People want to know what happens if ID wins. What scientific research will ID spawn?
That’s easy- for starters there are all of those questions that get asked by any design inference- the who, what, how, when, where and why- all valid research venues given ID. There’s plenty there to keep scientists busy for decades, if not longer.
With respect to biology we would set out to find that something else, the something else besides chemistry and physics that makes living organisms what they are.
With respect to SETI we would use the findings from “The Privileged Planet” to find any other technologically capable civilizations and habitable planets.
So far from being a scientific dead-end ID would spawn new research that will keep us busy for some time.
If ID wins what?
ID will never “win” if you are waiting for ID to “win”. The only way for ID to “win” is for IDists to do the scientific research first, not after.
How can ID win without it’s own scientific support Joe?
It’s catch 22.
ID can’t win unless it has scientific support.
No scientific support for ID is possible until ID wins.
Do you have a prediction for when ID might “win” its battle? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
LoL! @ OM- Focus on your lame position as it has nothing and obviously that has you all upset. ID is still here due to your failure and ID will remain here because your position can not be tested.
Science has confirmed the existence of IC. Science has confirmed that biology is driven by information. And all you have are arguments from ignorance.
The intelligent design movement has been around for, what, 20 years now? And how many millions of dollars have they burned through? A lot.
But despite all this money not a single bit of research has been done on the ‘who? when? how?’ questions.
Why is this?
The reason is obvious….the ID movement (and it’s financial backers) ALREADY KNOW who, when and how. It was the Christian God. And so there’s a complete lack of motivation to fund any research that might contradict the Christian narrative.
If there was any honest desire to do all this research it would have happened already. They’ve had enough money to build and run several independent laboratories if they really gave a shit about these ultimate questions….but no! They’ve opted, rather tellingly, to piss away their money on public relations, political lobbying and playing the martyr.
Please stay on the topic of the OP. You wanted to talk about what happens when ID wins, let’s talk about that.
And yet you can pick any scientist at random and ask them if they support ID and they will almost certainly say no. Why do you suppose that is, if science supports ID as you seem to think?
If my position cannot be tested, and ID’s can and furthermore the output of science supports ID then why is ID not the current accepted paradigm?
So, to sum up, when I ask when will ID win or what research will have to happen for ID to win Frankie responds by telling me to worry about my position instead, despite the fact that it’s his OP and the questions are on topic regarding that OP.
Such confidence in your position Joe that every question you are asked has to be deflected!
Woodbine,
LoL! Evolutionists have the vast bulk of the resources and you can’t answer any question- why is that? According to you it is because evos are not interested in actually answering questions but are perfectly OK at proclaiming victory and spewing bullshit.
If there was an honest desire to do research evos would have done it by now. The reason they don’t is obvious, theirs is a total bullshit position.
AGAIN, for the learning impaired- those questions raised by the design inference are NOT part of ID. Right now IDists are focused on ID.
That said ID is not about any God- ID does not require God.
And if woodbine’s position had something to test and some way to test it, ID would be a non-starter. ID survives because of your failures, woodbine.
1- The scientists who reject ID don’t have a viable alternative. They can be ignored until they find one
2- The research that has to be done for ID to win is being done. IC is a proven entity
3- When will ID win is difficult to answer. It will win as soon as we can get rid of the grip evolutionism has on science classrooms. And that should be coming about within a few years, once the evo-lobby’s lies are exposed.
The OP is what happens after ID is accepted. It is not about what that will take or when that will happen.
Once again OM proves that it cannot follow along
They don’t even know about it. Interest has long faded, it’s just us left now.
Except, as noted, if you ask actual scientists.
Huh? So it is all about getting ID taught in schools after all?
So, to be clear, in order for ID to be accepted as science it has to be taught as if it were science to children so they can grow up and prove it is actually science after all?
You don’t seem to understand how it all works. You teach children settled science. And ID is far from that.
Oh? But I thought ID was not anti-evolution? So what lies would those be, specifically?
With respect to biology we would set out to find that something else, the something else besides chemistry and physics that makes living organisms what they are.
Nothing is stopping you now, say you had ten million dollar grant, how about a broad outline of your research program to detect this “something”?
With respect to SETI we would use the findings from “The Privileged Planet” to find any other technologically capable civilizations and habitable planets.
