Plantinga, Intelligent Design, and Uninformed Opinions

I wonder if Plantinga's religious connections are what motivated him to write this defense of ID?

I wonder if Plantinga's religious connections are what motivated him to write this defense of ID?

I couldn't believe I was reading this, a lesson on the bleeding obvious:

Scientists are primarily qualified to comment on matters within their own field. If a scientist is not an expert in an area of science, he or she should give the scientists within the other field the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they have a better understanding of their own area. As Janet points out, scientists (and other academics) should be responsible enough to know their own limitations.

Not just SCIENTISTS.

When was the last time a theologian/Creationist was asked his religious opinion on how to perform rocket science.

The other day a Plumber came to my house to unblock a drain, I suggested he try it a

Creationists and IDeologists indulge themselves in mental masturbation the gentile pursuit of wild goose chasing for their own pleasure, amusing to watch but a total waste of time both for the pursuer and the spectator.

All they have to do is provide the evidence, put up or shut up.

Man all I asked for, were sharks with frikken laser beams in their heads

Only "gentile[s]" chase wild geese? Oh, I know, it was only tangenital to your main point. Forgive me.

This is pretty thin stuff-- Plantinga seems entirely devoted to axe-grinding on this issue. He never addresses the dualism point (which the judge got exactly right), ignores (as pointed out above) the contents of the text that was proposed as a resource, and doesn't consider the arguments for methodological naturalism based on the lack of empirical content of 'supernatural' hypotheses (which, as Darwin pointed out a very long time ago, means that appeal to them to 'explain' observations really contributes nothing to science beyond what the observations themselves say...) As for Newton, I'm not very impressed- the notion that God fiddles with things to keep the planets on track never did serve any useful purpose in science (it's as ad hoc as a hypothesis could possibly be). I prefer Galileo's view: If and when we really get the math right, everything we observe (correctly) will fit perfectly... it's a powerful regulative ideal for what a scientific account should be like, and one that keeps us focused on a constructive account of the phenomena rather than an appeal to empirically empty metaphysics.

As someone commented at "The Questionable Authority," Plantinga has always been very explicit about his goal of defending (what he calls) a Christian position against scientific discoveries. As a consequence, he necessarily must butcher much of the science and ignore many of the legal issues in order to make himself sound more plausible than he really is.
Here is one article describing his overall approach:
http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=10275

One one famous essay, he describes what "Christian intellectuals should tell the rest of us." Basically, it amounts to anti-science, pro-fundamentalist apologetics of the overly-familiar type.
in: Christian Scholar's Review 21 (1991) pp. 8-32

When was the last time a theologian/Creationist was asked his religious opinion on how to perform rocket science.

C.J.
(blush) Thanks for that quick correction 'gentile' is not part of the southern hemisphere vernacular, absolutely remote in fact, my apologies.
genteel
dang

ivy privy
Yikes!
Someone should take those guys on a seal hunt THEN they would know what relativism is, *rs*h*l*s! Actually scratch that he would probably enjoy it.
Masters of the Universe indeed.
Talk about an appeal to insouciance.
The dilettante creationist, do they have to dress up in cloaks to get in the IDEA Club at Cornell?
.

Plantinga discussed much more in his paper, none of which caught my attention long enough to do more than scan. But on to the "conflation" of ID with creationism, which Plantinga thinks is so wrong:

The fact is that one runs into many of the exact same problems with YEC as with ID, though I allow that there are differences in detail. This is what leads IDists to attack well-known intermediates like archaeopteryx, for they have no ability to address the demarcation problem.

The YEC doesn't know what a kind is. The "sophisticated" IDist doesn't fall for naive terms like "kind" or "baramin" (with the exception of Sternberg, though he claims to be neither YEC nor IDist (and no, I'm not buying his well-watered Florida land)). But it's exactly the same thing all over again anyhow, since there is absolutely nothing to distinguish between created organelles and "molecular machines", and the evolved structures of life.

They try to use "looks designed" and mathematical probabilities to show that some things must be designed, but it is all negative, and at its very best it does not tell us how to draw a line between created and evolved structures and organisms.

IDists have moved the "kinds" problem up the taxa, but have not in the least addressed the problem. This means that YEC IDists like Jonathan Wells can deny bird evolution all they wish, while someone like Behe probably believes in some kind of evolution via a bird much like (and related to) archaeopteryx. Who is right and who is wrong, according to ID? We'll never know, because the IDists aren't working with any visible difference between "designed" and "evolved", rather they're claiming that certain apparently evolved structures could not have evolved.

The heuristics of science alone argue against such a silly set of notions, while the bigger problem that IDists pose to students is to undermine the practice of proper inference.

Of Pandas and People can be used as an ID text mainly because ID and YEC make essentially the same distinctions without differences--which also stem from the same lame a priori beliefs. No IDist can say that birds must have evolved from dinosaurs, because they have no evidence for any difference between "designed" and "evolved" characteristics.

Which means that although there are differences between ID and YEC, the overlap between the two is considerable. IDists even harbor within their tent those who deny that the earth is old--well, why not? If one is going to deny the practices of science in one area, why not just deny the evidence for an old earth as well? The point is not that Behe believes that the earth is young, the point is that he has so undermined science (or tried to, anyway) that he hardly has any excuse for chastising the idiots who claim that the earth is young.

