In the case of the Cambrium explosion the various body plans which exist then can be seen in todays lifeforms. This opens up the question of whether they are related to modern fauna. Thus leading to the development of mechanisms for change which have lead to the current theory of the evolution of life. It is an observation not a confirrmation of the theory.

Is punctuated equilibrium a theory or not? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
From that page:"PE relies upon the insights of study of modern species for its principles. " That means they cannot experimentally simulate what happened, does it not?

Yes, of course but then we must go on and test these hypothesis.

Yes.

Yes but that is a conclusion based on observations made in the past. For instance a Doctor can say that certain symptoms lead to such and such diagnosis, only due to the collection of knowledge from the past.

Yes, sure. That is what abductive reasoning and inference is. It is not blind speculation, it is reasoned and applied to specific cases.

So using argon/argon tests to date a rock formation is induction? Sure lets argue, I apply a general rule to a specific case, and this gives me a specific answer.

Induction - The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.

Sheesh. I'll stand back and let you argue with yourself.

You said:

Then it is no longer abductive but deductive as a series of observations lead to a general rule.

and then:

Induction - The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
http://www.dictionary.com

The general rules derived from induction does not become deduction when applied to other situations, it is two different sets of logic, starting from different premises.

That's called formulating a hypothesis. It can be abduction.

Then we test the hypothesis by applying the prescribed treatment, and seeing if there are any improvements.

Yes. So do we now agree that abductive inference can apply?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote: So the purpose behind distinguishing science from non-science is to ensure that we have good enrollment policies to colleges?

No it's to ensure that we don't confuse young students by giving them two different standards for the definition of science.

Oh, so it's about not confusing young students?

August
What is science? What demarcates science from non-science, and why?

Generally speaking (though I could be pretty more precise) I would say that science is accepting that experiment is the final judge about what is true and what is not.

So what about ID?
It seems to me that ID claims to be possible to address completely new problems:
mainly it claims it is possible to detect intelligence without being concerned with the designer.

Well, that is why I was asking about the sequences... It seems noboby can show it to be really possible. (Of course as noted above, the fact that WE are not able does not really mean that is cannot be done. Just I would like to see how...)
The only examples come fom Dembski though it should be remarked that in those cases *he* was building the examples so that he already knows the answer.


Can you tell me what new stuff does ID teach me about the real world?

Just wanted to follow-up on the number-string discussion above.

I have taken some time to examine the claims put forth by Dembski as they result to the mathematical basis for filtering and determining intelligence versus randomness.

I have to state up front that I feel woefully inadequate to attempt to digest and understand this well enough to discourse on it in depth. I am not a mathematician. I am not a biologist.

As it stands, I don't have the time to go any deeper than the general statements below.

As I understand it, Dembski put forth his mathematical theories in this realm in 1999 in a peer reviewed University publication. It has been criticized on two levels:

1. That it is theorhetical in nature applying to mathematics and physics only and reviewed in those realms only. Specifically the jumps to biological application were not peer reviewed in that realm.

2. That there are questions as to how practical it is in reality in determining with any degree of certainty what it claims to do.

My sense in reviewing this material is that:

1. Dembski's work in this area is generally conceded by his detractors to be the best that there is in the field in promoting Intelligent Design as a hard science. (I know that's a relative statement and not indicative of any endorsement.)

2. Regardless of agreement of disagreement with the goal, it is seen by many as a positive challenge to natural selection which requires thoughtful and measured response. Proponents of natural selection appear to concede that Natural Selection has similar problems in terms of proof in this area when held to the same standard demanded of Dembski.

3. Dembski does not appear to be claiming that his work in this area to date is finished nor that his claims are proven to a skeptics satisfaction. He seems to be claiming that his claims and theories in this regard are no less valid or worthy of consideration than those of Natural Selection.

Beyond that the whole debate seems to be enmeshed in an amazing level of swarminess and one-upsmanship on both sides; Dembski himself not being beneath a few pointed jabs along the way.

So, my opinion based on my admittedly brief review in this field with limited tools with which to work, is that these is no claim of absolute certainty of design based solely upon this particular path and that it remains a work in progress.

Those comments apply only in this narrow scope for me.

