Freethought & Rationalism Archive

blargg · 11-14-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJW

I wonder what the End game looks like for some of these ID Folks....say they get their way and ID is the prevelant "theory" taught in schools - what would research in that dystopia look like, what would medical advances look like? How much different would that be under the current prevailing theory?

Say an organism is determined to be "designed" does that mean no additional research may be conducted related to its origin? What if an organism is incorrectly defined as "designed"? What self-correcting mechanics does ID offer?

I feel that the brute force of economics will continue to drive scientific research, if not in this country than elsewhere, and in the end ID will have added nothing of value to our collective knowledge.

Chris

Exactly. It has no applications. That's the A-bomb.

Roland98 · 11-14-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blargg

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJW

I wonder what the End game looks like for some of these ID Folks....say they get their way and ID is the prevelant "theory" taught in schools - what would research in that dystopia look like, what would medical advances look like? How much different would that be under the current prevailing theory?

Say an organism is determined to be "designed" does that mean no additional research may be conducted related to its origin? What if an organism is incorrectly defined as "designed"? What self-correcting mechanics does ID offer?

I feel that the brute force of economics will continue to drive scientific research, if not in this country than elsewhere, and in the end ID will have added nothing of value to our collective knowledge.

Chris

Exactly. It has no applications. That's the A-bomb.

He was asked that last time too. His response was: "if the universe is designed, that’s a truth of the universe we can know. This may lead us to ask other questions and look at the evidence more carefully."

A total non-answer, but if it's going to be an ID-friendly crowd, it may appease them.

CJW · 11-14-2005, 12:05 PM

Or what if the design filters determine that the ebola virus is the most perfectly desinged organism on the planet?

Isbrant · 11-14-2005, 12:05 PM

[QUOTE=Roland98]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninewands

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spenser

How would you be able to distinguish between what is or isn't designed?

At least at the talk I went to, he did introduce Dembski's filter, which supposedly does this. There are all kinds of problems with it (and, of course, it's never been tested), but they have a mechanism, at least.

I would ask for an example of something that is not designed and how they know it is not designed.

Don't they need this in order to be able to test Dembski's filter? Roland98 says it has never been tested but I don't think it could be tested. If something is claimed to not be desinged I would just ask how they know the designer didn't make it since they don't know (or claim to care) who the designer is.

Just my thoughts
Isbrant

Sven · 11-14-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llDayo

Intelligent Design, at least from a human perspective, requires a purpose to the creation. Computers are designed to run programs, cars are designed to transport, and baseballs are designed to be hit by baseball bats. What is the purpose of humans?

I think that would leave him speechless. Anyone have a counter that I most likely didn't see?

I didn't see this addressed so far.
One possible answer: "This is an open research question within the ID theory."

PoodleLovinPessimist · 11-14-2005, 12:45 PM

I would ask him: "How can you determine in principle that something complex was not designed?"

strobe · 11-14-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Q: You mentioned in the first slight that anti-ID people “mischaracterize�? ID as religion or creationism. In light of the Wedge document and the use of “creationism�? as a placeholder in the ID text “Pandas and Peoples�? by ID-supportive authors, why do you still consider this a mischaracterization?A: ID stands alone, with or without its cultural implications. Brought up Dawkin’s quote about being an “intellectually fulfilled atheist,�? asked if that makes Darwinism wrong. Religious views are irrelevant. ... snip

(emphasis mine)

Follow up question: If ID has nothing to do with religion, then why are you giving this talk in a church to a group of religious people?

Santas little helper · 11-14-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Quote:

Originally Posted by llDayo

Intelligent Design, at least from a human perspective, requires a purpose to the creation. Computers are designed to run programs, cars are designed to transport, and baseballs are designed to be hit by baseball bats. What is the purpose of humans?

I think that would leave him speechless. Anyone have a counter that I most likely didn't see?

I didn't see this addressed so far.
One possible answer: "This is an open research question within the ID theory."

Another answer: this is a religious question. But that doesn't mean that ID is religious.

Yet another answer: we don't know.

That's the most likely one I would guess.

Roland98 · 11-14-2005, 02:10 PM

I just realized he's referred to as an "astrobiologist" on the church's website. Astrobiologist, my ass...he kept saying over and over how he's "not a biologist" at his UNI talk, and his research (according to his ISU website) is on "the late stages of stellar evolution through the use of spectroscopic observations. Recent work includes spectroscopic abundance analysis of post-AGB supergiants and RV Tau variables. He has also undertaken a study of the parent stars of the recently discovered extra-solar planetary systems. The results indicate that these stars have anomalous chemical abundances, suggesting some sort of unusual formation history." Maybe I'll start calling myself a biophysicist...I have more training in physics than Gonzalez appears to have in biology. How freaking annoying.

Koyaanisqatsi · 11-14-2005, 02:49 PM

Ask him why it took some fourteen billion years for you to ask him this question?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-14-2005, 12:05 PM	#23
CJW Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: South Jersey Posts: 973	Or what if the design filters determine that the ebola virus is the most perfectly desinged organism on the planet?

11-14-2005, 12:45 PM	#26
PoodleLovinPessimist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 5,826	I would ask him: "How can you determine in principle that something complex was not designed?"

11-14-2005, 02:10 PM	#29
Roland98 Contributor Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Gilead Posts: 11,186	I just realized he's referred to as an "astrobiologist" on the church's website. Astrobiologist, my ass...he kept saying over and over how he's "not a biologist" at his UNI talk, and his research (according to his ISU website) is on "the late stages of stellar evolution through the use of spectroscopic observations. Recent work includes spectroscopic abundance analysis of post-AGB supergiants and RV Tau variables. He has also undertaken a study of the parent stars of the recently discovered extra-solar planetary systems. The results indicate that these stars have anomalous chemical abundances, suggesting some sort of unusual formation history." Maybe I'll start calling myself a biophysicist...I have more training in physics than Gonzalez appears to have in biology. How freaking annoying.

11-14-2005, 02:49 PM	#30
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Ask him why it took some fourteen billion years for you to ask him this question?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.