Pseudoscience is pseudoscience. Naturally there are differences between the pseudosciences. How could there not be differences between people who don't base their "scientific claims" on the evidence? There is nothing new about fissures and differences among the various creationists, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the history of the movement knows, yet there is precious little reason for "outsiders" to distinguish between them, and there is especially little reason to distinguish between the movement that welcomes creationists of all stripes "into its tent" from the congregation within its tent. If they're not going to make the distinction, is it incumbent upon us to always note the distinction without a difference?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Don't worry Glenn they can't even agree what ID is, let alone what the meaning is behind the word made up of the three letters "G", "O", "D".

They have picked what they think is a "soft target" to distract their minds from their nihilistic view of the world compounded by their literal reception of the so called "Truth" from their parents, that does not agree with nature programs on TV.

" Jones rules, among other things, that:

* ID is just warmed-over creation science
* ID tries to change the very definition of science
* The scientific community has refuted the criticisms of evolution brought by the IDers
* ID involves a kind of dualism and that this dualism is doomed.

But how can one hope to settle these matters just by a judicial declaration?"

Shouldn't ID scientists get to decide if what they are doing is science? And is the only reality that which you can see with your eyes? What of the reality of how you feel?

George said:
What of the reality of how you feel?

Indeed the so called "oceanic feeling" Freud's friends described to him that he never felt himself (possibly as the result of copious amount of cocaine) and accurately described as the "Super Ego" or what Huxley called the "Mind at Large" for all you George's of the world the vernacular is "circle jerk". Just ask any Ayatollah.

Shouldn't ID scientists get to decide if what they are doing is science?

Indeed, Michael Behe, a paradigmatic IDer and the star witness for the defense, has repeatedly said that he accepts evolution. What he and his colleagues reject is not evolution as such. What they reject is unguided evolution. They reject the idea that life in all its various forms has come to be by way of the mechanisms favored by contemporary evolutionary theory --- unguided, unorchestrated and undirected by God or any other intelligent being.

When stated that way, Plantinga makes it sound like Behe is being forced into believing that evolution is unguided. But, that's not quite it. Behe says that evolution is divinely guided AND he's got the evidence to back it up, claiming that his position is scientific. But, if the evidence falls through, he's still allowed to believe in divinely guided evolution - except now his belief becomes a philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, provided that the philosopy isn't called "science". But, of course, they can't get it into schools without calling it science. And isn't that what Kitzmiller was all about -- what can you teach in the schools and what can you teach as "science"?

Second, and connected with the first, he said that ID isn't science because the claims IDers make are not testable --- that is verifiable or falsifiable.

Plantinga spends a lot of time on this point. Unfortunately, he never quotes Judge Jones saying this. Maybe he (Jones) did. I don't know, but if Plantinga is going to spend half the article arguing against this point, he should at least substantiate the claim that Judge Jones actually said it.

according to Newton's own understanding of his theory, the planetary motions had instabilities that God periodically corrected. Shall we say that Newton wasn't doing science when he advanced that theory or that the theory really isn't a scientific theory at all?

The general path of science history to to change things from "god did it" to "we understand the mechanistic forces behind this phenomena". Newton's idea that 'God sometimes intervened' was still more mechanistic than current theories of the day. Now, imagine this situation: a scientist *today* says that the gravitational theories aren't quite right in explaining the motion of the planets, and therefore, we should accept that God sometimes alters things. That would seem rather unscientific to me - even moreso than when Newton proposed the same thing. Why? Because Newton's ideas were moving from the unexplainable to knowledge. If a scientist did that today, he's be moving from knowledge to the unexplainable. It would seem like a step backwards and would shut-down searching for actual, mechanistic explanations. So, YES, claiming that God fiddles with the motion of the planets would be unscientific.

"Of Pandas and People can be used as an ID text mainly because ID and YEC make essentially the same distinctions without differences---which also stem from the same lame a priori beliefs. No IDist can say that birds must have evolved from dinosaurs, because they have no evidence for any difference between "designed" and "evolved" characteristics."

You're forgetting a devastating point that came up at trial -- early versions of "Pandas" used the word "creationism" throughout the text so the publisher simply cut and pasted "intelligent design" in place of "creationism" in later editions! If the people who wrote and edited "Pandas" felt that "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" were completely interchangeable terms, who are we to argue?

ah k.e., my soliloquially challenged freind, freud was as crazy as you appear to be.

And Steve, Astrologers, as misguided as they may be, are doing science.

George your solicitude (A cause of anxiety or concern) is a solo projection of oedipal onanism,hot air and completely without merit and your appeal concerning astrologers ironically proves it.

George writes: "And Steve, Astrologers, as misguided as they may be, are doing science."

Astrologers are doing only one part of science: they observe the world and seek correlations, "When a head of state met an untimely death recently, I saw Planet A near Star Y". Unfortunately, the Astrologer then concludes that, "Every time Planet A is near Star Y, a head of state will meet an untimely death." More unfortunately, the Astrologer further concludes, "Planet A being near Star Y will *cause* a head of state to meet an untimely death."

1. It is not "science" to confuse correlation with causation. 2. It is not "science" to infer the wrong thing from a logical implication: "If A is true, then Y is true. Y is observed to be true, therefore A must be true" 3. It is not "science" to ignore observations that do not agree with the hypothesis.

