Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, February 03, 2008

If the Designer is "God" (or supernatural), so what?

As I stated in a previous entry, you cannot legislate nor adjudicate how to define science.

Also science cannot be limited to some arbitrary set of rules:

In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the "teach the controversy" model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent the controversy for the simple reason that those rules may themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy. page xxv of Darwinism, Design and Public Education


The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.”

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.”- Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.


“Science is the search for the truth.”-Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes


“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein


The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

And it just so happens that science was once used as a method for understanding "God"'s handy-work.

Which means that those who do so today can only be as scientifically literate as the great scientists who did so before them. I would think that would be a good thing.

So if the designer is "God" (or supernatural), so what? If science is interested in reality it doesn't care.

No one is saying that science has to say something about "God" (or the supernatural). But we may be able to make some determinations if we observe, gather data and evidence.

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.- Albert Einstein.


And in the end it is all a moot point because even the anti-ID materialistic position relies on something beyond nature to account for nature's origins. That is natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature.

23 Comments:

  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    If the designer is God, do you think that we can study him directly? If not, how is Design Science a science?
    If so, how do you think natural beings can study a supernatural being?

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If the designer is God, do you think that we can study him directly?

    That is irrelevant to whether or not we can study the design.

    If not, how is Design Science a science?

    ID is about the DESIGN not the designer.

    If so, how do you think natural beings can study a supernatural being?

    First explain to me why it is relevant to study the supernatural in order to study the design of the physical world.

    And in the end it is all a moot point because even the anti-ID materialistic position relies on something beyond nature to account for nature's origins. That is natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature.

     
  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Science can only measure natural things. If it is god (and it might be) then it is beyond the remit of science, unless you have a hypothesis to detect the undetectable.

     
  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'm not going over this again, but in order to know that something was designed you have to assume the designer. If you assume the designer, you need independent evidence of his existence.

     
  • At 10:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Science can only measure natural things.

    Science doesn't measure anything, scientists do. And scientists can measure artificial things as well as natural things.

    If it is god (and it might be) then it is beyond the remit of science,

    Geez Richie Retardo I said that in my OP. However the DESIGN is NOT beyond the remit of science.

     
  • At 10:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm not going over this again, but in order to know that something was designed you have to assume the designer.

    You are a CLOWN with ZERO expertise in design detection.

    AND as I have said we can ASSUME the designer was capabler of designing a universe and living organisms.

    If you assume the designer, you need independent evidence of his existence.

    If you need more evidence of a designer than the design then YOU are not interested in science.

    But that is something I have known for months.

    And in the end it is all a moot point because even the anti-ID materialistic position relies on something beyond nature to account for nature's origins. That is natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature.

     
  • At 12:47 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Science doesn't measure anything, scientists do. And scientists can measure artificial things as well as natural things."


    Scientists do measure anything , their instruments do. I can play asinine semantic games, Joe.

    If we can detect design without contextual information, I've yet to see it.

     
  • At 1:03 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    How would I know that it is science? Everyone involved with ID steadfastly refuses to show any examples. You would think that, you know, if the kiddies wanted to show that what they were doing was worthwhile, that they'd uh...show us something.

    On that front, care to show us a calculation of CSI. How about of a baseball? And the baseball's designer?

    How about a blade of grass? IAnd its designer?

    What about a mud puddle? And its designer?

     
  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Scientists do measure anything , their instruments do.

    Yeah, that makes sense.

    If we can detect design without contextual information, I've yet to see it.

    Yeah, the whole world is held hostage because Richie Retardo can't fathom something.

     
  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How would I know that it is science?

    blipey you are a clown who may be able to spell science but you don't know anything about it.

    And it is obvious that the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to show the kids- ooops that's right you have ONE new protein-tp-protein binding site.

    And in the end it is all a moot point because even the anti-ID materialistic position relies on something beyond nature to account for nature's origins. That is natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature.

    BTW clowny, the evidence for design in biology is INDEPENDENT from the evidence of design in physics and cosmology.

     
  • At 7:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Reality dictates the the only possibl;e way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    If anyone doubts that fact then all you have to do is show me a scenario in which the designer(s) or the process(es) were determined without designer input, direct observation or by studying the design in question.

