Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]

Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

[Fester Chugabrew]

There are certainly a number of arbitrary claims made by astrology, especially today when it is associated more with mysticism. My point is that astronomy is historically rooted in astrology. We don't dismiss the study of medicine as "silly" because the ancients once used medicine while associating it with various gods, do we? Every scientific discipline would do well to revisit it's roots, if not to avoid re-inventing the wheel, at least to appreciate where their discipline has been before.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Do you consider it wholly unscientific to associate the behavior of women during certain times of the month with the position of the moon?

[js1138]

I agree entirely with post 704.

[Fester Chugabrew]

And is just as much evidence for unintelligent design as it is for intelligent design.

No it is not. The evidence for unintelligent design, as I have stated, would be the absence of organized matter and the absence of predicatable laws governing the same. The two are highly distinct in nature.

[RightWingAtheist]

Yes.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The evidence for unintelligent design, as I have stated, would be the absence of organized matter and the absence of predicatable laws governing the same."

That's not true. I already stated that the test of my theory is the existence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. If we find that, then my theory has been verified. If we don't, then it has been falsified. You don't get to say what my theory tests for a priori.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Natural selection is observable. Mutations and genetic recombination are observable. The fossil record is observable. The genetic code is observable. Speciation has been observed.

Of course these things are observable. They are intelligently designed. The capacity to be observed would be additional evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for pointing that out. Of course, most of the claims of evolution are by indirect observation - certainly a legitimate form of observation, but not as reliable as direct observation, such as was practiced by astrologers in times of old.

[antiRepublicrat]

I've heard supporters say that the designer isn't necessarily god - it could be aliens.

I doubt there are many of you who think the Raelians are credible.

[Dimensio]

People keep forgetting that Fester Chugabrew has previously stated that he starts with the assumption that he is correct, and concludes that any observations must be in line with his correctness. He has openly admitted previously that he holds a position that is completely non-falsifiable, yet refuses to accept that non-falsifiable explanations are fundamentally worthless.

[Fester Chugabrew]

When an object is intelligently designed, it by necessicity entails the organization of matter for the purpose of having it perform consistently and according to the purpose the designer intended. One might find an argument for unintelligent design in the works of certain modern artists, but even these, though they may attempt to demonstrate unintelligent design, nevertheless fail, for by their attempts to denote the unintelligent, they have by default engaged an element of design.

If you are attempting to convince someone of the sensibility of your arguments it does little good to posit a fake theory that makes a mockery of conventional meanings and has no basis in reality. The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is a reality, and it is best explained by intelligent design.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Of course these things are observable. They are intelligently designed."

?? Natural selection is by definition, NOT intelligent design. What evidence is there that mutations, genetic recombination, the fossil record, and speciation are intelligently designed? None. You are defining EVERYTHING CONCIEVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd. How can a grown man make such a ludicrous statement? BTW, before you said these things weren't observable. Try to be consistent. :)

"Of course, most of the claims of evolution are by indirect observation - certainly a legitimate form of observation, but not as reliable as direct observation, such as was practiced by astrologers in times of old."

This is farcical. The only thing the ancient astrologers recorded was the movement of the planets and stars. They NEVER directly observed the alleged *forces* that were supposed to affect people's lives because of the movements of the stars and planets. They never INDIRECTLY observed these *forces* either. They are as observable as your alleged designer.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"When an object is intelligently designed, it by necessicity entails the organization of matter for the purpose of having it perform consistently and according to the purpose the designer intended."

Only if you assume a designer a priori.

"If you are attempting to convince someone of the sensibility of your arguments it does little good to posit a fake theory that makes a mockery of conventional meanings and has no basis in reality."

Advice you could do good to take yourself.

BTW, my assertion is not a joke, really. As I already said to your earlier, it is just as testable as yours. I am just intellectually honest enough to admit it is outside of science.

"The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is a reality, and it is best explained by intelligent design."

Only if you assume intelligent design a priori. Otherwise, either is just as testable and logical.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I find little fault with your assessment of my position insofar as you are absolutely correct that I begin with a set of working assumptions that color my interpretations and explanations, but I question your assumption that my position is not falsifiable. As I said, if science can demonstrate the absence of organized matter along with the absence of predictable laws, it will have a strong case for falsifying the theory of intelligent design.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Third Base!" Alert and Placemarker

[CarolinaGuitarman]

It can be dizzying as the wheel keeps on turning and we keep ending up at the same spot. lol

[Stultis]

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

The suggestion is not absent. It's right there in "well substantiated". Theories are well substantiated because they're tested, and that they can't be tested except by exploring their relation to relevant data, and unless that relation is determined by substantive demands of the theory on the data: what the data must show (or fail to show) in consequence of the theory being true.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You are defining EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd.

No more absurd than assuming the opposite, a priori. In fact, it is more reasonable. Wherever there is data available for reason and senses to comprehend it is reasonable to assume the data is fashioned in such a way as to make itself accessible to comprehension and evaluation. Hence natural selection, mutations, and the like, are all manifestations of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws. I would expect this in an intelligently designed universe.

I've never doubted the presence of natural selection, mutations, new species, and the like. But I seriously doubt they account for all that is behind the history of the world as we know it. I also doubt their scientific usefulness.

The only thing the ancient astrologers recorded was the movement of the planets and stars.

They directly observed the movements of the planets and the stars, and they directly observed the behavior of people at the same time. They noticed recurring patterns of behavior at certain times of year and recorded that, too, over more than a thousand years of direct observation on the part of thousands of people. I would not be surprised if the foundations of astrology involved as much or more direct observation than Charles Darwin and all who have followed in his footsteps.

[ml1954]

Now, given that we need to keep tabs on the behavior of others in order to be able to engage in reciprocal altruism without being continually cheated;

LOL. Kind of sums up what some people preoccupy themselves with.

[PatrickHenry]

I hope you're saving that post so it can be trotted out again. It's probably needed in every thread.

[Stultis]

From the general theory of intelligent design science engages in specific fields of study

You're just verbally identifying the presupposition of the uniformity of natural law as the "general theory of intelligent design." (You could name it "Bob" just as easily.) First it has nothing to do with the (putatively) scientific approach called "intelligent design". Second, as I've already said, if anything it contradicts ID. So far as you philosophically generalize the uniformity of natural law, the result is naturalism. ID is nothing if not a denial of naturalism.