George -
If astrologers, creationists, IDers, etc. are all doing science, then just about any activity counts as science and the term loses all meaning.

Real science involves much more than just something that kind of looks like some sort of research. More than just some vague notion of "testing" things. More than just making predictions. And certainly much more than just insisting that is science.

George, george, slow down. I've never seen a guy who could hang himself with a foot and a half of rope. We were prepared to dole out plenty more. You are a mighty effecient creationist.

qualitative judgments about science miss the point. Yes, the ID sciences may not yet be mature enough to stand on their own and challenge existing paradigms, and perhaps they lead to naught, but you are judging them on the quality of output, input and methodology and etc. Is there "great" science, "good" science, "science", "bad" science, "atrocious" science and "the worst" science? Does ID fall into one of those categories or somewhere along the continuum? I think it does. I am reminded of a scene in "Pirates of the Caribbean" where the British guy says "That is the WORST pirate I've ever seen!"

but you are judging them on the quality of output, input and methodology and etc.

George--
Again, if we call these things science, then everything counts as science.

But then...if everything counts as science, then ID, etc. all count as empty, fruitless, obstinate, narrow-minded science. So I guess that puts them in the "worst" category.

Anyway, science *at least* involves an effort to figure things out. ID, on the other hand, is an effort to prevent people from figuring things out.
Your efforts to put creationism, astrology, ID, etc. all on an even playing field with good science just cannot be made to work.

And Steve, Astrologers, as misguided as they may be, are doing science.

And you can feel free to carry on believing that if you so wish. Those of us in the reality-based community, however, prefer a less... postmodernist attitude to life.

qualitative judgments about science miss the point. Yes, the ID sciences may not yet be mature enough to stand on their own and challenge existing paradigms, and perhaps they lead to naught, but you are judging them on the quality of output, input and methodology and etc. Is there "great" science, "good" science, "science", "bad" science, "atrocious" science and "the worst" science? Does ID fall into one of those categories or somewhere along the continuum? I think it does. I am reminded of a scene in "Pirates of the Caribbean" where the British guy says "That is the WORST pirate I've ever seen!"

Well, personally I'd say that ID falls onto the continuum of science in roughly the same place that Will Turner's blacksmith boss falls onto the continuum of pirates. Whether you're a good pirate or a bad pirate, there's an implicit assumption that you're attempting to attain some Platonic ideal of piracy. Likewise with science. ID, on the other hand, doesn't even bother to strive towards that ideal.

That's the root of the problem that the scientific community has with ID - they try to borrow science's vaunted credibility without behaving in a scientific fashion. If science and non-science were functionally indistinguishable this wouldn't really be a problem, but as things stand science has proven very effective at helping us analyse the world around us. They're watering down that trademark with their crappy pseudoscience.

The nebula we have found with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope is a remarkable example of something that can be accomodated by the scientific enterprise as readily as we can account for hurricanes. Although there is much to be learned yet about the nebula, what we do know can be well explained in terms of existing and well-supported scientific hypotheses about the Galaxy and its contents. Consequently, I am dismayed that it has been brought up in an ID blog. Logically fitting natural phenomena that display order and/or beauty into the scientific superstructure of self-consistent ideas about the universe about us are what makes science so satisfying, and so meaningful. Not everything is a God-induced miracle. Comment by MRMorris --- March 16, 2006 @ 10:50 pm

I think you're being too accomodating to Doctor Morris who appears to have forgotten his place in the scheme of things. We the taxpayers paid for this research including Morris' time and the instruments he used. We didn't pay for nor ask for his opinion about whether or not God had anything to do with this nebula's formation although he's free to give it in an unofficial capacity on his own time. The data belongs to us as much as does him as we're all taxpayers and if we want to interpret it as a sign of design in the universe that's our business. Comment by DaveScot --- March 17, 2006 @ 10:56 am

I think the term your looking for George is pseudo-science. ID and YEC are definately pseudo-science.

"And Steve, Astrologers, as misguided as they may be, are doing science."

Actually, they are using engineering. They take formulas developed by someone else, and apply them to the problem at hand.

. Yes, the ID sciences may not yet be mature enough to stand on their own and challenge existing paradigms, and perhaps they lead to naught, but you are judging them on the quality of output, input and methodology and etc.

I'm humming a tune, I think it's an old Fleetwood Mac song.

In other words, George, I'm not holding my breath for you to get right back to us with answers to AD's questions...

Methinks George fully and deliberately misuses the philosophy of science. It is nice if science can explain things and frequently it does just that but it must do more. It must predict the outcome of tests/observations that follow the scientific method that haven't yet been done. If your hypothesis can't do this then you're no better than Pat Robertson retrospectively predicting other people's illnesses already occurring. It superficially sounds like he's got the inside track, but all he has is a head full of phlogiston.

...whole theories involving intelligent designers also make verifiable or falsifiable predictions, even if the bare statement that life has been intelligently designed does not.

I disagree with Plantingia on most points, but his critique of verifiability is warranted, positivism is over man. As Susan Haack argues there is far to much emphasis in the judgement on criteria for dividing science from non science, the postivism is a symptom of this. It's also hard to see why statements about the supernatural are unverifiable, statements about ghosts and greek gods refer to the supernatural and can be checked.

