Quake3World

GONNAFISTYA wrote: Speculation as to whether ID exists or not is not the issue. The issue is the fact that ID tries to compare itself to real science....which it's not.

Do you debate that science exists? Of course not.

Absolutely it's the issue. ID says that there is a reason for all that is. Science doesn't know "why" everything exists, it just attempts to resolve how it all exists. ID gives the understanding that there is a meaning to everything where science doesn't. The fact is you don't know for sure whether ID is wrong or right. I believe the ID theory is the start of all things where science is the how all things came to be. Just my opinion.

tnf wrote:ID is not science. There is plenty of evidence that ID, as described in the current "theory" did not happen.

now...must...force...self...to stay away from this thread...

heh.

What proof do you have that there is no supreme being that started all this? If you have PROOF, then you should be up for some Nobel prize I'm sure.

RiffRaff wrote: What proof do you have that there is no supreme being that started all this? If you have PROOF, then you should be up for some Nobel prize I'm sure.

While you are waiting for tnf to reply to your delightful question, take 10 seconds and search for 'intelligent design' in the Gen. Dis archives. Tnf has posted quite a bit about it, and in no case (including the quote you are replying to) has he even hinted at chucking God from his ontology.



*reminds self to smack GOTSTACUNTYA in the melon with a large trout for injecting PROOF-TALK into this clusterfuck*

interesting discussion in class today about ID - our prof was talking about how not believing in ID was irrational before Darwin's ideas became known.

Understanding the difference between likelihood and probability is helpful here.

To use Sober's example:

If I hear noises in my attic (observation), there are a number of competing hypotheses to explain this, with differing probabilities:

squirrels, wind, gremlins having a bowling match.

The Gremlin hypothesis has a low probability.

However, if I knew in advance that there were indeed gremlins bowling in my attic (say I had invited them over), then the likelihood of there being noises in my attic is high.

So probability is Pr (H|O)
and likelihood is Pr (O|H)

where | = given, so in the attic case:

probability of gremlins bowling in attic, GIVEN sounds coming from attic, is low.

but likelihood of sounds coming from attic, GIVEN gremlins, is high.

In the case of intelligent design, before Darwin, we have:

Observation: complexity and design of life

competing hypotheses:

wind, lightning, water, heat, etc., I.D.

Now even tho I.D. has a low probability compared to the other explanations, the LIKELIHOOD of life, given I.D., is far greater than the likelihood of life, given wind, or water, or any known combination of them.

Therefore, using inference to the best explanation, I.D. wins.


Now Darwin comes along, and articulates the idea of natural selection, acting over successive generations.

Now we have wind, lightning, water, heat, NAT SELECTION, I.D.

Nat selection wins, since it's both probable (in that the mechanisms are viable), and has a high likelihood (in that the probability of life evolving into complex forms, given NAT SELECTION, is high.

High likelihood + high probability = winna!


The idea is that we use inference to the best explanation to select from competing theories.

Grudge wrote:You could say that it is in the nature of the universe to develop the ability to observe itself.

I too think this sometimes.

Like, humans are the conciousness (or at least, part of it) of the universe... funny stuff.

wait, who cares?

RiffRaff wrote:
Absolutely it's the issue. ID says that there is a reason for all that is. Science doesn't know "why" everything exists, it just attempts to resolve how it all exists. ID gives the understanding that there is a meaning to everything where science doesn't. The fact is you don't know for sure whether ID is wrong or right. I believe the ID theory is the start of all things where science is the how all things came to be. Just my opinion.

It seems to me that you believe in ID simply because it makes you feel better. There is nothing rational about that.

isnt that the purpose of all religions?

Qr7 wrote:wait, who cares?

Well...stupid people don't. People who have no interest in their surroundings don't. People with Down Syndrome don't.

So I guess there's alot of people that don't care....but nobody cares about them so it balances out.

MKJ wrote:isnt that the purpose of all religions?

