Intelligent Design is not creationism

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

So is everything else in science. Inference is the central tool of science. If something is inferred, then it is considered proven in science.

So where are the empirical data from which ID can be inferred/proven?

The answer is this.

"I am not going to reveal the data because you won't accept it".

How convenient for the Creationists.

"There is empirical proof that Creation is operant in the Genesis of life on earth, but we aren't going to tell you what it is. It is a Revelation and we are under no obligation to share it with the unfaithful. It would be an Act of treason if we did. Our Job is to claim that ID/Creation is a viable theory but make absolutely certain to provide no evidence, empirical or otherwise, to back up the claim, other than 'Life on earth looks designed to me' and "Mr. Frosty says it's so' and 'Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality'."

As an adjunct to this effort, we will simultaneously deride the scientific method. Yes, that's right... while claiming that we have scientific proof of ID/Creation.

Long live the Green Cheesians!!!

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Empirical data:

We don't see ignorance produce intelligence.

We see that every living being follows an orderly pattern of birth, life, and death, and bearing life that follows the same pattern. We don't see alterations from this pattern.

We see that every living being does whatever it can to survive.

Structure, order, consistent patterns, a drive to live and sustain life...all from ignorance?

Not a great scientific inference...

You're pretending that the discussion about self-organization and emergent properties a thousand posts ago didn't happen. You were humiliated in that discussion. And yet you have the nerve to bring back the argument that was shown to be a joke.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Inference is the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation.

Although "inference" denies the direct observation, it does however involve logical deduction or induction. In science, inference implies proof, and is distinct from speculation.

For example, one observes that the earth and other planets orbit around the sun, and that apples fall to the ground. From these observations, the law of gravity is inferred. The observations then constitute the empirical data that prove the law of gravity.

If you have empirical data from which ID can be inferred, then such empirical data constitute proof of ID.

One of the inferences I may make is that you are backpedaling.

By the way I gave quotes earlier in this thread in which some of the great minds in science (atheists) made the inference that the universe is designed. I amazed at how quickly some et "scientists" discard facts not to their liking.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Non responsive...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You're pretending that the discussion about self-organization and emergent properties a thousand posts ago didn't happen. You were humiliated in that discussion. And yet you have the nerve to bring back the argument that was shown to be a joke.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

One of the inferences I may make is that you are backpedaling.

By the way I gave quotes earlier in this thread in which some of the great minds in science (atheists) made the inference that the universe is designed. I amazed at how quickly some et "scientists" discard facts not to their liking.

You misrepresented/misquoted the scientists, as pointed out by others in this thread. You're continuing with your misrepresentation here. No one has made the inference that the universe is designed.

BTW, I'm curious where you see my "backpedaling." Are you again having trouble with reading?

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You misrepresented/misquoted the scientists, as pointed out by others in this thread. You're continuing with your misrepresentation here. No one has made the inference that the universe is designed.

BTW, I'm curious where you see my "backpedaling." Are you again having trouble with reading?

1. Me. You are having trouble with understanding definitions again. You claim to be a professor of statistics yet you did not know the correct definition of the null hypothesis. You were pressing your hilarious position, attempting to act like a Professor, when i stopped you in your tracks with a conclusive definition from a stats website. You admitted you were wrong. Instead of being humbled you now fall into the same trap. Ignorance amplified by hubris.

2. Teleologist used the word correctly. You made a fool of yourself and then back pedaled by providing a more restrictive definition you deemed scientific. Your self created definition seem to be accurate enough, but it is not the sole definition of the word. You were wrong and you back pedaled.

3. You said I misquoted and misrepresented scientists - you are severely lacking in integrity. Provide proof of your statement.

In the meantime prove I have misquoted these guys --



Astronomer Paul Davies has said that the evidence for design is overwhelming.

Astronomer George Greenstein says: AS we survey the evidence, the througt insistently arises that some supernatural ageny or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that sudenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. Was it God who stepped in and so providently create the cosmos for our benefit.

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says that it looks as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.

And after reviewing these quotes in his book Susskind says "Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one fo the great scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable.

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond 3rd:

If something is inferred, then it is considered proven in science.

Inferences arise in cases where the evidence is circumstantial and thus where we lack direct evidence. Therefore, abiogenesis is inferred not proven.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Funny when the so called scientists don't seem to understand the difference between a scientific fact, a scientific proof, and a scientific inference.

Oh, by the way, not every scientist is anti ID...

http://www.creationresearch.org/

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

1. Me. You are having trouble with understanding definitions again. You claim to be a professor of statistics yet you did not know the correct definition of the null hypothesis. You were pressing your hilarious position, attempting to act like a Professor, when i stopped you in your tracks with a conclusive definition from a stats website. You admitted you were wrong. Instead of being humbled you now fall into the same trap. Ignorance amplified by hubris.

How many people here have the courage to admit a mistake? I did. Show me that you admitted your mistakes, even once. My original point (that a drug can heal more patients than an existing drug does not mean that the drug is necessarily effective), however, is still valid. (Null hypothesis was simply a bad choice of words).

Quote from jem:

2. Teleologist used the word correctly. You made a fool of yourself and then back pedaled by providing a more restrictive definition you deemed scientific. Your self created definition seem to be accurate enough, but it is not the sole definition of the word. You were wrong and you back pedaled.

Inference, in science, means proof. There is no backpedaling here. Teleologist incorrectly used the common, "unscientific," meaning of inference. Considering that he wanted to push ID as an alternative to science, it is certainly appropriate to demand the scientific meaning, not the common unscientific one.

Quote from jem:

3. You said I misquoted and misrepresented scientists - you are severely lacking in integrity. Provide proof of your statement.

In the meantime prove I have misquoted these guys --



Astronomer Paul Davies has said that the evidence for design is overwhelming.

Astronomer George Greenstein says: AS we survey the evidence, the througt insistently arises that some supernatural ageny or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that sudenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. Was it God who stepped in and so providently create the cosmos for our benefit.

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says that it looks as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.

And after reviewing these quotes in his book Susskind says "Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one fo the great scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable.

You're still misrepresenting others. I have repeatedly pointed out that the appearance of design (to humans who are always seeking patterns) is universally accepted by scientists. But the appearance of design is by no means "inference" of design. You deliberately confuse the two to mislead people.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

Inferences arise in cases where the evidence is circumstantial and thus where we lack direct evidence. Therefore, abiogenesis is inferred not proven.

Inferences arise only in cases where the evidence is circumstantial, but overwhelming. When the evidence is direct then there is no need for inferences.

Abiogenesis at this point is still an unproven theory. In other words, it is not even inferred. It is speculated. But even at the speculation stage, it has been very valuable to the life science. By pushing the evolution theory to the very beginning, we can infer that our last common ancestor stored genetic information in nucleic acids that specified the composition of all needed proteins. However, this inference encounters a difficulty, that DNA's cannot replicate without the help of proteins, but proteins cannot be made without a DNA. It is then a logical step to speculate that a RNA world existed prior to the DNA world we see today, because RNA's can replicate without the need for proteins. A lot of progress has been made in understanding how RNA's can replicate themselves. Although no one has successfully achieved this, it is expected that the origin-of-life problem will eventually be solved once we figure out how RNA replication is done.

ID theory basically will simply deny that any of these researches are necessary. We only need to invoke God.