A very intresting philosophical problem is that of coming up with a division between the natural and supernatural.

If Mr. Scrivener knows a methodology to demonstrate a supernatural mechanism of action that is amenable to the scientific method than he should at least tell us what it is on his way to Stockholm to pick up the bushelful of Nobel prizes that would await such an experiment or obsevation. This demonstrable mechanism of action of course has to be repeatable, publishable, and peer reviewable. Supernatural explanations as the default position of ignorance however don't count.

I disagree with Plantingia on most points, but his critique of verifiability is warranted, positivism is over man. As Susan Haack argues there is far to much emphasis in the judgement on criteria for dividing science from non science, the postivism is a symptom of this. It's also hard to see why statements about the supernatural are unverifiable, statements about ghosts and greek gods refer to the supernatural and can be checked. A very intresting philosophical problem is that of coming up with a division between the natural and supernatural.

planting, v. To use twentieth-century fertilizer to encourage new shoots from eleventh -century ideas which everyone thought had gone to seed; hence, plantinger, n. one who plantings.

(from the Philosopher's Lexicon.)

I agree with Lenny. It's fairly simple to test supernatural hypotheses, why not try testing the hypothesis that your backyard has been replaced by a magical kingdom by having a look right now. The claim that science doesn't require supernatural explanations is a posteriori justified. I think you over simplify the scientific method though Lenny.

alvinize, v. To stimulate protracted discussion by making a bizarre claim. "His contention that natural evil is due to Satanic agency alvinized his listeners." Philosophical Lexicon again.

Speaking of interesting Lexicons
How about The Devils Dictionary.

Philosopy, n. - A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Truth, n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. Discovery of truth is the sole purpose of philosophy, which is the most ancient occupation of the human mind and has a fair prospect of existing with increasing activity to the end of time.

PRE-ADAMITE, n. One of an experimental and apparently unsatisfactory race of antedated Creation and lived under conditions not easily conceived. Melsius believed them to have inhabited "the Void" and to have been something intermediate between fishes and birds. Little is known of them beyond the fact that they supplied Cain with a wife and theologians with a controversy.

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.

"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."

"Then why do you not become an atheist?"

"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."

"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."

PRE-ADAMITE, n. One of an experimental and apparently unsatisfactory race of antedated Creation and lived under conditions not easily conceived. Melsius believed them to have inhabited "the Void" and to have been something intermediate between fishes and birds. Little is known of them beyond the fact that they supplied Cain with a wife and theologians with a controversy.

Hmm Steve S. indeed, like the priests who wrote Genesis and forgetting to get *god* to create water.
Still I doubt it worried the rock art painters in Australia or South America 50 to 60,000 years ago

Sci/Tech 'First Americans were Australian'.
What are the Earliest Dates for Australian Rock Art? .

But then that would explain this Devils Dictionary entry

BRAHMA, n. He who created the Hindoos, who are preserved by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva --- a rather neater division of labor than is found among the deities of some other nations. The Abracadabranese, for example, are created by Sin, maintained by Theft and destroyed by Folly. The priests of Brahma, like those of Abracadabranese, are holy and learned men who are never naughty.

O Brahma, thou rare old Divinity,
First Person of the Hindoo Trinity,
You sit there so calm and securely,
With feet folded up so demurely ---
You're the First Person Singular, surely.
---Polydore Smith

Re "People will go to great lengths to avoid understanding that Cain's wife was what's known as a continuity error. Happens all the time in fiction."

ROFL

Henry

Lenny,

A couple of problems seem to have emerged with your "standard response to all the ID "science unfairly rules out the supernatural" BS."

(1) It appears that judge Jones is under the impression that, by definition, science has precluded supernatural explanations for centuries.

(2) The dictionary definition of science speaks of "a body of knowledge pertaining to" or the "study of" natural phenomena. No mention there of a particular method or set of rules.

(3) Your various rules and steps to qualify as "scientific" do not seem to fit the mold of some past and present experience in science. It is basically a fairy tale for story books written to glorify the work of scientists. Contrarian examples come to mind from topics as diverse as the "ether", the existance of "fields", string theory, and others.

(4) Your steps seem to be more appropriate in terms of what it takes for an idea to become an established principle, theory or law of science, not as a set of requirements merely to be construed as "scientific". The threshold for the latter ought to much less stringent than for the former. It is one thing for a proposal to be scientific, it is another for it to climb the ladder of acceptance from proposal to working hypothesis to widely accepted theory to finally a law.

*sigh*

what you know about science, Carol...

to see you pontificate about the proper definition and purview of science, based on a dictionary definition, no less, simply makes me want to puke.

EVERYBODY here is sick of your oft repeated and still just as incorrect arguments.

the only tolerance of you remaining is for a laugh at the silly crap you continue to spew forth.

I personally still haven't figured out why you don't move on to more productive arenas for selling Landa's book.

(1) It appears that judge Jones is under the impression that, by definition, science has precluded supernatural explanations for centuries.

— Carol Clauser

The court concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable.

— Judge Jones

(2) The dictionary definition of science speaks of "a body of knowledge pertaining to" or the "study of" natural phenomena. No mention there of a particular method or set of rules.