Could you elaborate, SETI already assumes there is the possibility of ID in certain signals. Would we just assume all signals are designed since we can’t test a pulsar in the lab?
Yes, I suppose it is.
If design is a mechanism then the OP is about what happens after ID is accepted.
chuckle.
Perhaps this will help:
http://www.pfaw.org/issues/religious-liberty/timeline-how-creationism-has-evolved
In that case:
pigs will fly;
people will eat the green cheese that the moon is made of.
Given that could be done now I suspect the OP is really just about making excuses why ID has been so scientifically sterile.
No, ID can’t detect Aliens yet because the head of science has not said that ID has won! When, and only when that happens, ID will be happy to explain the secret code hidden in “The Privileged Planet” that will let you find those pesky Aliens”
I suppose what’s most frightening is that these people think their first step towards their goals is changing what is taught to children. They admit it’s not science, but then want it taught as science to children who won’t know any better.
Joe G hand-waving like a pro.
Joe – Why hasn’t ID spent its considerable funds on researching the ‘who, when, why’ already?
ID was proven over 20 years ago, yes? ID has already ‘won’, yes?
OK, so what are they waiting for?
Who’s permission do they need to ‘use the findings from “The Privileged Planet”? Why aren’t they doing it now?
What are they waiting for, Joe? Why are they delaying all this amazing science?
Yeah, who is it that will officially say that ID has won?
What is the metric you are using Frankie?
From what you are saying, ID has already won. It’s alternatives have been demonstrated to be non-scientific, ID has been proven scientifically and it’s the start of a golden age for IDists.
Except, despite that, Frankie thinks that ID has not won! Why Frankie? If all you say is true, now is the time to start researching into what you talk about in the OP!
So, please do that.
Why? It’s already won!
And what are you, personally, doing about that?
Frankie,
With the standard of inference to the best explanation, ID is a viable competing hypothesis. If the standard is the scientific method, how would you set up a testable hypothesis?
If ID wins it will be because it somehow answered how a designer actually made life without the sort of characteristics one would expect from an intelligent being (rational thought, reuse of ideas in “unrelated” organisms lacking much lateral gene transfer), and with the apparent characteristics of organisms limited by reproduction, inheritance, and relatively restricted change through time.
How it would ever answer those problems with data from our the organisms we know is surely a challenge. They’d presumably have to find a designer that is unlike any known.
Glen Davidson
Young scientists who accept ID would no longer have to fear for their livelihoods.
Science would flourish.
Diseases would be cured and life would be prolonged.
Machines would become intelligent.
TSZ would go belly up.
Overall, the world would be a better place.
What’s stopping this ‘golden age’ right now? You couldn’t even use any Templeton money.
If you hate it so much, why are you here so much?
What does that even mean? It sounds like you want to say they are accepting ID into their hearts.
It’s always been about religion. Always. From the start. And now we have Frankie saying he wants to teach children that ID is science before it’s been established that ID is actually science because that’s the only way that ID will become science.
If the martyr fantasies of IDists were actually true, one might then see why non-IDists aren’t doing ID science.
What they’ve never explained is why IDists and corporations (only the bottom line is holy) never do ID science either. Are they being prevented from doing it? By TSZ, or what? They can’t do ID science in some dungeon somewhere that “Darwinists” can’t find, preparing to show up all of those atheistic ideologues?
You’d think the fierce and proud IDists would be seriously doing in secret all of the science that is purportedly persecuted in the open. And yet, they seem to believe in the value of ID about like we do, and do no design science at all. A paltry and misinterpreted form of actual evolutionary science is the best that they can muster.
Unless there’s some hidden lab bursting with discoveries just about to announce the downfall of atheistic materialistic science. I’m not betting the farm on it.
Glen Davidson
Dembski:
It’s one of the few places I can come where I am smarter than everyone else.
GR8 B8 M8 I R8 8/8.
Joe in the OP:
This makes no sense. There is nothing so far in the way of evidence that indicates whether life may exist or may have existed elsewhere in the Universe. If future observations by SETI (or anyone else looking) produce interesting data, that will be the time for interpreting those data. What the heck does a film have to do with it?
Highly unlikely but you could easly take the prize for most self-deluded.
This. ^^^
The Templeton Foundation offered millions of dollars of grant money to study Intelligent Design but not a single IDiot could come up with an idea for a grant proposal. Not Dembski, not Behe, not Meyer, not Wells, Not Axe, not Gauger. Not a single IDiot answered the bell.
