Difference between revisions of "Talk:Intelligent design"
From Conservapedia
(→The Theory of Intelligent Design) |
(→Double Standards for Intelligent Design) |
||
| (236 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{Wikiproject Religion}} | |
| + | {{protect|TK}} | ||
| + | [[Talk:Intelligent design/Archive-1]] | ||
| − | + | == More evidence of intelligent design == | |
| − | + | I would add [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/28/meet-tiny-hour-clock-blood-cells/#content this article] giving more evidence of an intelligent designer at work. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 11:05, 30 January 2011 (EST) | |
| − | + | == [http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design#cite_note-0] is a logical fallacy == | |
| − | + | The reference is an argument from ignorance. It effectively posits that since there is no evidence against intelligent design, it must be true. [[User:Celigans|Celigans]] 03:03, 10 April 2011 (EDT) | |
| + | :Atheism is <s>also</s> a logical fallacy; atheists think since there is no evidence against atheism that it must be true. Keyword is ''think''; they ''think'' there is no evidence against it. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 07:31, 10 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
| − | + | What? No. Atheists do not claim that evolution or atheism "must" be true. No, that is exactly what annoys atheists about religion, that it claims to know things absolutely and conclusively. And, simply to point out a logical fallacy, atheism does not have to be proven, religion does. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | : | + | ::What part of the reference says that? |
| + | ::*"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting irreducible complexity with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" | ||
| + | ::I do not see how indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory is an [[argument from ignorance]]. Please explain. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:18, 12 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::I don't quite understand why Mr. Poor's edit summary was "to DMorris" unless he took the use of the word "also" as an indicator of me agreeing with Celigans, but I just struck out also to clear up any confusion. All I did was rightfully criticize atheism. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:11, 13 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::The problem I have with this reference is that I don't see how showing that systems exhibiting irreducible complexity can arise spontaneously by purely material processes would refute ID. It might strengthen the case for evolution, but it would in no way rule out intelligent design. Therefore I don't see how it could be considered a test. Starting the article with quite a bold statement (that intelligent design is empirically testable) and backing it up with a weak reference doesn't set a good tone for the article as a whole. --[[User:JayFrancis|JayFrancis]] 21:58, 19 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
| − | + | With regards to the reference at hand: Wells' book has been disregarded as psuedo-science by the scientific community at large, and its continued existence and verification is due only to the constant circulation amongst creationists. Most of its arguments have been thoroughly refuted. | |
| + | Further, it argues from the inane position that ID needs to be refuted, not proven, and that irreducible complexity is in some way this test that totally verifies ID. Irreducible complexity is not definitive proof of ID (nor is it right, numerous tests have proven it to be untrue), the same way vestigial organs, DNA records, and a gigantic fossil record that supports our understanding of evolution, etc. etc. are not definitive proof of evolution. | ||
| + | :Did you read the book? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT) | ||
| − | :: | + | ::The remarks of Celigans above provide delicious food for thought, if one is interested in understanding the sorts of arguments which atheists and materialists typically use against ID - all erroneous, of course. But they as they are not supplied here with the intention of making our ID article more trustworthy, they are out of place. |
| + | ::*They can make them on a debate page, if they want to fight it out in the open (see [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]) | ||
| + | ::*We could analyze these erroneous remarks and present them in a section on typical hostile responses to ID. | ||
| − | :::: | + | ::If we analyze typical arguments offered by ID opponents, we find several logical fallacies, included the old favorite "first refuge of scoundrels": the [[strawman attack]], i.e., putting words in your opponent's mouth. |
| + | ::* The writer pretends that ID has argued ''that since there is no evidence against intelligent design, it must be true.'' | ||
| + | ::*:Of course he gives no reference for this, because no one has said this but ID '''opponents''' (and only as a debate tactic) | ||
