Intelligent Design != Science

[senataur]

In light of these relgion posts, while extreemly fun and a great source of train wreck pictures, I just thought I'd state the following for all those who seem to think that science is opposed to their beliefs.

Statements like "Proove God exists!" or it's reverse, to a scientist make absolutley no sense what so ever. Moreover, ask a philosiphist and they will tell you that there is now way to prove anything.

Science does not prove of disprove anything.

Science merely states that:
- Based on our observations(experiments) the world appears to behave like this...
- The theory that most closely and comprehensivley explains this behviour is this...

That is it. That is why Scientific theories are called just that..Theories.
Science does not ever state fact, it just states our best explanations for what we observe. As our observations change an improve, so will our theories.

That is why so many great scientists are also people of strong religious beliefs. Because they understand what science is, and therefore why it does not in any way conflict with religion. Those who think they do conflict, do not understand science, and probably dont have a good grasp on their religon either.

This is why the whole intelligent design debate irks me. Just because bahviour exists that we cant 100% explain with our theories, doesn't mean the theories are wrong. It jusy means that they may not be complete, or may need to be improved. The moment you start saying 'it was designed' you are forgoing our own intellectual pursuits and handing them off to an another party. At which point all progress on the theory will stop.

That is why Intelligent Design is not Science. And why those who support it as science should hang up their lab coats. Cool you jets people, there's a big world out there with lots of problems that need solving and ignoring parts of the world we see because they dont agree with your preconvceived ideas isnt going to help get any of them solved.

 

[xitel]

Noone says Intelligent Design is science except for Intelligent Design believers. I'm just waiting for this wave of religion threads to quit it. Folks, stop making these threads. Please.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

finally someone with some damn sense...
that is exactly what science is. But I don't feel like arguing with some religious person/people on this thread so no one fucking reply to me. I'm so weary of arguing all the time...

 

[Kikosemmek]

It just means that they may not be complete, or may need to be improved.

I wouldn't say that. Many theories are quite complete on their own. I'm afraid that there is a discrepancy between the meaning of the word theory in common context and that in scientific context. In common context, 'theory' means 'hypothesis,' an explanatory statement which still requires verification. In scientific context, 'theory' means a statement which has been observed many times to be true and is often used to make predictions about some new phenomena. Most theories are judged by the accuracy their predictions have in retrospect, and those theories that are central to many key scientific ideas are trustable.

There are, however, statements that are by true by definition: 1 + 1 = 2. This statement is true because of the definitions we give to these numbers. One is only one because it is a third of three, and a half of two, just as two is two because its the double of one. Numbers are but quantitative concepts defined by their relationships to each other. Such a simple and basic statement is called an axiom, something which is true, yet unprovable. We cannot prove the existence or associations of various numbers, but when we define them as units of quantity then we can form a language of perfect understanding.

Does science prove anything, however? No, and you were right about that. Nothing can prove anything. All we have is observations, and not the assuredness that what we observe is what really is. Science is merely a system of beliefs designed to give credence to that which is observed to be over that which is not observed to be. It _does_ contradict religious beliefs when it comes to factual claims they make about humans, their origin or the Earth and its origin. Science, for example, does not approve of the idea that Earth is only a few thousand years old, because there is observable evidence that suggests otherwise, while there is no observable evidence that does attest to that claim.

 

[Alex_P]

That is why so many great scientists are also people of strong religious beliefs. Because they understand what science is, and therefore why it does not in any way conflict with religion. Those who think they do conflict, do not understand science, and probably dont have a good grasp on their religon either.

"In any way"? Definitely not! Some religious beliefs clearly do conflict with scientific evidence and prevailing scientific theories.

Some religious beliefs are outside the pale of scientific scrutiny by virtue of being all vague or philosophical or metaphysical or whatnot. Not all religious beliefs are like this, however. One of the reasons that western religious beliefs have become more like this over time is that the kind of religious beliefs that involve positing stuff about the physical world have consistently crashed and burned when put up against serious physical inquiry. (And the kind that make all kinds of normative statements about society have crashed and burned as society moves on.)

-- Alex

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

It just means that they may not be complete, or may need to be improved.

I wouldn't say that. Many theories are quite complete on their own. I'm afraid that there is a discrepancy between the meaning of the word theory in common context and that in scientific context. In common context, 'theory' means 'hypothesis,' an explanatory statement which still requires verification. In scientific context, 'theory' means a statement which has been observed many times to be true and is often used to make predictions about some new phenomena. Most theories are judged by the accuracy their predictions have in retrospect, and those theories that are central to many key scientific ideas are trustable.

There are, however, statements that are by true by definition: 1 + 1 = 2. This statement is true because of the definitions we give to these numbers. One is only one because it is a third of three, and a half of two, just as two is two because its the double of one. Numbers are but quantitative concepts defined by their relationships to each other. Such a simple and basic statement is called an axiom, something which is true, yet unprovable. We cannot prove the existence or associations of various numbers, but when we define them as units of quantity then we can form a language of perfect understanding.