(3) Your various rules and steps to qualify as "scientific" do not seem to fit the mold of some past and present experience in science. It is basically a fairy tale for story books written to glorify the work of scientists. Contrarian examples come to mind from topics as diverse as the "ether", the existance of "fields", string theory, and others.

(4) Your steps seem to be more appropriate in terms of what it takes for an idea to become an established principle, theory or law of science, not as a set of requirements merely to be construed as "scientific". The threshold for the latter ought to much less stringent than for the former. It is one thing for a proposal to be scientific, it is another for it to climb the ladder of acceptance from proposal to working hypothesis to widely accepted theory to finally a law.

R. Nichols wrote: Proponents of Intelligent Design theory seek to ground a scientific research program that appeals to teleology within the context of biological explanation. As such, Intelligent Design theory must contain principles to guide researchers. I argue for a disjunction: either Dembski's ID theory lacks content, or it succumbs to the methodological problems associated with creation science-problems that Dembski explicitly attempts to avoid. The only concept of a designer permitted by Dembski's Explanatory Filter is too weak to give the sorts of explanations which we are entitled to expect from those sciences, such as archeology, that use effect-to-cause reasoning. The new spin put upon ID theory-that it is best construed as a 'metascientific hypothesis'-fails for roughly the same reason. R. Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003 , vol. 77 , no 4 , pp. 591 - 611

Patrick Frank wrote: Abstract: The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic. The argument from order or from utility are shown to be indeterminate, circular, to rest on psychological as opposed to factual certainty, or to be insupportable as regards humans but possibly not bacteria, respectively. The argument from the special intelligibility of the universe specifically to human science does not survive comparison with the capacities of other organisms. Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps. Patrick Frank "On the Assumption of Design", Theology and Science, Volume 2, Number 1 / April 2004, pp. 109 - 130.

This distinction bears repeating:

1) A very specific supernatural hypothesis such as: "From what we know about supernatural force X, we should expect that it has brought about state of affairs Y."
This can be scientifically tested by checking to see whether Y has occurred.

vs.

2) A catch-all supernatural hypothesis such as: "We have observed Y, and Y has been brought about by completely uncharacterized supernatural force X."
This cannot be scientifically tested because there is no test (even in principle) that can give us evidence either for or against the hypothesis.

(1) It appears that judge Jones is under the impression that, by definition, science has precluded supernatural explanations for centuries.

(2) The dictionary definition of science speaks of "a body of knowledge pertaining to" or the "study of" natural phenomena. No mention there of a particular method or set of rules.

(3) Your various rules and steps to qualify as "scientific" do not seem to fit the mold of some past and present experience in science. It is basically a fairy tale for story books written to glorify the work of scientists. Contrarian examples come to mind from topics as diverse as the "ether", the existance of "fields", string theory, and others.

(4) Your steps seem to be more appropriate in terms of what it takes for an idea to become an established principle, theory or law of science, not as a set of requirements merely to be construed as "scientific". The threshold for the latter ought to much less stringent than for the former. It is one thing for a proposal to be scientific, it is another for it to climb the ladder of acceptance from proposal to working hypothesis to widely accepted theory to finally a law.

PvM and Lenny,

There is a time honored tradition in "science" for scientists to engage in "model building" to provide a framework for the understanding of natural phenomena. Many times these models take on a life of their own for decades and even centuries, despite the fact that they have no direct empirical evidence to support them. Which explains why many of them ultimately ran into trouble when new data emerged. Despite these shortcomings, nobody ever thinks of describing these efforts as "not science". These are in fact legitimate scientific endeavors as evidenced by the fact that they are ultimately discarded when the data opposes them.

So Lenny's steps are fine as long as we make it clear that they are required for "establishment" not for "science". Ideas can, have and will continue to linger (or wallow) in steps one or two while they are "science" but have not matured yet to "establishment".

One of the examples I gave above was the ether. There never was a shred of direct evidence for its existence. It was invented to provide an absolute velocity. When it was discovered by Michelson/Morely that the speed of light is the same in all directions, scientists did not discrad the ether right away. Instead, they fought tooth and nail to save it. They (Lorents and others) tried dragging and stretching the ether to make it fit the data. It took some doing (Special Relativity) to finally put this beast away.

Lenny, you are wrong about "fields" having been confirmed. In modern QED they are totally ignored. They were always merely a "model" to provide a framework for EM and other phenomena. They were even given energy and momentum. And yet they were never confirmed and today do not exist. (Despite their continued utility in some areas.)

And are we willing to suggest that should string theory never achieve "establishment" that those currently engaged in it are not doing "science"? Preposterous!

The reason ID is problematic as science, Lenny, is not because it cannot get past step three. It is because scientists do not think it has any standing even in steps one and two. It is the same old God idea they are accustomed to rejecting for centuries, as Judge Jones, your hero, so eloquently summarized.

It is the same old God idea they are accustomed to rejecting for centuries

Lenny,

Before I call people liars I would rather accuse them of milder offenses, such as being disingenuous. All those scenarios are too far-fetched to be taken seriously.

But you seem to have missed the bottom line of my post. Scientist catagorize ID as "not science", not because it doesn't get past your step three, but precisely because it leads to God (in the most likely scenario). And you may expect scientists to continue to do so with any other theory to come up about anything else. This is contrary to your claim and supports the ID proponents claim that science is biased against God.