I still maintain that much of the argument of ID is not that it is better supported in the empirical realm of science than natural selection as interpreted in the more popular forms, but rather that much of what passes and has been presented as hard science in the realm of evolution and natural selection is not proven or supported to a degree that should allow its representation in education to the degree that it currently is.

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I still don't understand what you mean. Go ahead apply it to science.

What the heck? It's your definition, you said it is what distinguishes science from non-science. It became clear that it is logically inconsistent, because it is self-defeating, and now you want me to apply it?

When did we determine that it was inconsistent. Can you post your reasoning here so I can follow it?

August wrote:At this point we have two choices:
1. The definition you gave is not accurate, or
2. You still have not defined science.

If you are going to argue whether something is scientific or not, then surely you should know what science is before you can decide.

I think I made it clear that a hard science requires that the subject of study be observable and testable.

August wrote:

You tell me, do you think that their conclusion came from observation first and then lead to the development of personal forcasting, OR do you think that the beleif in forcasting came first and the application of the method followed?

The difference between controlled and uncontrolled observation is not relevant, both are recognized as scientifically valid.

Are you telling me that the conclusions are a result of carefully testing? Science requires testing, not just observations. So horoscoping has been proven true?

August wrote:

I don't understand what you mean here, in the real world there is a standard of observation, it's the human condition we share the same sences. If I conduct and experiment and you repeat it, producing the same results one would have to think that these results can be expected.

Sure but this was not the same argument you had before.

We were discussing repeatability here.

August wrote:

It is a test of the theory used to make the prediction, no? Applying the theory to new observations is the definition of testing.

Ok.

Any theory is subject to new observations, yes.

That did not answer my question.

We cannot attribute as the cause something which we have never observed, can we? What are you trying to say here?

I am not trying to say anything, I am trying to understand what you are saying. Have you ever observed gravity, or just the effects of gravity? Or, closer to home, has anyone ever observed natural selection, or just the effects?

The mechanisms and effects are what we are describing. We can call it anything we want the description is what is science.

August wrote:

Incorrect the large particle colliders in existence today are an attempt to reproduce the conditions of the early universe, thus enabling us to test the latest theories in physics. The theory is on particle behaviour and how it explains the big bang, not on the big bang itself.

What is you point then? Big bang theory is an origins theory, not a particle behavior theory.

Sorry no the whole reason we built the particle acceleratorrs is to test theories regarding the early universe. The Big Bang theory is more than a story it describes the physical nature of the universe at high energies. It can be tested.

August wrote:

The evidence for the big bang is in the background radiation.

Ok, so what? What event did you compare that with to arrive at the big bang theory?

It is an all encompassing theory, we see the expansion of the universe along with background radiation and we can make the conclusion that the universe began with a singularity. However we must also make calculations for the early composition of the universe based on the background radiation and see if that is consistent with matter behaviour for conditions also theorized at that point in time. All the various peices of data are used against the theory to see if they fit. If not then some rethinking is required. As you can see the Big Bang theory is made up of many smaller ideas and postulates which all point to the same conclusion. The clumpyness and current acceleration of the universe must also be taken into account, etc...

August wrote:

In the case of the Cambrium explosion the various body plans which exist then can be seen in todays lifeforms. This opens up the question of whether they are related to modern fauna. Thus leading to the development of mechanisms for change which have lead to the current theory of the evolution of life. It is an observation not a confirrmation of the theory.

Is punctuated equilibrium a theory or not? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
From that page:"PE relies upon the insights of study of modern species for its principles. " That means they cannot experimentally simulate what happened, does it not?

It's often misunderstood that gradualism is inherent in evolution. But observation has led to the knowledge that animals will usually migrate to favorable environments rather than not. Therefore there will be a tendancy for Forms to remain relatively stable during times of stability.

Punctuated Equilibrium is the hypothesis that species can seem to undergo rapid changes due to certain temporal situations. There isn't much proof in the scientific sence for this idea(a few case studies here and there in the fossil record), yet it is within the realm of posibilities, and one of the ideas that I myself support. The hypothesis is a result of the observation that species in the fossil record can go long periods with no change. For example mammals were represented by small shrewlike creatures for millions of years. Then there was a period of relativly sudden new forms leading to all the major mammal groups, when dinosaurs became absent from the record. So, no punctuated equilibrium is still just a hypothesis without enough evidence to satisfy a skeptic.