Exactly...which is why ID = religion...no matter how you try to spin it.

What I've wondered ever since this ID thing came up is what's new about it except for the fact they now call it "science". I mean, the very fundamental basics of christianity is that the world was created by God, isn't it?

So which new factors does ID bring into the equation that suddenly makes it special and believable?

no the difference is that God created the universe and physics and all that, while ID created life.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Qr7 wrote:wait, who cares?

Well...stupid people don't. People who have no interest in their surroundings don't. People with Down Syndrome don't.

So I guess there's alot of people that don't care....but nobody cares about them so it balances out.

alright buddy, you keep arguing with the religious freaks. I've got better things to do with my time.

My point was theres no use in arguing about this. But good job being a predictable douchebag as usual.

[xeno]Julios wrote:interesting discussion in class today about ID - our prof was talking about how not believing in ID was irrational before Darwin's ideas became known.

(....)


The idea is that we use inference to the best explanation to select from competing theories.

Interesting post. It's not enitrely clear what you're trying to point out though. I dig the fact that ID was believable before Darwin's time because, to put it simply, we didn't know any better.

What does it say about this era right now though? It can be used to refute the ideas of natural selection and evolution as well (playing devil's advocate here though, I believe evolution is the way) People could say that besides ID and evolution, there could be a whole other working of the universe, which we simply don't understand yet. Because a third theory is highly unlikely (especially because we think that evolution is highly likely) we just assume that evolution is the way it happened (and is happening.

And I say we think that evolution is likely, because the likelyness of something is based on current beliefs, ideas and (more or less partially) proof. Man once believed the Earth was flat as well, and that was a perfectly acceptable idea, until someone went out and sailed across the see.

What supports evolution though, is that we find proof to support the theory.... or do we simply believe that because we see what we want to see?

Qr7 wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Qr7 wrote:wait, who cares?

Well...stupid people don't. People who have no interest in their surroundings don't. People with Down Syndrome don't.

So I guess there's alot of people that don't care....but nobody cares about them so it balances out.

alright buddy, you keep arguing with the religious freaks. I've got better things to do with my time.

My point was theres no use in arguing about this. But good job being a predictable douchebag as usual.

I find it funny you'd take this personally when I wasn't talking about you at all. I was just answering your question....in a douchebag manner.

If you choose to ignore this issue because you have better things to do then why bother posting your views in the first place?

Eraser wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:interesting discussion in class today about ID - our prof was talking about how not believing in ID was irrational before Darwin's ideas became known.

(....)


The idea is that we use inference to the best explanation to select from competing theories.

Interesting post. It's not enitrely clear what you're trying to point out though. I dig the fact that ID was believable before Darwin's time because, to put it simply, we didn't know any better.

What does it say about this era right now though? It can be used to refute the ideas of natural selection and evolution as well (playing devil's advocate here though, I believe evolution is the way) People could say that besides ID and evolution, there could be a whole other working of the universe, which we simply don't understand yet. Because a third theory is highly unlikely (especially because we think that evolution is highly likely) we just assume that evolution is the way it happened (and is happening.

And I say we think that evolution is likely, because the likelyness of something is based on current beliefs, ideas and (more or less partially) proof. Man once believed the Earth was flat as well, and that was a perfectly acceptable idea, until someone went out and sailed across the see.

What supports evolution though, is that we find proof to support the theory.... or do we simply believe that because we see what we want to see?

Isn't this the basis of science in general?
Don't we approach questions with few preconceptions and then - using science - begin to prove if we are right or wrong?

I watched a documentary a while ago that explored what reality really is and if - through our interpretation of reality - we actually dictate what reality is. Literally "mind over matter".
I'll try to find it as it might interest you.

Eraser wrote: Interesting post. It's not enitrely clear what you're trying to point out though. I dig the fact that ID was believable before Darwin's time because, to put it simply, we didn't know any better.

