Homework assignment for proponents of ID

[Abbey Normal]

And the reason I'm starting threads about ID is I want to see if it's actually possible to convince people(if the shoe fits) that ID is not science...

Okay, again, seriously, WHY do you feel the need to do this in the first place?

It would be good for you to discover the true answer to this question.

And don't repeat the " I don't like junk science in the schools" line. It is non-responsive to the question.

 

[Powerman]

Well I'm not sure we'll ever be able to test anything that is supernatural in a lab. A physician a long time ago once put a dying patient on a scale to see if he could measure the weight of a human soul. As you might expect he was the same weight after his death. Supernatural things can not be tested in a lab.

So how does one come to the conclusion that there was an intelligent designer? It seems like the only argument for that would be that things are very complex and beyond our full understanding. But our understanding of things is always increasing so what seems complex to us now might seem simple to us in 100 years. I really don't see how you can find proof of an intelligent designer.

 

[no1tovote4]

"Well I'm not sure we'll ever be able to test anything that is supernatural in a lab."

Once again, why would it necessarily be Supernatural? Do you think that at no point in our future we might be able to change and direct DNA? Is it possible that there could have been another intelligence other than ours that is not Supernatural?

 

[Powerman]

Okay, again, seriously, WHY do you feel the need to do this in the first place?

It would be good for you to discover the true answer to this question.

And don't repeat the " I don't like junk science in the schools" line. It is non-responsive to the question.

I believe people should know the truth whether they like it or not. Christians don't want evolution taught in schools because it may cause children to not believe in literal accounts of the bible. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so I don't see the point of this.

And why can't a say I don't like junk science being taught in schools? I don't. Why would I? I think education is very important. The bible is not a scientific book and therefor should in no way dictate what is taught in a science class.

I also like discussing such matters because it is fascinating to see how otherwise intelligent people will back themselves in a corner to defend something that has no merit to it.(I'm talking about the junk science not your faith. I believe faith has worth where junk science does not)

 

[Powerman]

"Well I'm not sure we'll ever be able to test anything that is supernatural in a lab."

Once again, why would it necessarily be Supernatural? Do you think that at no point in our future we might be able to change and direct DNA? Is it possible that there could have been another intelligence other than ours that is not Supernatural?

Yes it is possible and I understand that ID takes into account the idea that there may have been an alien life form of some sort. I think they are just saying that to cover their bases so they don't look like they are on a religious mission but that's besides the point. The point is until we have proof of this alien that visited earth and created everything then there isn't much point in discussing it. It's just as valid as any other random cosmic philosophy that pops into anyones head at this point.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yes it is possible and I understand that ID takes into account the idea that there may have been an alien life form of some sort. I think they are just saying that to cover their bases so they don't look like they are on a religious mission but that's besides the point. The point is until we have proof of this alien that visited earth and created everything then there isn't much point in discussing it. It's just as valid as any other random cosmic philosophy that pops into anyones head at this point.

If they are successful disproving that a piece of the evolutionary thread could not have happened without intelligent interference would you think it was god or a more natural intelligence?

 

[Powerman]

If they are successful disproving that a piece of the evolutionary thread could not have happened without intelligent interference would you think it was god or a more natural intelligence?

Yeah but how would you prove that something needed intelligent interference? You could prove that there is a hole in something and that there is no explanation as of yet but that doesn't mean that there must be intelligent interference.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yeah but how would you prove that something needed intelligent interference? You could prove that there is a hole in something and that there is no explanation as of yet but that doesn't mean that there must be intelligent interference.

The same way an anthropologist could tell that a pot was made by hands. The assumption that one could not recognize in any way in life a piece that may only have been made by intelligence. Just as SETI would be able to tell through patterns of complexity etc if life was found outside of Earth.

 

[no1tovote4]

Sorry the last post was a little disjointed.

Anyway, as we advance in Genetics and become better able to manipulate DNA directly we will be able to see the signs of such manipulation. Like with the pot above, we can see the signs that it was made by human hands. There may be a time we can detect manipulation in the genes of the past. The question was, if such a discovery were made would you immediately assume it was a Supernatural Being or look to a more natural intelligence?

 

[Powerman]

Sorry the last post was a little disjointed.

Anyway, as we advance in Genetics and become better able to manipulate DNA directly we will be able to see the signs of such manipulation. Like with the pot above, we can see the signs that it was made by human hands. There may be a time we can detect manipulation in the genes of the past. The question was, if such a discovery were made would you immediately assume it was a Supernatural Being or look to a more natural intelligence?

I would look for a natural cause. Assuming it is a supernatural being is essentially giving up and saying that we know all we will ever know about this particular branch of science and the rest is beyond us because it was caused by a supernatural event. You never stop looking for answers. If you assume that something is supernatural you are conceding defeat in your quest for knowledge.