Why can you not be honest about this and call a spade a spade?

The reason ID is problematic as science, Lenny, is not because it cannot get past step three. It is because scientists do not think it has any standing even in steps one and two.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

Before I call people liars I would rather accuse them of milder offenses, such as being disingenuous. All those scenarios are too far-fetched to be taken seriously.

— Carol

But you seem to have missed the bottom line of my post. Scientist catagorize ID as "not science", not because it doesn't get past your step three, but precisely because it leads to God (in the most likely scenario).

And you may expect scientists to continue to do so with any other theory to come up about anything else.

This is contrary to your claim and supports the ID proponents claim that science is biased against God.

Why can you not be honest about this and call a spade a spade?

This was wrong the first time you said, and is going to be wrong the next dozen times you say it.

There is a time honored tradition in "science" for scientists to engage in "model building" to provide a framework for the understanding of natural phenomena. Many times these models take on a life of their own for decades and even centuries, despite the fact that they have no direct empirical evidence to support them.

Which explains why many of them ultimately ran into trouble when new data emerged.

Despite these shortcomings, nobody ever thinks of describing these efforts as "not science". These are in fact legitimate scientific endeavors as evidenced by the fact that they are ultimately discarded when the data opposes them.

So Lenny's steps are fine as long as we make it clear that they are required for "establishment" not for "science".

Ideas can, have and will continue to linger (or wallow) in steps one or two while they are "science" but have not matured yet to "establishment".

One of the examples I gave above was the ether. There never was a shred of direct evidence for its existence. It was invented to provide an absolute velocity.

When it was discovered by Michelson/Morely that the speed of light is the same in all directions, scientists did not discrad the ether right away. Instead, they fought tooth and nail to save it. They (Lorents and others) tried dragging and stretching the ether to make it fit the data. It took some doing (Special Relativity) to finally put this beast away.

Lenny, you are wrong about "fields" having been confirmed. In modern QED they are totally ignored.

They were always merely a "model" to provide a framework for EM and other phenomena. They were even given energy and momentum. And yet they were never confirmed and today do not exist. (Despite their continued utility in some areas.)

And are we willing to suggest that should string theory never achieve "establishment" that those currently engaged in it are not doing "science"? Preposterous!

The reason ID is problematic as science, Lenny, is not because it cannot get past step three. It is because scientists do not think it has any standing even in steps one and two. It is the same old God idea they are accustomed to rejecting for centuries, as Judge Jones, your hero, so eloquently summarized.

To clarify (at least to some extent) the problems with Carol's response, it's important to distinguish between the concept of ID and the movement that uses that concept.

Conceptually, no scientist finds anything wrong with ID. Indeed, we know that intelligent designers do exist: us, other apes, ants, crows, etc.

The basic unanswered question is whether there are some characterstics of a 'designed' object which are unique to design - and can we determine those characterstics without any knowledge of the designer?

The answer is no. The ID movement claims the answer is yes, but has been unable to support it.

Flint,

Your general description of what I was saying pretty much hits the nail on the head. Science sets standards for what qualifies as a significant or meaningful entry into Lenny's step one/two worthy of attention. Anything that leads to God is dismissed immediately as not qualifying. The same applies to the magical, as you discussed.

But how does that lead you to conclude that your notion of science is not the same as mine? Perhaps you read too much negativity into my description of this attitude as a "bias". I did not mean to imply by that term that it was comparable to a blind prejudice. It is not. It is based on sound reasoning. I do not fault scientists for it. It is a "bias" in the sense that it has become a permanent fixture of the landscape that always leads in one direction when the God idea rears its head - away.

The answer is no. The ID movement claims the answer is yes, but has been unable to support it.

Your general description of what I was saying pretty much hits the nail on the head. Science sets standards for what qualifies as a significant or meaningful entry into Lenny's step one/two worthy of attention. Anything that leads to God is dismissed immediately as not qualifying. The same applies to the magical, as you discussed.

— Carol

But how does that lead you to conclude that your notion of science is not the same as mine? Perhaps you read too much negativity into my description of this attitude as a "bias". I did not mean to imply by that term that it was comparable to a blind prejudice. It is not. It is based on sound reasoning. I do not fault scientists for it. It is a "bias" in the sense that it has become a permanent fixture of the landscape that always leads in one direction when the God idea rears its head - away.

It seems to me as if the majority of science is busily making testable, reproduceable hypothoses regarding supernatural explanations for observable manifestations and events. It's just that all the results, with no exceptions yet, point to natural rather than supernatural causes. The gaps get smaller and smaller until the only place left for god is a small, smokey diner on the outskirts of Chicago, being served by a gum-chewing waitress named charlene. He looks down into the swirling clouds of cream as they gradually blend eith the coffe and laments that, even for the action of the cream they have pushed him out.

It is a "bias" in the sense that it has become a permanent fixture of the landscape that always leads in one direction when the God idea rears its head - away.

Darn, hypothesis.

Willing suspention of disbelief. (Cain's wife)

Scientist catagorize ID as "not science", not because it doesn't get past your step three, but precisely because it leads to God (in the most likely scenario).

And you may expect scientists to continue to do so with any other theory to come up about anything else.