Specifically... It is the idea that a species will suddenly appear in the fossil record because it develops in a localized region first and then expands it's habitat. There is evidence for this case in the fossil record. And unless one discovered the location for the origin of a particular species the fossil record would not show a record for its gradual evolution. The mechanisms for punctuated equilibrium are not new ones, this idea only wraps them in new light.

So how do we test it? Simply stating that the lack of transitional fossils is proof is negative evidence and is unacceptable. However there have been instances where the "scene of the crime" have been found. In these instances the transitional forms can be seen followed by the widespread apearance of the new form elsewhere in the fossil record.

Methods of speciation such as isolation of a small population has already shown a tendancy to differentiate from the parent population.

August wrote:

Yes, of course but then we must go on and test these hypothesis.

Yes.

Yes but that is a conclusion based on observations made in the past. For instance a Doctor can say that certain symptoms lead to such and such diagnosis, only due to the collection of knowledge from the past.

Yes, sure. That is what abductive reasoning and inference is. It is not blind speculation, it is reasoned and applied to specific cases.

So using argon/argon tests to date a rock formation is induction? Sure lets argue, I apply a general rule to a specific case, and this gives me a specific answer.

Induction - The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.

Sheesh. I'll stand back and let you argue with yourself.

You said:

Then it is no longer abductive but deductive as a series of observations lead to a general rule.

and then:

Induction - The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
http://www.dictionary.com

The general rules derived from induction does not become deduction when applied to other situations, it is two different sets of logic, starting from different premises.

One had to show the reliablility of a thermometer at one point in time.
So measuring a persons temperature using a thermometer is inductive, every time?
EDIT: Sorry I just realized that I have been confusing abduction with induction at some points throughout the conversation.
Want to start over?
=)

August wrote:

That's called formulating a hypothesis. It can be abduction.

Then we test the hypothesis by applying the prescribed treatment, and seeing if there are any improvements.

Yes. So do we now agree that abductive inference can apply?

Induction has to be done carefully, we cannot be more general than the data indicates. In the case of medical diagnosis we cannot then apply treatment for low pressure to an automobile engine.

Abduction must be based on prior experience/observations to make a conclusion, and in each case must be tested.

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote: So the purpose behind distinguishing science from non-science is to ensure that we have good enrollment policies to colleges?

No it's to ensure that we don't confuse young students by giving them two different standards for the definition of science.

Oh, so it's about not confusing young students?

You do realize that the rest of the world is catching up to the United States in the realm of science and technology.

If I am a Scientist at the National Institute of Health and I come across a problem such as cancer suddenly regressing in certain patients. What do you think the effect would be if I decalred that the problem was so complicated that the cause could not be determined. What if I see a disease which causes the immune system to shut down and I feel that it might be due to an breakdown in a more ancient reptillian pathway because the wrong hormones are circulating through the system or behaving eradically. But consider that one fails to recognize the posibility beause I refuse to believe in evolution and that it would be possible for such pathways to even exist? Do you think the insight that biological pathways can be a result of additions built on top of existing pathways is not a valuable one? Do you think that medicine would flounder here in the United States? I would certainly think so.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote: So the purpose behind distinguishing science from non-science is to ensure that we have good enrollment policies to colleges?

No it's to ensure that we don't confuse young students by giving them two different standards for the definition of science.

Oh, so it's about not confusing young students?

You do realize that the rest of the world is catching up to the United States in the realm of science and technology.

If I am a Scientist at the National Institute of Health and I come across a problem such as cancer suddenly regressing in certain patients. What do you think the effect would be if I decalred that the problem was so complicated that the cause could not be determined. What if I see a disease which causes the immune system to shut down and I feel that it might be due to an breakdown in a more ancient reptillian pathway because the wrong hormones are circulating through the system or behaving eradically. But consider that one fails to recognize the posibility beause I refuse to believe in evolution and that it would be possible for such pathways to even exist? Do you think the insight that biological pathways can be a result of additions built on top of existing pathways is not a valuable one? Do you think that medicine would flounder here in the United States? I would certainly think so.

First, as a cancer survivor I'm grateful for NHI or anyone else using all the resources thay have to the benefit of man.

