Intelligent Design in Iowa State University

Remove all ads!

Edit...

Sorry teekc...read you wrong...I really need to get some sleep...

[ September 03, 2005, 07:01: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

I'm sorry teekc; I didn't want to tell you. It's supposed to be a secret. Electrons exist because I told them to exist. Keep it under your hat.

 

So if I read teekc's post correctly, Science doesn't really have all the answers. Why then, must they insist that they have a monopoly on what is taught in their area? Further, How can people get the knowledge required for ID to be taught in science class if the research is blocked or otherwise not allowed? The Scientific community moving to stifle this guy's research is like the spanish inquisition trying to silence Gallileo to keep claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth...

 

Gnarf,

Just read BTA's post at the top of the page. No-one will block the research and the proponents of ID have enough money to fund it yet aren't. No-one has ever said that Science has all the answers, just that the the laws laid down by science can (under standard conditions) be shown to hold true and predictions therefore made how things will behave.

Teekc
I am an Electrical Engineer. There is no fundamental flaw in those equations. Where the electron comes from is completely irrelevant to what the equation states. They do not in any way, shape or form concern themselves with the existance or not of a higher being. It is simply "Look, here is an electron, this is how it behaves." A flaw would mean the equations don't work and... they do. As an electrical engineer I don't care where the electorn comes from, just how it will behave and therefore how I can use it. Which, when it comes down to it, is basically the whole reason for engineering in the first place.

[ September 05, 2005, 10:27: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

List of things to do,
#1 clear things up, right from the start,

There is a cross branch between psychology and genetics called behaviour genetics, i.e. genetics determines behaviour. If Socrates' "some men are born, naturally, as slave" argument is true, then we should find strings of genes that says "i am slave in nature". We should teach this concept in genetics. But then Socrates' "faithful" argument did not have any scientific evidance as background. We don't take this seriously and no psychiatrist ever offered any research proposal to find out the truth. This is for Ragusa back in 31st post.

Now for my "fundamental flaw in Maxwell's equations" argument. By the way, i was an EEE student too, stopped before 4th year, can't see the meaningful purpose of "engineering".

Maxwell equations describe electrion and magnetic behaviour just like evolution describe adaptation and speciation. "The flaw" as other might claim is that they don't tell us from where the subject they described came from, electron for Maxwell equations and life for evolution. Now the problem is, is this flaw a flaw?

In my hand now is an axe, new and sharp, perfect for chopping wood. But my axe has a flaw, it cannot wash my laundary. By this point, Carcaroth, my point in my argument should be clear, yes?

Yes, Gnarfflinger, science cannot answer all answer, but science has a path to follow. As pointed out in the petition

The priori of ID violated this rule and thus cannot be regarded as science, thus cannot be taught as science, thus cannot be research as science. There is no way we can claim "by observing the natural phenomena and claim there is a supernatural being or event behind it" as science. We have done that before, Poseidon and earthquake, Quetzalcoatl and lightning, etc, we cannot go back.

 

@teeck

It was Aristotle in his "Politics" who supported this idea and not Socrates. Also, the exact quote is:

It is also from natural causes that some beings command and others obey, that each may obtain their mutual safety; for a being who is endowed with a mind capable of reflection and forethought is by nature the superior and governor, whereas he, whose excellence is merely corporeal, is formect to be a slave

This idea (which btw was used by nazis in order to support their theories of the Aryan superiority) has nothing to do with biology and genes because it doesn't support that there are "I'm a master" and "I'm a slave" genes, it supports that beings with superior minds are the ones who are destined to be masters, while those with inferior minds are destined to be slaves.

 

@ Caracoth: This guy somehow got a grant to conduct this research. Why can't you other scientists just overcome your petty jealousy and wait for the results? If this guy doesn't get any, then you may break out the tar and feathers...

@ teekc: Could this not be a challenge to that principle? It's hard to challenge something when you aren't allowed to procede with your research...

 

Before I grant this, I need to see what types of experiements he will be conducting to test his hypotheses. You see Gnarff, I think the main problem here that scientists bash is the proponents of ID make a non-scientific claim, test it through non-scientific means, and then try to claim it as science.

Doesn't this seem rather counter-intuitive to you? We don't have to wait for the results, because if the results are not attained in a scientific manner (and outside of divine intervention I cannot conceive how they could be), then quite simply there is nothing to talk about. Would you accept a non-Mormon who wished to re-write sections of the Mormon bible? Of course not. Not only would this person not be a Prophet, he wouldn't even be considered a subject matter expert in Mormonism. Likewise, no scientist is going to accept non-scientific research as good science. Their research is debunked before it even begins.

 

But AFI, they want to have his funding pulled before he even starts. No mention is being made about the research in general. It's just being attacked. I want to see what he does and what results he gets before making that decision. Honestly I don't see how this can be proven, but I would like to see him given the opportunity to try.

 

To which I already responded:

Just because you come up with a theory doesn't mean you automatically get funded. When I was a graduate student I had to write a research proposal to get funding. If the review board felt that any results I gained would not be worthy of publication, or worse in this case, that I would get no hard results at all, I would have been denied funding. I won't bore you with how the entire process of funding occurs, but suffice it to say, that having an idea you wish to test is not nearly sufficient grounds to receive funding to conduct the research.

I don't know how many ways I can say essentially the same thing. They are pursuing this study using non-scientific methods, and thus there is no way for the results to be reputable enough to publish in any scientific journal. This means that it will not be accepted by the scientific community. The only reason they are conducting this study is to further convince those who are already inclined to believe the ID theory. They are in the most literal sense preaching to the choir here. That's fine by me, but since the results aren't going to be printed in any science books, why try and pass this off as a scientific study?

teekc's post below yours bears this out. I would love to know how they came up with their numbers to make their estimates. They all must be based on assumptions, and are in no way testable. We are very unsure of our ability to detect planets in other solar systems, never mind how many moons are around those planets. Thus, we are left with an incredibly small sample size of our own solar system to make such predictions.

