Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Yeah, that's my understanding: if some proposition is undecidable from a set of axioms, then either the proposition or its negation can be added to the axiom set without changing its consistency.
I find this hard to get my head around; nonEuclidean geometry, no problem, I can see ellipsoids and pseudospheres; axiom of choice or not always struck me as kind of a game; continuum hypothesis is too abstract to impact my intuition; but two kinds of arithmetic I just don't "get".
Post 954: "Taken alone or together, the two do not necessitate . . . " You're right, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws does not "necessitate" intelligent design. It is simply good evidence, and that is all a theory needs to enjoy support. Intelligent design fits the evidence, and vice versa.
And those assumptions you make are not logical nor scientific.
O, they're plenty logical. They fit the theory of intelligent design well enough. They just don't meet with your satisfaction. But until you supply an example of disorganized matter that does not behave according to any predictable laws I will not be satsfied with your theory either, so we're even.
. . . you said that EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim.
Where did I say that? If I did, then I take it back. All known observation to date lends evidence to the theory of design, because observation necessarily entails organized matter. "Conceivable observations," otoh, bring in such phenomenon as flying spaghetti monsters. These things do not substantiate the theory of intelligent design in any way.
The only difference is that you want to believe in an intelligent designer.
On the contrary, I have concrete examples of the former, and none for the latter. Understand the difference?
You do? Well, why didn't you say so?
Where are they? Why give us a list of admitted inferences when you have "concrete examples" you could cite?
When are you finally going to understand? It doesn't matter who or what the designer is. ID is premised on a designer, period. All of its arguments rest on there being a designer. The designer is purposely not stated. The designer could be the Immortal Dust Bunny under my bed, and it still doesn't change the validity of Intelligent Design one bit, for better or for worse, because ID does not name the designer.
All these examples do is expose the creationists who hide behind the facade of ID in order to try to call their religious beliefs science. You reject Flying Spaghetti Monsterism although it has exactly the same scientific merit as ID, yet you do not reject ID. You are exposed.
No. Science requires the presence of organized matter in order to take place. The one who creates and organizes matter does not thereby create science, but the necessary conditions for science. Man, the intelligent observer, is the one who ultimately does science.
You're trying to change the argument.
No. I've said from the beginning that intelligent design can fit into the definition of theory as defined by evos on these threads. That definition of theory does not require falsifiability or proof of any kind. Do you think I cannot back up the claim that the universe largely consists of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, and that organizing matter for the purpose of carrying out consistent functions is not in accord with the meaning of intelligent design?
That is personal belief, which has no basis in a science discussion.
Show me a scientist who can separate personal belief from his practice and I'll show you a flying spaghetti monster.
Contrived is the operative word.. very important word..
There be much contrivin goin on.. always has been..
And God is no FOOL.. The contrivers paint themselves into a corner.. as God shines his fingernails.. Does God have fingernails?.. Oh! well..
So how do they refute or weaken the theory of intelligent design? Do they somehow introduce the presence of unorganized matter that does not behave according ot any predictable law? Maybe there are people who prefer subterfuge and you want to "smoke them out." Have at it. Hint: The spaghetti monster argument isn't working. I see no reason other than childishness to posit an entity that has no basis in reality as explantory of the same.
For a first example just take a look in the mirror.
Semantics. And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Do you think I cannot back up the claim that the universe largely consists of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, and that organizing matter for the purpose of carrying out consistent functions is not in accord with the meaning of intelligent design?
We've all been waiting. Nothing yet. We've just been getting a claim of belief and logical fallacies.
Show me a scientist who can separate personal belief from his practice and I'll show you a flying spaghetti monster.
The inability to separate belief from practice has been the downfall of many a scientist. They often so want something to be true, and they (often unkowingly) contaminate their experiments, producing false results. They are ultimately disgraced in the scientific community when others of differing belief are unable to reproduce their results.
Nice system of checks and balances, huh? Afraid to submit ID to that? I'll submit Flying Spaghetti Monsterism because I want to see those heathens humiliated.
Can you read? It doesn't affect the ID itself, because it is the same as ID. All it does is show the intentions of the supporters of ID, to call religion science, and to expose their hypocrisy in believing ID with the Christian God while discounting ID with a Flying Spaghetti Monster. You are among them.
You have a logically unsupportable position. Modify it, drop it, or lose the argument.
I guess we'll have to wait for someone else to supply an example of unorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws. Meanwhile the theory of intelligent design enjoys wide support, including most efforts by atheistic science.
TTFN.
I replied:
What predictions has it made about fossil finds or genetic research?
What sort of observations would show it to be wrong?
These are basic things any scientific theory must deal with.
Then you say in response:
If I have to 'bend' to the will of evolutionists to be called a conservative, then don't call me a conservative. Won't change my views.
Were you replying to a different post?
I'll start looking for it after you tell me whether you've stopped beating your wife.
Meanwhile the theory of intelligent design enjoys wide support
You didn't see the "Steve" thing, did you?
I never started beating my wife. Besides, she can't be beat.
For a first example just take a look in the mirror.
Yet another inference instead of the "concrete examples" that we were promised.
And it's an appeal to emotion, to boot.
The intelligent design hypothesis is this:
Intelligent cause can be either a phenomenon (such as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence) - or an agent (such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.)
If the selection of mates (intelligent cause) is found to be the best explanation for "certain features" of life then the hypothesis is vindicated.
Moreover, the hypothesis refers to "certain features" not "all features". It therefore does not replace evolution theory.
It is also not a theory of origins, like the theory of evolution is not a theory of origins.
As a final point, the intelligent design movement has no Holy writ, articles of faith or doctrine. It is not theology.
You didn't answer the question. I asked you whether you've stopped beating your wife, not whether you ever started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.