Quote from CaptainObvious:
I don't disagree. At this point ID is not a science, but something does not have to be a science to actually exist. I just argueing that our current science may not be able to measure ID, if in fact ID is the root cause of life
Quote from CaptainObvious:
I don't disagree. At this point ID is not a science, but something does not have to be a science to actually exist. I just argueing that our current science may not be able to measure ID, if in fact ID is the root cause of life
Quote from john dough:
The quantum forces which Heisenberg identifies affect everything in the universe -- including the roll of dice, which are subjected to all sorts of turbulence at the subatomic level.
You are claiming that everything in the universe can be determined according to a pattern. Heisnberg's principle conclusively demonstrates otherwise.
You are also now digressing to your public policy argument. If you don't want to teach anything to high school students, then legislate it out of the curriculum.
Regardless, ID is not science until you prove otherwise. Whereas evolution is science, because it can be subjected to a verifiable test.
I'm sorry that you've peed your pants. Maybe you should consider wearing Depends(r).
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
My claim is that every effect has some cause, even when the cause is not known. Uncertainty doesn't mean no cause and effect, it means that there are variables that we don't have control over, or don't fully understand at this particular time.
My public policy comments are not a digression at all, they have been in my comments from the very beginning of these discussions of evolution.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
My claim is that every effect has some cause, even when the cause is not known. Uncertainty doesn't mean no cause and effect, it means that there are variables that we don't have control over, or don't fully understand at this particular time.
But if you want that opinion to be scientific, then you need to be able to confirm it by verifiable experiment.
Quote from john dough:
Your claim is demonstrably false at the subatomic level. You are inventing a definition for uncertainty which is not supported by the science of quantum mechanics. Some things in this universe cannot be predicted in advance with certainty. They can only be approximated by probability.
The very dice that you used in your previous post can be predicted to roll snake eyes once every 36 times, assuming that you roll them a few thousand times in a row. But, on any individual roll, the only thing that is known is that there is a one in 36 chance that snake eyes will appear. There is no certainty that the next roll can be predicted except in your imagination.
You can hypothesize that given sufficient measuring ability you can predict the next roll based on the Newtonian forces acting on the dice. However, the reality is that if you shake the dice around in your hand and let them go, there remains a one in 36 chance that they will come up snake eyes, no matter the existence of those Newtonian forces.
Uncertainty exists, and Las Vegas casinos are built on the graves of those who believe otherwise. The only thing that is certain is that the probabilities will be maintained over the long run. Nothing can ever be known about an individual roll of dice.
Science measures probabilities. ID measures nothing, because ID advocates refuse to conduct experiments to prove their theories.
If you want to opine that there is intelligence behind randomness, have at it. But if you want that opinion to be scientific, then you need to be able to confirm it by verifiable experiment. Otherwise, your opinion of ID is no different than the Astrologer's opinion of your future -- it's pure speculation -- not science.
As for your public policy desires re high school education, you're free to advocate whatever you wish. That issue has nothing to do with the science of evolution.
My personal feeling is that science would necessarily never be able to provide evidence for something like ID, because ID involves assumptions which are unscientific.
Is design in biology real or apparent? Clearly, there are two possible answers to this question. Neo-Darwinism provides one answer to the question and intelligent design provides the opposite answer. By almost all accounts the Darwinian answer to this question is a scientific proposition. But what then is the status of the opposite answer? If the proposition âJupiter is made of methane gasâ is a scientific proposition, then the proposition âJupiter is not made of methane gasâ would seem to be a scientific proposition as well. If the proposition âhumans have free willâ is classified as a metaphysical (rather than scientific) claim, then the proposition âhumans do not have free willâ should logically be classified in the same way.
The negation of a proposition does not make it a different type of claim. Similarly, the claim âthe appearance of design in biology does not result from actual designâ and the claim "the appearance of design in biology does result from actual designâ are not two different kinds of propositions; they represent two different answers to the same question, a question that has long been part of evolutionary biology. Indeed, it is impossible to understand Darwinâs argument in The Origin of Species apart from understanding how he argues against the 19th-century version of the design hypothesis. The Darwinian mechanism (which functions in Darwinian thought as a kind of "designer substitute" ) and the theory of intelligent design are dialectical complements. Thus, if one is scientific, then it would seem, prima facie, that the other is scientific as well.
yes but thats just a claim... causality is of axiomatic nature... lots of theories incorporate it, and provide satisfactory models of whats going on, as well as falsifiable predictions, and therefore acquire prevailing theory status, until they reach some limits outside of which other theories need to take over... those other theories need not necessarily make an assumption of causality, eg quantum mechanics...Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
My claim is that every effect has some cause, even when the cause is not known.