The water prediction is also filled with conjuecture, as water may not be all that rare. One of Jupiter's moons appears to have water on it. (Granted the water is frozen at the surface, but it is quite possible that under the layer of ice there is liquid water.) I'm not sure which one of Jupiter's moons this is, although if memory serves, I believe it's Ion (although maybe Europa). Which moon really isn't important. What is important is that if we see the existence of water more than once in our solar system alone, is it not reasonable to assume that the existence of water may not be all that rare?

It all gets down to the ability to make observations. You can make up all the probabilities you want of something occuring, but until you back that up with evidence that supports these probabilities (and probabilities are predictions after all) you don't have science. Until the IDists come up with a way to make detailed observations of planets in other solar systems, their predictions cannot be supported by facts, and as such, they will not be accepted into mainstream science.

The are two very ironic pieces of this story. First of all, even though they are pursuing a non-scientific study, they are actually dependent upon furthering our own scientific and technological capabilities in order for them to test their non-science. Secondly, the IDist are proposing ID as an alternative theory to evolution, when the two don't even attempt to answer the same question. For ID to be a competing theory with evolution, it would only attempt to answer how species arise. However, the natural conclusion of that statement is to show far, far, more than that.

[ September 07, 2005, 21:56: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Gnarff,

I think you're always going to find a reaction like this:

...because most people on the ID/Creationist side say things like this, and deflate their own credibiltiy:

You can't argue with people who refuse to accept the flaws in their own logic. Nor should you have to deal with people who lob silly insults out of frustration when they don't get the audience they think they're entitled to. But that doesn't stop them from trying. And until the ID side reformulates their strategy here, this is as far as it's going to go, barring intervention from pandering politicians (which is more likely in the U.S. that probably anywhere, unfortunately).

- - - -

As a sidenote - there's something I'd like to add here. I don't think this issue has anything to do with scientists trying to impede the research efforts of ID advocates, for one very big reason. All the scientists in the world couldn't bar this research from being conducted with ample funding if ID had a leg to stand on.

The religious powers-that-be in the United States have very, very deep pockets. If there were even a HINT of a solid, credible foundation for this line of thought - which there isn't - religious foundations would be clamoring at the chance to fund this research, which would effectively land a killing blow to evolution advocates and open the door to more theoligical teachings in our schools. That isn't happening. Why? Because nobody, as Aldeth has pointed out numerous times, has as yet been able to formulate any kind of theory with any provable, testable (i.e. - scientific) merit. Any theory that relies on faith for its evidence is by its very nature NOT SCIENCE. Until that happens, you can shout that 'scientists are petty, jealous fanatics who want to slap down other ideas' all you want - but it won't make it true, and it certainly won't make any scientist reconsider his position.

In short - providing your theory's research with funding is the EASY part. The difficulty comes in providing your theory's research with credibility.

[ September 07, 2005, 20:41: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Actually, I should be siding with the science majors for other reasons. This guy is unlikely to get results. The lack of results will be a major blow to religion in the US. Faith, defined in the book of Mormon, is the hope for things not seen yet are true. No amount of research will force God to appear. While it would be of some scientific merit to learn how improbable our existence is, it is not the proof that this guy wants. While I defend the right to research this, I don't think any good will come of it.

 

Exactly. That's all I was saying. He can't find proof of his position by doing this experiment. Now, if the premise of his research was to show how rare a habitable planet like the earth is, and then to draw a conculsion about the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, that would be in the realm of science. As I have said, I doubt one can really use probabilities in this sort of way anyway, given the immense size of the universe. Something that has a one in a hundred trillion chance of happening isn't really all that much of a longshot when you consider that there are billions of stars in the Milky Way alone, and billions of galaxies (some many orders of magnitude larger than the Milky Way) in existence.

Regardless of how rare the existence of planets similar to earth may be, it does not necessarily prove a designer. In fact, it may actually indicate the opposite. If we are here just by random chance, it stands to reason that since such a confluence of factors have to occur that a planet like earth would be a very rare thing indeed. Even if many things have to happen (that only have a one in a million chance of occuring) to get a planet like earth, when you literally have trillions upon trillions of these random tests occuring, you're bound to get a few that work out.

[ September 08, 2005, 18:52: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Does anyone else have an uncomfortable anxiety labeled "the failure of SETI"?

To my way of thinking, there are two likely explanations: The first is that "intelligence" is not as likely to develop as I would hope; perhaps what we need to find is not an intelligence of communication (dolphins, cephalopods) but rather an intelligence of the hand (us). The second could be that extra solar ecology is not much different than terran ecology: survival of the fittest. If the latter is true we may want to rethink broadcasting our hearth full of resource into the far reaches of the universe.

 

An interesting thought, LNT. First of all, I would grant that SETI has not provided any tangible evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence at this point. There may be a couple of reasons for this. Perhaps there isn't anything out there capable of receiving our signal, perhaps there is something out there capable of receiving our signal, but they lack the means to make contact with us, or perhaps they have both the ability to and the means, but they don't posess the technology to make a trans-galactic trip.

 

A small aside: next week The Daily Show will be devoting the entire week to this very question in a series entitled "Evolution or Schmevolution?" It's sure to be informative, so don't miss it.

[ September 13, 2005, 07:05: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

As usual, Wiley says it all

 

Great article...

@ MSNBC