This is contrary to your claim and supports the ID proponents claim that science is biased against God.

I think you need to emphasize that this distinguishes ID from scientific creationism, which DOES identify design based on a description of the designer.

— Flint

Their designer is described in some detail - looks like us (we were designed in His image), has an emotional makeup indistinguishable from ours (so we solicit His good will exactly the same as we do with people), and has a clear purpose (to create us to worship Him).

Carol seems to fall into the straightforward creationist camp - she doesn't try to pretend the Designer is anyone other than the God she happens to believe in, warts and all. And her god's characteristics are described in all the detail that she requires - whatever it takes in terms of powers and purposes to create her directly. If the evidence indicates otherwise, we are misinterpreting it. If we persist in misinterpreting it in the face of Carol's manifest Truth, we must be part of a conspiracy. What other explanation could there possibly be?

Carol appears to be arguing that if we would just go out and buy Landa's darn book, she might be able to help him get the next one published by a real publisher.

Just thought I'd link to a source discussing fields in QED, and especially "color fields" in QCD:

http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~dobaczew/maub-42w/node9.html

Of course the "ontological" status of these fields is not clear, nor is it truly relevant to physics.

Where did Carol get her "knowledge" anyhow? And how many times does she wish to be wrong?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Where did Carol get her "knowledge" anyhow? And how many times does she wish to be wrong?

The reason ID is problematic as science, Lenny, is not because it cannot get past step three. It is because scientists do not think it has any standing even in steps one and two. It is the same old God idea they are accustomed to rejecting for centuries, as Judge Jones, your hero, so eloquently summarized.

— Carol

One of the examples I gave above was the ether. There never was a shred of direct evidence for its existence. It was invented to provide an absolute velocity. When it was discovered by Michelson/Morely that the speed of light is the same in all directions, scientists did not discrad the ether right away. Instead, they fought tooth and nail to save it. They (Lorents and others) tried dragging and stretching the ether to make it fit the data. It took some doing (Special Relativity) to finally put this beast away.

— Carol

At this point scientists had postulated a hypothetical medium that they called the "ether" (also spelled "aether") that was thought to be all pervading, or penetrating any enclosure with ease. However, if that were true, the motion of the Earth around the Sun would result in a noticeable motion of the Earth relative to the ether. Much like a boat cruising over the ocean, this motion should be measurable. Earth's velocity in its orbit is substantial at about 30 kilometers per second (18.6 miles per second), but it is still only 1 ten-thousanth of the speed of light. Therefore, any measurements of this effect had to be extremely accurate.

The surprising result of this experiment, and it has since been repeated over and over again with very high accuracy, is that there is no measurable motion of the Earth relative to the ether. This result left physicists stunned for many years and some of them postulated that the ether, while real, was in principle unobservable. Albert Einstein finally took a brave step forward with the publication of his theory of special relativity in 1906. His apparently innocent and reasonable argument was that, if the ether was unobservable, or in other words that there was no experimental proof of it whatsoever, the simplest explanation was that it did not exist.

I disagree with Rilke's granddaughter, as far as Carol's science goes, she occasionally seems to have some sophisticated knowledge. The problem is, she bends and squeezes it to accomodate her crazy religion.

Posted by Carol Clouser on March 20, 2006 02:05 AM (e) ... One of the examples I gave above was the ether. There never was a shred of direct evidence for its existence. It was invented to provide an absolute velocity. When it was discovered by Michelson/Morely that the speed of light is the same in all directions, scientists did not discrad the ether right away. Instead, they fought tooth and nail to save it. They (Lorents and others) tried dragging and stretching the ether to make it fit the data. It took some doing (Special Relativity) to finally put this beast away...

Plantinga, Intelligent Design, and Uninformed Opinions

The basic unanswered question is whether there are some characterstics of a 'designed' object which are unique to design - and can we determine those characterstics without any knowledge of the designer? The answer is no. The ID movement claims the answer is yes, but has been unable to support it.

Since Carol's limited knowledge of science is highly inconsistent and idiosyncratic, I'd suggest that she had no formal training of any kind.

Certainly she has had no training in the philosophy and practise of science.

As for the other... how does "infinitely many" strike you?

Lou FCD: DaveScot's stupidity is getting more laughable every day. When's his brain just going to explode and get it over with?

I love his latest blowhard routine: "We paid taxes to support this research, so we have the right to believe it says whatever we want it to say, and we also have the right to heap verbal abuse on the people who get our tax money!" Yeah, that's real science for you...

Before I call people liars I would rather accuse them of milder offenses, such as being disingenuous.

PvM and Stephen,

A few corrections regarding the ether.

Basing the ether hypothesis on the perceived need for a medium for light does NOT constitute empirical evidence in support of the idea. It does constitute an invention whose sole purpose is to satisfy a perception or assumption, later proven totally unwarranted, that light needs a medium. Sounds like ID to me.

The ether idea was not falsifiable nor was it ever falsified. All the difficulties with light were resolved in some fashion by Lorents and others. It was merely discarded as uneccesary after Special Relativity. Your own quote, PvM, is very telling. "This result left physicists stunned for many years and some of them postulated that the ether, while real, was in principle unobservable." Sounds very much like ID to me. Just replace the ether with the designer.