Why is that FrankenJoe?
The Templeton folks, seriously misguided in this case, offered the money for a proposal to test a TESTABLE ID claim. They were quite specific in requesting that the proposal NOT be some sort of disproof of something someone claimed was “a prediction of evolution”, noting correctly that even if the theory of evolution is totally wrong, this would not be one iota of support for ID. They wanted positive results – results supporting ID, not just attacking some unrelated theory.
They got no takers, of course. I don’t believe that grant money is any longer available. The Templeton folks have figured out that ID is not science in any way, it’s simply a statement of religious doctrine.
I think the floodgates would open for biology, geology, cosmology, etc etc.
Since new mechanisms would be needed to explain biological diversity and complexity outside of the creator then i think discovery of innate ability in life systems would be found and aimed at.
SO i think healing people on big problems would move forward.
Seeing biology as a blueprint and not happanchance would force people to look better for solutions and not have to invent solutions to bypass problems.
endless progress would explode. i think.
There’s nothing to prevent a biologist such as Cornelius Hunter from working on those discoveries right now. Why isn’t he already famous for such discoveries?
Then why hasn’t it happened already?
Why not just do all this amazing science? What’s stopping them? It’s not lack of funds that’s for sure.
If the ID movement really can open the floodgates for biology, geology, cosmology etc then fucking open them!
Stop wasting everyone’s time trying to prove Darwin wrong for the umpteenth time….just get on with it!
Citation please.
I suppose what Mung and co don’t quite understand is that I’m genuinely interested in their answers to such questions.
When I first heard about ID I was intrigued. My bookshelf fades from hardcore science to the wooest of woo. I’m interested in most things, if reasonably well written or just interesting. I’m gutted I missed a signed Sheldrake recently in a charity shop, that was gone before I went back to get it (after deciding, nah, originally).
So, Phoodoo, Mung, Frankie, if you have actual evidence or similar for ID then I’m more then willing to give it a fair shake. I did give it all a fair shake, that first time round.
But if all you have are equivocations over the word guided or claims that all scientific research is actually ID research then meh, not so much.
No, if ID became the accepted theory and evolution was discredited, Elizabeth could simply sell TSZ to an ambulance chasing lawyer who would re-purpose the site to attract rioom temperature IQ conspiracy theorists and homophobic bible-thumping bigots. Those types of sites, for some strange reason, still attract an audience.
discovery and invention does not easily follow mere corrections in former errors.
also Hunter has to lead the charge for the correction.
First things first.
I don’t mean the ID/YEC thinkers but everyone.
Once the error is removed then heaps of rsearchers/dreamers/kids will aim better at figuring things out and increase healing and many things about biology.
Right now a strait jacket is on them.
They don’t see biology as a system well organized and consistent from blueprints. BUT instead as a chaotic result of chance mutations and selection.
No rhyme or reason to it.
So no expectation of discovery on common laws and so insights to manipulate them for our gain.
It would appear that you are affirming the obvious correlation between the doctrines of ID and YEC. While most skeptics would suggest this being the case, it typically not openly asserted by proponents of ID.
Perhaps if ID proponents were to discover any useful concepts such as cures for diseases and new testable theories, others would become interested in the research. To date, this has not happened and it makes the plea for equal consideration of ID (what I call ‘No Theory Left Behind’) sound hollow and meaningless.
Likewise for YEC. If a coherent set of radiometric decay constants could be shown to converge on 4004 BCE, many scientists would get interested real fast. As it stands, all that YEC’ers have is an oft-repeated talking point about the unreliability of decay rates and a couple examples of wood chunks interred in anachronistic geological contexts.
Woodbine,
Woodbine, handwaving like windmill during a hurricanel. IDists are still detecting and studying the design and there aren’t enough resources to go any .
OTOH your position has the bulk of tne resources and still can’t do anything
“The Design Revolution”, page 25, Dembski writes:
Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.
He goes on to say:
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn’t even require there be a God.
Already have- it is called the explanatory filter
Of course it makes sense. The only place we have a chance at finding ET is to look for what TPP says to look for. BTW TPP was a book, first.
ID is winning and pigs aren’t flying…
RoyLT,
Creation is a subset of ID and YEC is a subset of Creation.