| − | :: | + | ::I could go on, but I won't unless someone shows some interest. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:59, 3 December 2011 (EST) |
| − | I | + | == SETI == |
| + | I'd like to ask for permission to add following edit: | ||
| − | + | Proponents of ID [[theory]] point out that the [[genetic code]] stored in [[organic]] [[cell]]s and perceived by contemporary [[science]] as [[digital]] [[information]]<ref name="Information Content">{{Cite web | |
| + | | title = Information Content of Individual Genetic Sequences, US patent 5867402 | ||
| + | | url = http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ri/latex/ | ||
| + | | author = Thomas D. Schneider | ||
| + | | publisher = Journal of Theoretical Biology | ||
| + | | date = 1999 December 23 | ||
| + | |accessdate = 2011-12-03 | ||
| + | | page = 189 (4): 427-441, 1997 | ||
| + | |quote=With these tools [[information theory]] now provides a common framework for investigating many aspects of genetic sequences.}}</ref> complies with the criterion on intelligent cause detection within the [[SETI]] (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) research program. <ref name=”SICell”>{{cite book|author=[[Stephen C. Meyer]]|title=Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=n4iaNwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Stephen+C.+Meyer%22&hl=en&ei=T_3ZTviXJsOK4gSj4eXMDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6wEwAA|page=344|quote=NASA’s presupposes that any specified information embedded in electromagnetic signals coming from space would indicate an intelligent source. …|publisher=HarperOne|year=2010|accessdate=2011-12-03}}</ref><ref name=”SETI”>{{cite web|title=SETI FAQs: How do you know if you've detected an intelligent, extraterrestrial signal?| url=http://www.seti.org/faq|quote=*Project Phoenix, run by the SETI Institute, was the most ambitious search for extraterrestrial intelligence ever undertaken. * How do you know if you've detected an '''intelligent''', extraterrestrial signal? | ||
| + | The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width…. Such narrow-band signals are what all SETI experiments look for. Other tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely polarized '''or the existence of coded information''' on the signal. …|accessdate=2011-12-03}}</ref><references/> | ||
| + | at the end of section "The Capacity of Intelligent Causes" (pls.remove then "references" template at the end included in here just for illustrative purposes)--[[User:AK|AK]] 06:43, 3 December 2011 (EST) | ||
| + | ::::I like the code part, but not a big fan of SETI. Will work to get code part in. can mention that SETI assumes evolution/abiogenesis which is wrong but coded information nevertheless meets SETI. I can work on this in 2012. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:56, 3 December 2011 (EST) | ||
| + | :::::I'm not a big fan of SETI either, but the point is that they regard "the existence of coded information" as criterion to attribute signal to intelligent cause, and DNA and RNA sequences in cell are clearly passing this criterion, unless mainstream science references to genetic code should be denied.--[[User:AK|AK]] 15:51, 3 December 2011 (EST) | ||
| − | + | == ID and formal logic == | |
| + | Another proposition: | ||
| + | From perspective of [[formal logic]], the argument of advocates of ID can be based on following premises: | ||
| + | *'''Premise 1:''' In spite of through research, no purely material causes have been discovered that could be used to demonstrate their capability to produce high volumes of functionally specific information. | ||
| + | *'''Premise 2:''' It is possible to demonstrate that high volumes of functionally specific information can be produced by intelligent causes. Intelligence is in fact as of now the only known cause of complex functionality. | ||
| + | *'''Conclusion:''' From the perspective of known cause-and-effect structure of the world, the intelligent design is the most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the functionally specific information present in an organic cell.<ref name=”SICell”>{{cite book|author=[[Stephen C. Meyer]]|title=Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=n4iaNwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Stephen+C.+Meyer%22&hl=en&ei=T_3ZTviXJsOK4gSj4eXMDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6wEwAA|page=378|quote=But the argument…takes the following form...|publisher=HarperOne|year=2010|accessdate=2011-12-03}}</ref><references/>--[[User:AK|AK]] 21:39, 5 December 2011 (EST) | ||
| − | + | == Dawkins agnostic == | |
| − | + | Other articles now say that Dawkins is an agnostic, not an atheist. Should this one be amended along similar lines?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:26, 28 February 2012 (EST) | |
| − | == | + | == Double Standards for Intelligent Design == |
| − | + | One of the 15 questions for evolution is "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?" Creation Ministries International claims that evolution is not testable (and thus not science) for the following reasons: | |