The need for a medium for light was actually more than just the need for a medium. That is a superficial, shallow understanding of the situation. The deeper meaning is that the speed of light as it emerged from Maxwell's equations needed a frame of reference. In other words, the velocity of light needed to be an absolute quantity. The ether provided that frame. But that still does not render the ether empirical in the absence of direct detection.

Lenny,

Your post above is so off the wall irrelevant even by your standards that I am actually surprized at you.

Basing the ether hypothesis on the perceived need for a medium for light does NOT constitute empirical evidence in support of the idea.

Flint,

The ether is ID-like in the sense that a perception or assumption leads to a need for an hypothesis which in turn leads to an invented entity that people are willing to accept (for a significant period of time) despite the fact that it appears to be "in principle unobservable."

Dark matter may very well end up like the ether. Time will tell.

Some other posters, you know who you are,

Insults, stupidity and ignorance DO NOT an argument make.

The ether is ID-like in the sense that a perception or assumption leads to a need for an hypothesis which in turn leads to an invented entity that people are willing to accept (for a significant period of time) despite the fact that it appears to be "in principle unobservable."

— Carol Clouser

Well, Carol, that certainly eliminates 99% of your effluent.
Thanks for contributing, go away.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Insults, stupidity and ignorance DO NOT an argument make.

Insults, stupidity and ignorance DO NOT an argument make.

Insults, stupidity and ignorance DO NOT an argument make.

Insults, stupidity and ignorance DO NOT an argument make.

Insults, stupidity and ignorance DO NOT an argument make.

Insults, stupidity and ignorance DO NOT an argument make.

PvM and Stephen, A few corrections regarding the ether. Basing the ether hypothesis on the perceived need for a medium for light does NOT constitute empirical evidence in support of the idea. It does constitute an invention whose sole purpose is to satisfy a perception or assumption, later proven totally unwarranted, that light needs a medium. Sounds like ID to me.

— Carol

The ether idea was not falsifiable nor was it ever falsified.

All the difficulties with light were resolved in some fashion by Lorents and others.

When it was discovered by Michelson/Morely that the speed of light is the same in all directions, scientists did not discrad the ether right away. Instead, they fought tooth and nail to save it. They (Lorents and others) tried dragging and stretching the ether to make it fit the data.

Your own quote, PvM, is very telling. "This result left physicists stunned for many years and some of them postulated that the ether, while real, was in principle unobservable." Sounds very much like ID to me. Just replace the ether with the designer.

The need for a medium for light was actually more than just the need for a medium. That is a superficial, shallow understanding of the situation. The deeper meaning is that the speed of light as it emerged from Maxwell's equations needed a frame of reference. In other words, the velocity of light needed to be an absolute quantity. The ether provided that frame. But that still does not render the ether empirical in the absence of direct detection.

Lenny, Your post above is so off the wall irrelevant even by your standards that I am actually surprized at you.

Carol are shure you are not on some sort of chemical ?

Your own quote, PvM, is very telling. "This result left physicists stunned for many years and some of them postulated that the ether, while real, was in principle unobservable." Sounds very much like ID to me. Just replace the ether with the designer.

THE designer ....oh really ? Who.....Ferdinand Porche? He's dead.
How about ace spaliens, LGM, cosmic turtles, gaps between atoms,muons,bosons, trillionths of seconds, Baal, Osiris, Moloch, Ashtaroth?

If you are going to factualize your feelings and desire for the temporal existance of something more than ignorance then by all means provide a wave model and call the old fella refered to in the "True" Detective/History Stories of the old testament, ether.

Ether you is or ether you ain't proposing a naturalistic alternate theory for RM + NS. So lets have it NOW. This is your BIG chance to save the WHOLE ID movement. Your entry into the promised land would be guaranteed, regretfully however not instantaneous

Here is a quick tip... They have enough loonies on the job now, I don't think they want anymore. They are looking for the right meme to add to Newspeak Ingsoc B vocabulary, reality as far as they are concerned should not be allowed to exist , and is merely a linguistic impediment amenable to postmodernist redefinition.

Carol a part time ID fluffer, does have part of the plan worked out, promote religiuos obsurantism as "objective fact". The real IDeologists just have to keep up their blizzard of BS to have reality "tweaked" ......its already happening.

From this blog "Frank Luntz: The Devil In Disguising Language".

If you have ever wondered why a bill that allows more pollution into the air is called the Clean Skies Initiative, the answer is Frank Luntz.

Rilke's Granddaughter and others have alluded to this, but I think it is important to make the point more explicit...

When defending the scientific status of ID, the proponents want to be able to point to historical examples of hypotheses that were accepted as scientific, and then claim that since those hypotheses are in some way analogous to ID, then ID should likewise be deemed scientific.

Aside from the big problems with the specific examples and analogies, it is interesting to note that the examples used by IDers are always of FAILED hypotheses. No examples of SUCCESSFUL hypotheses can ever be used because then there would be no chance for the analogy to seem at all plausible, even to the non-experts. I suppose that ID proponents recognize this, hence their preference for failed historical examples.

Further, we should note that after the example hypotheses were shown to be mistaken, they were always discarded by all but the fringe scientists and the cranks. In this sense, at least, the analogy with ID seems to work.

I disagree with Plantingia on most points, but his critique of verifiability is warranted, positivism is over man.

— T. Scrivener