I seems to me however, a fallacy to tie future progress to an absolute view of the past.

I don't believe that evolution is rejected by a majority of people in terms of changes and progress genetically and in response to environment. Nor do I believe that a recognition of that progression precludes there being similarities recognized between species or even across kingdoms. It is as reasonable an explanation to attribute such similarities to a common designer as it is to presume ascent from lower life forms to more complicated forms.

I fail to see how either view would preclude research or conclusions being based on those similarities nor that there would of necessity be any examinations or research being limited or rejected.

Am I missing something?

Canuckster1127 wrote: First, as a cancer survivor I'm grateful for NHI or anyone else using all the resources thay have to the benefit of man.

I seems to me however, a fallacy to tie future progress to an absolute view of the past.

I don't believe that evolution is rejected by a majority of people in terms of changes and progress genetically and in response to environment. Nor do I believe that a recognition of that progression precludes there being similarities recognized between species or even across kingdoms. It is as reasonable an explanation to attribute such similarities to a common designer as it is to presume ascent from lower life forms to more complicated forms.

I fail to see how either view would preclude research or conclusions being based on those similarities nor that there would of necessity be any examinations or research being limited or rejected.

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are only focusing on one aspect of my post, namely the implications of evolution.

The point is that the same type of process, and thinking which lead to the evolutionary theory is what lead us to all the other scientific findings.

If we allow untestable conclusions to be included in the scientific framework we will be diluting the practical nature of science in general.

The models we use to pursue practical and purely scientific endeavors must fit the observations as close as possible, regardless of personal beliefs, this is the scientific method.

In response to your post, the appearance of some systems having weak points due to them apparantly being based on older pathways which served different purposes, leads one to the conclusion of descent with modification. A beleif in similar designers would leave a weak correlation of biochemical pathways from one organism to another, in the evolutionary framework the correlations are much stronger.

For instance when building new design for an automobile with greater off road capabilities, would I want to use the old shock systems from a 1995 Kia Sportage stacked on top of each other to achieve greater adsorbing capabilities, or would I want to remove the old shocks and install compressed nitrogen shocks. Later on I removed the wheels completely as cars became airbourne and I used the suspension system as connection points for wings which would allow sensors to determine wing warpage etc... Then the wings were removed altogether and replaced with large apendage like projections which help the vehicle determine its position in a great tunnel system in the future. Lets say that ambient temperatures in the tunnel system are much higher than the specifications for the original shock adsorber from the 1995 Kia thus leading to occational failure and thus reduced sensitivity for the feeler projections. What would be your conclusion based on knowledge of the shock adsorbtion systems in the Kia which is still being produced for use as clown cars in futuristic circuses.

But here is not the right place to argue this.
=)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: First, as a cancer survivor I'm grateful for NHI or anyone else using all the resources thay have to the benefit of man.

I seems to me however, a fallacy to tie future progress to an absolute view of the past.

I don't believe that evolution is rejected by a majority of people in terms of changes and progress genetically and in response to environment. Nor do I believe that a recognition of that progression precludes there being similarities recognized between species or even across kingdoms. It is as reasonable an explanation to attribute such similarities to a common designer as it is to presume ascent from lower life forms to more complicated forms.

I fail to see how either view would preclude research or conclusions being based on those similarities nor that there would of necessity be any examinations or research being limited or rejected.

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are only focusing on one aspect of my post.

The point is that the same type of process, and thinking which lead to the evolutionary theory is what lead us to all the other scientific findings.

If we allow untestable conclusions to be included in the scientific framework we will be diluting the practical nature of science in general.

The models we use to pursue practical and purely scientific endeavors must fit the observations as close as possible, regardless of personal beliefs, this is the scientific method.

In response to your post, the appearance of some systems having weak points due to them apparantly being based on older pathways which served different purposes, leads one to the conclusion of descent with modification.

For instance when building new design for an automobile with greater off road capabilities, would I want to use the old shock systems from a 1995 Kia Sportage stacked on top of each other to achieve greater adsorbing capabilities, or would I want to remove the old shocks and install compressed nitrogen shocks. Later on I removed the wheels completely as cars became airbourne and I used the suspension system as connection points for wings which would allow sensors to determine wing warpage etc... Then the wings were removed altogether and replaced with large apendage like projections which help the vehicle determine its position in a great tunnel system in the future. Lets say that ambient temperatures in the tunnel system are much higher than the specifications for the original shock adsorber from the 1995 Kia thus leading to occational failure and thus reduced sensitivity for the feeler projections. What would be your conclusion based on knowledge of the shock adsorbtion systems in the Kia which is still being produced for use as clown cars in futuristic circuses.