 

[dmp]

If you assume that something is supernatural you are conceding defeat in your quest for knowledge.

Another way of looking at conceding the Supernatural is "Facing a Truth" which reminds humans of their inadequacies.

 

[no1tovote4]

I would look for a natural cause. Assuming it is a supernatural being is essentially giving up and saying that we know all we will ever know about this particular branch of science and the rest is beyond us because it was caused by a supernatural event. You never stop looking for answers. If you assume that something is supernatural you are conceding defeat in your quest for knowledge.

This was my point. There is no assumption in the theory of Supernatural. You simply state it is so and expect us all to agree.

 

[Powerman]

Another way of looking at conceding the Supernatural is "Facing a Truth" which reminds humans of their inadequacies.

But as a scientist you always look for more answers. If you get stumped maybe the next guy can pick up where you left off. You don't just say that you have no idea and no one will ever understand it because it's supernatural. That's quitting.

 

[Powerman]

This was my point. There is no assumption in the theory of Supernatural. You simply state it is so and expect us all to agree.

It claims supernatural OR alien life form. Since we have no proof that either exists at the moment then I don't see why we should assume that either is responsible for things. Even if we had proof that they did exist it's not an excuse to just throw in the hat on something that we don't understand. We should always strive for more answers.

Edited to add....
This is you:
The question was, if such a discovery were made would you immediately assume it was a Supernatural Being or look to a more natural intelligence?



You asked if I would assume it was a supernatural being so I answered your question accordingly.

 

[Said1]

But as a scientist you always look for more answers. If you get stumped maybe the next guy can pick up where you left off. You don't just say that you have no idea and no one will ever understand it because it's supernatural. That's quitting.

No, that's called trusting a Higher Power.

 

[Powerman]

No, that's called trusting a Higher Power.

Trusting a higher power to do what? I think you're missing my point. A thousand years ago people may have thought that child birth was so complex that it could only have some sort of supernatural meaning. They understood how people got pregnant in a simple sense but not in the sense that we know it to be now. If they would have just said "fuck it, it's a supernatural event, no sense in investigating it" then we would not know many of the things we know today about child birth.

 

[no1tovote4]

But as a scientist you always look for more answers. If you get stumped maybe the next guy can pick up where you left off. You don't just say that you have no idea and no one will ever understand it because it's supernatural. That's quitting.

Much like Stonehenge we don't simply look for a natural reason that the stones got there just to keep asking questions and therefore make ourselves more Scientific. All the evidence points to the fact that they were carved from the quarry using the tools of the time period, there is no reason to look for a way that they might have eroded into shape and floated over by some natural means.

If such evidence were discovered in the genetics of evolution would you simply ignore the evidence to look for a natural reason or would you look for a more natural intelligence or assume a Supernatural Being did it? You keep ducking the question because you do not want to conceive of the idea.

Me personally, if such evidence were ever found, would look to a more natural intelligence.

 

[no1tovote4]

It claims supernatural OR alien life form. Since we have no proof that either exists at the moment then I don't see why we should assume that either is responsible for things. Even if we had proof that they did exist it's not an excuse to just throw in the hat on something that we don't understand. We should always strive for more answers.

It claims only intelligence. For all they know the intelligence could have been more advanced humans before the left the earth for farther reaches. They are not attempting to answer what Intelligence it was, you are placing assumptions into the theory that are not there because you want them to be there. It is easy to say it isn't scientific to look for evidence of Supernatural Beings, not so easy to say there might be evidence of intelligence found within life without regard as to the status of the intelligence.

 

[Powerman]

It claims only intelligence. For all they know the intelligence could have been more advanced humans before the left the earth for farther reaches. They are not attempting to answer what Intelligence it was, you are placing assumptions into the theory that are not there because you want them to be there. It is easy to say it isn't scientific to look for evidence of Supernatural Beings, not so easy to say there might be evidence of intelligence found within life without regard as to the status of the intelligence.

OK I was actually about to buy that until I thought about it for a second. If there were super intelligent humans on earth that left and created humans before they left then who the hell created them. You are essentially saying that humans could have cloned a small population of themselves millions of years ago and left the remaining cloned population to repopulate the earth. That doesn't seem very logical to me.

 

[no1tovote4]

OK I was actually about to buy that until I thought about it for a second. If there were super intelligent humans on earth that left and created humans before they left then who the hell created them. You are essentially saying that humans could have cloned a small population of themselves millions of years ago and left the remaining cloned population to repopulate the earth. That doesn't seem very logical to me.

It doesn't matter. The point is there is no assumption of what type or species or if the intelligence was Supernatural or not. That is something you assume into the theory so you can disregard it with aplomb.

Maybe it was a ship that brought life here, killed of the Dinosaurs, the spread new DNA to create a form of life much like that which created the ship.

Maybe it WAS Supernatural.

Either way it doesn't matter to the theory.