Does science prove anything, however? No, and you were right about that. Nothing can prove anything. All we have is observations, and not the assuredness that what we observe is what really is. Science is merely a system of beliefs designed to give credence to that which is observed to be over that which is not observed to be. It _does_ contradict religious beliefs when it comes to factual claims they make about humans, their origin or the Earth and its origin. Science, for example, does not approve of the idea that Earth is only a few thousand years old, because there is observable evidence that suggests otherwise, while there is no observable evidence that does attest to that claim.

I've always wondered if aliens may have an entirely different concept of numbers and mathematics, what it might be I have no Idea, but the thought intrigues me.

 

[Greever]

Intelligent Design... awfully presumptious in its own existence isn't it?

I mean... if god was a window licker like the rest of us can we really call it "intelligent"?

 

[Aardvark]

The biggest argument against evolution are the people who argue it. Both for and against.

 

[Battlefrank]

Noone says Intelligent Design is science except for Intelligent Design believers. I'm just waiting for this wave of religion threads to quit it. Folks, stop making these threads. Please.

AGREE
FUCKING AGREE
STOP THIS BOWLSHIT

 

[nepheleim]

Statements like "Proove God exists!" or it's reverse, to a scientist make absolutley no sense what so ever. Moreover, ask a philosiphist and they will tell you that there is now way to prove anything.

A "philosophist"? I'm sorry, but I stopped reading right there. Terrible.

 

[HomeAliveIn45]

Honk if you understand punctuated equilibrium!

 

[qbert4ever]

Statements like "Proove God exists!" or it's reverse, to a scientist make absolutley no sense what so ever. Moreover, ask a philosiphist and they will tell you that there is now way to prove anything.

A "philosophist"? I'm sorry, but I stopped reading right there. Terrible.

It kinda sounds dirty, doesn't it?

"Come here baby. I'm gonna philosophist you all night long!"

 

[Hanji]

A "philosophist"?

Seconded.

Anyway, I was under the impression that intelligent design is incongruous with science because a basic facet of science is that something must be testable. You cannot test the existence of a creator. True or Untrue, it's outside of science.

 

[Alex_P]

Honk if you understand punctuated equilibrium!

Umm, honk, I guess.

-- Alex

 

[Labyrinth]

The biggest argument against evolution are the people who argue it. Both for and against.

I'm going to go out and argue this. Humans on the whole have removed the 'natural selection' process from our lives. We are the only species to defend the weak, to actively seek the survival of the not-so-fit. In addition to this, we have processes and devices which make it easier for stupid people to survive.

In short, we've arseraped our own gene pool.

 

[The Sorrow]

The biggest argument against evolution are the people who argue it. Both for and against.

I'm going to go out and argue this. Humans on the whole have removed the 'natural selection' process from our lives. We are the only species to defend the weak, to actively seek the survival of the not-so-fit. In addition to this, we have processes and devices which make it easier for stupid people to survive.

In short, we've arseraped our own gene pool.

Hey, if we hadn't done that, the Darwin Awards wouldn't exist.
Personally, I can stand a few idiots if it means reading about a guy who nearly castrated himself while attempting to have sex with a vacuum.

 

[Alex_P]

I'm going to go out and argue this. Humans on the whole have removed the 'natural selection' process from our lives. We are the only species to defend the weak, to actively seek the survival of the not-so-fit. In addition to this, we have processes and devices which make it easier for stupid people to survive.

In short, we've arseraped our own gene pool.

Our accomplishments are passed on through more mechanisms than just genetic inheritance. The sum of our knowledge grows amazingly with each generation. We have a remarkable ability to engineer our environment -- despite the fact that a few hundred years isn't a long enough period for much meaningful genetic change, I'm taller and healthier than my ancestors and I'm probably going to live a lot longer than they did. So far, whatever supposed harm to "the gene pool" we've caused pales in comparison. Right now our greatest weakness is that those accomplishments are distributed rather unevenly.

-- Alex

 

[aussiesniper]

The biggest argument against evolution are the people who argue it. Both for and against.

I'm going to go out and argue this. Humans on the whole have removed the 'natural selection' process from our lives. We are the only species to defend the weak, to actively seek the survival of the not-so-fit. In addition to this, we have processes and devices which make it easier for stupid people to survive.

In short, we've arseraped our own gene pool.

There are some benefits to keeping the stupid alive. They are still able to follow instructions and work as productive members of society, just they are less useful when it comes to complex, non-manual tasks. However, I do think that the number of exceedingly stupid people is too great.

 

[santaandy]

The moment you start saying 'it was designed' you are forgoing our own intellectual pursuits and handing them off to an another party. At which point all progress on the theory will stop.

While I certainly appreciate you not being militant about this, I must disagree. I don't subscribe to the theory that the universe is one big happy cosmic accident (do you? it isn't clear from the rest of your post). Claiming a design does not invalidate intellectual pursuit; it is one. Claiming a design does not stop progress on theories.

What *is* wrong with ID is that people are trying to claim that the idea of "God said so" is science, without doing any experimenting or theorizing. Science *can* prove an overall unifying design to the universe, and can even speculate as to why there is a design, in the same way that criminologists find designs in criminal behavior through analysis of a crime scene, and through that often postulate why a criminal did it.

Intelligent design could be a proper scientific theory if the chucklehead religious nuts would actually sit down and put some science behind it. It doesn't have to make sense, people don't have to believe you, but you do have to do the work.