But here is not the right place to argue this.
=)

That would of course, be an issue to be determined by your own will in your process of Intelligent Design.



I still respectfully think that you are overstating the issue.

Strictly speaking science has limitations in this realm. There is naturally going to be an extrapolation made to form conclusions which are not necessarily purely scientific, observable or replicable. That is of course the sometimes fuzzy line that separates physics from metaphysics.

Evolution in the strictest sense is not an issue as there are few, certainly few with any level of education anyway, who would argue the scientific method needs to be suspended in the process of research etc. in examining similarities in body construction, organs, biological systems etc

There are elements of evolution that go beyond hard science and the acceptance or rejection of those elements, or the suspension of judgment in the absence of hard proof does not preclude the continued use of research for practical or theorhetical purposes.

Framing the issue in the manner you do, in my opinion, presumes that those who posit a different hypothesis cannot do relevant research. That in and of itself, begs the question, as to how flexible one is as to insist on the holding of one theory verses another in terms of the research itself.

The whole point is to further validate, reject or modify the hypothesis.

In that respect, the hypothesis become subservient to the evidence after it is found.

Many ID'rs accept many elements of the Theory of Evolution. Where they take exception is with the extrapolation beyond the natural limits of science or at least the limits of the present body of evidence and claiming more than the evidence can support independently and empirically.

Just my opinion, for what it is worth.

Thanks for the responce.

Still not sure on what aspects of evolution, you see as claiming more, than can be supported empirically.

Other than that, points taken.
=)

Canuckster1127, thank you for your kind reply. As usual I consider your replies thoughtful and honest.
Still I have a couple of points to further comment.

Canuckster1127
Dembski's work in this area is generally conceded by his detractors to be
the best that there is in the field in promoting Intelligent Design as a hard science.

http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre ... embski.pdf

I know personally one of the author. I can guarantee that he is far for being aggressive or having an agenda to be followed about it. I wouldn't even considered him as a Dembski detractor!
He is also an internationally recognized expert in information theory.

Similar, if not worse, comments can be found on MathSciNet. If you are interested I can post them, though I am sure there is no real need to do it. )

Canuckster1127
I still maintain that much of the argument of ID is not that it is better
supported in the empirical realm of science than natural selection as
interpreted in the more popular forms, but rather that much of what passes and has been presented as hard science in the realm of evolution and natural selection is not proven or supported to a degree that should allow its representation in education to the degree that it currently is.

Can you mention one thing which is presented as hard science in the realm of evolution and natural selection without being proven or supported to a degree that should allow its representation in education?

Do you believe that I have a common ancestor with my chimp friend?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Thanks for the responce.

Still not sure on what aspects of evolution, you see as claiming more, than can be supported empirically.

Other than that, points taken.
=)

Bgood,

To be honest with you, I'm not sure I can articulate the answer to your comment to my own satisfaction, let alone to yours.

I'm stretching myself here, well beyond what I feel competent to do. I'm a simple guy with some basic approaches to life who is unapologetically Christian. I try to be intellectually honest and consistent however, and I'm not afraid of being proven wrong on something. In fact, I welcome it and am not threatened by truth from any direction.

I will try to interact with evolutionary thought and teaching more to be better able to answer that question.

Not anytime soon however. I'm ramping up now to about 300 pages of reading a week, a paper a week, and I haven't even begun on my thesis yet. Not complaining or using it as an excuse. That's just reality.

Most of my concerns are based more on the framework of how thinking is promoted or conclusions drawn than necessarily being able to interact at the detail level of all of this. There's just too much information and I'm too ill-equiped to deal with it all.

I still believe that intelligent design is a legitimate approach as a framework to interpret and understand these type of issues. I suspect it probably does fail ultimately at some level as pure science and I've said as much in other posts. I think the natural realm for it is in Philosophy and meta-physics.