    If you can't than shut up and leave the design detection to those who know what they are doing.


    Note to Richie,

    Please provide examples of scientists using contexual information to determine design.

     
  • At 8:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is really too bad that neither Richie nor blipey will be testifying at any trial dealing with ID. If they did they would either get arrested for contempt (failing to answer questions) or science would get trashed because neither one knows anything about the topic.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I can play asinine semantic games, Joe.

    Your position relies heavily on semantic games.

    For example:

    And in the end it is all a moot point because even the anti-ID materialistic position relies on something beyond nature to account for nature's origins. That is natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature.

    The semantic game is that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious and then use that willfull ignorance to employ a double-standard.

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Everyone involved with ID steadfastly refuses to show any examples.

    Dr Behe has presented plenty of examples. Dr Axe has also. As has Stephen Meyer.

    The "refutation"? "Evolution takes a long, long time so we are excused from providing any actual data."

    So blipey, AND everyone else who agrees with it- pick up and READ ID literature that is written by IDists.

    1) "Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science" by Del Ratzsch

    2) "The Design Matrix" by Mike Gene

    3) "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe

    4) "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe

    5) "No Free Lunch" by Wm. Dembski

    6) "The Privileged Planet" by Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay Richards

    Once you have finished reading these books if you have anything specific to discuss I will oblige.

    However if you wish to continue to argue from ignorance- for example continue to say there are no examples when there are plenty- you may do so on some other blog.

    But the best approach would to actually substantiate your position.

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Basically there's no numbers at all associated with ID. If there were, you would be able to quote them. You never do this, but rather state that you don't have to show them to anyone if you don't want to. That's very convincing.

    Can you document one case of anyone calculating the CSI of anything? ANYTHING at all?

     
  • At 3:29 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Can you give us the page numbers of the numerated examples Joe?


    I know "The Design Matrix" by Mike Gene has none, by his own admission.

     
  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Basically there's no numbers at all associated with ID.

    Otherwise known as the "argument from ignorance".

    By that "logic" there isn't any evidence for non-telic evolution.

    If there were blipey would have quoted something by now.

    Just one instance of non-telic processes accumulating mutations in such a way as to give rise to a novel structure with a novel function that actually aids the organism.

     
  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you give us the page numbers of the numerated examples Joe?

    Just read the books and then ask specific questions.

    I know "The Design Matrix" by Mike Gene has none, by his own admission.

    Do you have a reference for that?

     
  • At 8:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is really too bad that neither Richie nor blipey will be testifying at any trial dealing with ID. If they did they would either get arrested for contempt (failing to answer questions) or science would get trashed because neither one knows anything about the topic.

    clowny would testify that no one has calculated CSI.

    Then Dembski or Meyer would testify for ID and show several examples of calculated CSI.

    Dr Behe would provide several examples of IC, as would Dr Axe.

    Yes it is indeed too bad that blipey won't be asked to testify.

    Read the books blipey- as opposed to your continued argument from ignorance.

    The data doesn't go away just because you choose to ignore it.

     
  • At 9:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Just give me page numbers Joe. Then I'll have a look. You have read them, haven't you?

    contextual information:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson

    can you spot them, Joe?

    With CSI in fabricated things, does the CSI of the machines used carry forward? What about the skill of the artisan, is that CSI?

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just give me page numbers Joe. Then I'll have a look.

    Read the books and if you have any specific qustions I will (try to) answer them.

    Ya see Richie I have read many books on biology and genetics written by evolutionists. That is why I can aske specific questions that always get ignored because there isn't any answer for them.

    And why do you think that Wikipedia is a valid resource?

     
  • At 11:36 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "With CSI in fabricated things, does the CSI of the machines used carry forward? What about the skill of the artisan, is that CSI?
    "

    If there's something you don't like about the Arson page, please feel free to bring it up. Conservapedia didn't have an "arson" entry.

     
  • At 7:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If there's something you don't like about the Arson page, please feel free to bring it up.

    It didn't conatin any information on how to determine whether or not a fire was deliberately set.

    Arson is one thing but design detection would stop once it was determined the fire was deliberately set.

    THEN one can go about an arson investigation. And THAT is when the contextual information may come in handy.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home