Right - it's just that it's common to hear people nowadays say - oh those stupid backward pre-Darwin people - they were totally irrational. My point is that they were entirely rational to believe in intelligent design back then. Of course, today, it's much less rational to believe in I.D.

Eraser wrote:What does it say about this era right now though? It can be used to refute the ideas of natural selection and evolution as well (playing devil's advocate here though, I believe evolution is the way) People could say that besides ID and evolution, there could be a whole other working of the universe, which we simply don't understand yet. Because a third theory is highly unlikely (especially because we think that evolution is highly likely) we just assume that evolution is the way it happened (and is happening.

Right - if another contending theory enters the fray at some time in the future, we may have to adjust our beliefs. That's the whole point about inference to the best explanation.


and regarding modern theories of evolution, a lot of reading I'm currently doing is pointing to new conceptual paradigms which challenge the supremacy of the iterative rise of functional complexity we see manifest in biology over evolutionary history.

Traditionally, it's been thought that life became more and more complex due to successive changes to the genome, and that the wonderous complexity we see in form today is a result of many minor iterations.

However, complexity theory changes this in some pretty interesting ways - biological systems indeed seem to exhibit a lot of self organization, which can allow for spontaneous emergence of high degrees of functional (and indeed morphological) complexity.

Look up thinkers like Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman, and Stuart Newman if interested.

Here's a short readable paper which deals with this idea:

http://biochem.otago.ac.nz/deardenlab/w ... %20law.pdf

MKJ wrote:isnt that the purpose of all religions?

Amen brufa MKJ

oh hang on....

RiffRaff wrote:

tnf wrote:ID is not science. There is plenty of evidence that ID, as described in the current "theory" did not happen.

now...must...force...self...to stay away from this thread...

heh.

What proof do you have that there is no supreme being that started all this? If you have PROOF, then you should be up for some Nobel prize I'm sure.

No proof about that. But plenty of 'proof' that ID - as it is described with the notion that things like molecular motors and biochemical pathways they mistakenly deem irreducibly complex...didn't just 'poof' into existence...which is what ID states. You must not really understand the jist of ID theory if you missed that.

There are thousands of 'theistic evolutionists' who agree with evolutionary biology and believe their is some supreme being that is still out there, but that evolution is simply how life arose (they would say how that supreme being created life was through evolution).

That's the point. Science doesn't actively try to 'disprove' the existence of God because its not a relevant scientific endeavor. It might be a relevant philosophical exercise though.

It's impossible to prove that something does not exist.

Eraser wrote:It's impossible to prove that something does not exist.

and as bertrand russell pointed out, it's impossible to prove that there is no celestial teapot orbiting somewhere in the solar system. Does that mean that belief in such a teapot is reasonable?

RiffRaff wrote:Absolutely it's the issue. ID says that there is a reason for all that is. Science doesn't know "why" everything exists, it just attempts to resolve how it all exists. ID gives the understanding that there is a meaning to everything where science doesn't. The fact is you don't know for sure whether ID is wrong or right. I believe the ID theory is the start of all things where science is the how all things came to be. Just my opinion.

from now on i will think of you as an idiot, ok?

Riff doesn't know what ID really is about.

Which is part of the reason this debate doesn't go away.

FFS...you get a bunch of people who hear of an idea which reinforces their religious beliefs and latch on to it - mostly because it makes them feel better.

The funny (and pathetic) thing is that - like their own religions - these people latch onto an idea they don't even bother to spend time really thinking about or really even fully understanding.

Blind faith = Truthiness

RiffRaff wrote:

tnf wrote:ID is not science. There is plenty of evidence that ID, as described in the current "theory" did not happen.

now...must...force...self...to stay away from this thread...

heh.

What proof do you have that there is no supreme being that started all this? If you have PROOF, then you should be up for some Nobel prize I'm sure.

What proof do you have the the earth isn't inhabited solely by 500 tonne pink elephants, and that your mind hasn't simply been altered into thinking that you are interacting with humans?