I think it is healthy from a scientific approach however to have competing theories and approaches where that spurs additional work and reduces complacency. So I think it is overall good that maybe Intelligent Design and the work of Dembski, Behe and others in this realm challenge us to examine not only the data, but also the frameworks we construct to interpret the data.

Science, by design and nature eliminates that which cannot be observed and measured and I understand the reason for that and support it. What frosts me (there's a good scientific term) is when that rationale is extrapolated out of that methodology and left to stand unchallenged when the conclusions being drawn go beyond pure science.

I'm a little surprised your taking my points although grateful. Like I've said before, I feel I'm way beyong my depth on this.

Bart

angel wrote:Canuckster1127, thank you for your kind reply. As usual I consider your replies thoughtful and honest.
Still I have a couple of points to further comment.

Canuckster1127
Dembski's work in this area is generally conceded by his detractors to be
the best that there is in the field in promoting Intelligent Design as a hard science.

http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre ... embski.pdf

I know personally one of the author. I can guarantee that he is far for being aggressive or having an agenda to be followed about it. I wouldn't even considered him as a Dembski detractor!
He is also an internationally recognized expert in information theory.

Similar, if not worse, comments can be found on MathSciNet. If you are interested I can post them, though I am sure there is no real need to do it. )

Canuckster1127
I still maintain that much of the argument of ID is not that it is better
supported in the empirical realm of science than natural selection as
interpreted in the more popular forms, but rather that much of what passes and has been presented as hard science in the realm of evolution and natural selection is not proven or supported to a degree that should allow its representation in education to the degree that it currently is.

Can you mention one thing which is presented as hard science in the realm of evolution and natural selection without being proven or supported to a degree that should allow its representation in education?

Do you believe that I have a common ancestor with my chimp friend?

Angel,

I have no doubt anecdotal examples exists of varying degrees of appreciation or rejection of these issues with Dembski. I may be wrong in my assessment. I consulted general sources (wikipedia) for most of them and did a quick drive-by on other sites, pro and con.

The obvious answer to your question to my limited knowledge in terms of evolution exists within the divergent views between evolutionists themselves as to such issues as gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

As to my personal view of evolution, I am not threatened by it. I believe it is a legitimate theory with much that is established. I think that there are tremendous gaps in information the further back we go and that more is inferred than deduced the further back we go.

My personal belief and faith in God as Creator is in His existence and His role as creator, not His methods. It wouldn't shake me or break my faith to be brought to a place where on the basis of evidence I had to affirm evolution as that methodogy. I do not see sufficient evidence at this point to necessitate my doing that.

I hope that answers your question. It's the best answer I can give.

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote: Bgood,

To be honest with you, I'm not sure I can articulate the answer to your comment to my own satisfaction, let alone to yours.

Most of my concerns are based more on the framework of how thinking is promoted or conclusions drawn than necessarily being able to interact at the detail level of all of this. There's just too much information and I'm too ill-equiped to deal with it all.

Understood.
=)

Canuckster1127 wrote:I still believe that intelligent design is a legitimate approach as a framework to interpret and understand these type of issues. I suspect it probably does fail ultimately at some level as pure science and I've said as much in other posts. I think the natural realm for it is in Philosophy and meta-physics.

I would agree here, and a support of this philosophy does not preclude one from conducting good science. For instance some scientists beleive that everything is physical, many beleive in God, and some are even YEC.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I think it is healthy from a scientific approach however to have competing theories and approaches where that spurs additional work and reduces complacency. So I think it is overall good that maybe Intelligent Design and the work of Dembski, Behe and others in this realm challenge us to examine not only the data, but also the frameworks we construct to interpret the data.

Again I agree, one needs to remain skeptical of all human endeavors even if only a little. Competing ideas are good for research.

With one caveat.

One must learn the material first, one needs to be presented with the evidence and reasoning and experimental results first, before one can delve into the intracacies and shortcomings of a theory or hypothesis. Criticism from a laymans perspective usually does not bear any weight once analyzed. And without proper education one would be ill equiped to determine as such.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Science, by design and nature eliminates that which cannot be observed and measured and I understand the reason for that and support it. What frosts me (there's a good scientific term) is when that rationale is extrapolated out of that methodology and left to stand unchallenged when the conclusions being drawn go beyond pure science.

I agree with you here.