| − | + | *Evolution does not predict anything | |
| − | + | *Evolution makes certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions | |
| − | + | However, replace evolution with intelligent design and the same objections exist. Intelligent design does not predict anything, since presumably we don't know what the designer will do. And intelligent design makes the assumption of an intelligent designer. Thus, by Creation Ministries International's standards, intelligent design is just as unscientific as evolution. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 11:19, 5 January 2013 (EST) | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Latest revision as of 16:20, January 5, 2013
| ! | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | 
|
| ! | Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop. |
|
Contents
More evidence of intelligent design
I would add this article giving more evidence of an intelligent designer at work. Martyp 11:05, 30 January 2011 (EST)
[1] is a logical fallacy
The reference is an argument from ignorance. It effectively posits that since there is no evidence against intelligent design, it must be true. Celigans 03:03, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
- Atheism is
alsoa logical fallacy; atheists think since there is no evidence against atheism that it must be true. Keyword is think; they think there is no evidence against it. DMorris 07:31, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
What? No. Atheists do not claim that evolution or atheism "must" be true. No, that is exactly what annoys atheists about religion, that it claims to know things absolutely and conclusively. And, simply to point out a logical fallacy, atheism does not have to be proven, religion does.
- What part of the reference says that?
- "Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting irreducible complexity with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes"
- I do not see how indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory is an argument from ignorance. Please explain. --Ed Poor Talk 14:18, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
- I don't quite understand why Mr. Poor's edit summary was "to DMorris" unless he took the use of the word "also" as an indicator of me agreeing with Celigans, but I just struck out also to clear up any confusion. All I did was rightfully criticize atheism. DMorris 21:11, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
- The problem I have with this reference is that I don't see how showing that systems exhibiting irreducible complexity can arise spontaneously by purely material processes would refute ID. It might strengthen the case for evolution, but it would in no way rule out intelligent design. Therefore I don't see how it could be considered a test. Starting the article with quite a bold statement (that intelligent design is empirically testable) and backing it up with a weak reference doesn't set a good tone for the article as a whole. --JayFrancis 21:58, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
- What part of the reference says that?
With regards to the reference at hand: Wells' book has been disregarded as psuedo-science by the scientific community at large, and its continued existence and verification is due only to the constant circulation amongst creationists. Most of its arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Further, it argues from the inane position that ID needs to be refuted, not proven, and that irreducible complexity is in some way this test that totally verifies ID. Irreducible complexity is not definitive proof of ID (nor is it right, numerous tests have proven it to be untrue), the same way vestigial organs, DNA records, and a gigantic fossil record that supports our understanding of evolution, etc. etc. are not definitive proof of evolution.
- Did you read the book? Karajou 01:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
- The remarks of Celigans above provide delicious food for thought, if one is interested in understanding the sorts of arguments which atheists and materialists typically use against ID - all erroneous, of course. But they as they are not supplied here with the intention of making our ID article more trustworthy, they are out of place.
- They can make them on a debate page, if they want to fight it out in the open (see Conservapedia:Debate Topics)
- We could analyze these erroneous remarks and present them in a section on typical hostile responses to ID.
- The remarks of Celigans above provide delicious food for thought, if one is interested in understanding the sorts of arguments which atheists and materialists typically use against ID - all erroneous, of course. But they as they are not supplied here with the intention of making our ID article more trustworthy, they are out of place.
- If we analyze typical arguments offered by ID opponents, we find several logical fallacies, included the old favorite "first refuge of scoundrels": the strawman attack, i.e., putting words in your opponent's mouth.
- The writer pretends that ID has argued that since there is no evidence against intelligent design, it must be true.
- Of course he gives no reference for this, because no one has said this but ID opponents (and only as a debate tactic)
- The writer pretends that ID has argued that since there is no evidence against intelligent design, it must be true.
- If we analyze typical arguments offered by ID opponents, we find several logical fallacies, included the old favorite "first refuge of scoundrels": the strawman attack, i.e., putting words in your opponent's mouth.
SETI
I'd like to ask for permission to add following edit:
Proponents of ID theory point out that the genetic code stored in organic cells and perceived by contemporary science as digital information[1] complies with the criterion on intelligent cause detection within the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) research program. [2][3]- ↑ Thomas D. Schneider (1999 December 23). Information Content of Individual Genetic Sequences, US patent 5867402. Journal of Theoretical Biology. Retrieved on 2011-12-03. “With these tools information theory now provides a common framework for investigating many aspects of genetic sequences.”
- ↑ Stephen C. Meyer (2010). Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design. HarperOne. Retrieved on 2011-12-03. “NASA’s presupposes that any specified information embedded in electromagnetic signals coming from space would indicate an intelligent source. …”
- ↑ SETI FAQs: How do you know if you've detected an intelligent, extraterrestrial signal?. Retrieved on 2011-12-03. “*Project Phoenix, run by the SETI Institute, was the most ambitious search for extraterrestrial intelligence ever undertaken. * How do you know if you've detected an intelligent, extraterrestrial signal? The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width…. Such narrow-band signals are what all SETI experiments look for. Other tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely polarized or the existence of coded information on the signal. …”
at the end of section "The Capacity of Intelligent Causes" (pls.remove then "references" template at the end included in here just for illustrative purposes)--AK 06:43, 3 December 2011 (EST)
- I like the code part, but not a big fan of SETI. Will work to get code part in. can mention that SETI assumes evolution/abiogenesis which is wrong but coded information nevertheless meets SETI. I can work on this in 2012. Conservative 06:56, 3 December 2011 (EST)
- I'm not a big fan of SETI either, but the point is that they regard "the existence of coded information" as criterion to attribute signal to intelligent cause, and DNA and RNA sequences in cell are clearly passing this criterion, unless mainstream science references to genetic code should be denied.--AK 15:51, 3 December 2011 (EST)
- I like the code part, but not a big fan of SETI. Will work to get code part in. can mention that SETI assumes evolution/abiogenesis which is wrong but coded information nevertheless meets SETI. I can work on this in 2012. Conservative 06:56, 3 December 2011 (EST)
ID and formal logic
Another proposition: From perspective of formal logic, the argument of advocates of ID can be based on following premises:
- Premise 1: In spite of through research, no purely material causes have been discovered that could be used to demonstrate their capability to produce high volumes of functionally specific information.
- Premise 2: It is possible to demonstrate that high volumes of functionally specific information can be produced by intelligent causes. Intelligence is in fact as of now the only known cause of complex functionality.
- Conclusion: From the perspective of known cause-and-effect structure of the world, the intelligent design is the most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the functionally specific information present in an organic cell.[1]
Dawkins agnostic
Other articles now say that Dawkins is an agnostic, not an atheist. Should this one be amended along similar lines?--CPalmer 10:26, 28 February 2012 (EST)
Double Standards for Intelligent Design
One of the 15 questions for evolution is "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?" Creation Ministries International claims that evolution is not testable (and thus not science) for the following reasons:
- Evolution does not predict anything
- Evolution makes certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions
However, replace evolution with intelligent design and the same objections exist. Intelligent design does not predict anything, since presumably we don't know what the designer will do. And intelligent design makes the assumption of an intelligent designer. Thus, by Creation Ministries International's standards, intelligent design is just as unscientific as evolution. RaymondZ 11:19, 5 January 2013 (EST)
