Intelligent Design: is it science?

[spongebob]

Forgive me, Rian, but I fail to see what signal analysis has to do with the biological sciences. And I happen to agree that the ID concept is an interesting one. I applaud any research that goes into it. But until any actual objective evidence is discovered, it will remain a pseudo-science and has no place in science classrooms, except to be an example of what is not science.

Information theory - how we analyze something and decide if it came about by random processes (noise) or from intent (information-bearing signal).

And can you please stop referring to macroevoloution in your peculiar way that suggests it is not well supported by evidnece. I feel the need to respond every time you do it and it's tiresome.

You must feel that it needs a lot of defending!

I seem to have to correct you a great deal, yes. I said nothing about defending.

So you know how to analyze information; that's a good skill. I still don't see the value for Evolutionary Biology, which doesn't deal in signal noise. It deals with lots of things that have observable, physical evidence. I understand the value of analyzing pure data and looking for patterns. I've used lots of systems and programs that do that very thing with vibration analysis and also network protocol analysis. However, when evaluating fossils and genetic code, neither my nor your signal analysis training seem to be relevant. Maybe you could explain how it is relevant over on the Evolution thread. It might me an interesting comparison of what we both know and if you can truly convince me, I'll give you credit.

[wondersforoyarsa]

Uh spongebob? There is this little thing called bioinformatics. Perhaps you've heard of it?

[spongebob]

Sure, I've heard of it. Care to expound or is it some kind of "secret"? I'm looking for a real answer to this. Tell me how signal analysis is relevant to Evolutionary biology and I'll give you a kudos.

[wondersforoyarsa]

Sure, I've heard of it. Care to expound or is it some kind of "secret"? I'm looking for a real answer to this. Tell me how signal analysis is relevant to Evolutionary biology and I'll give you a kudos.

Ummm - you have this long string of information, that you don't know anything about. So what do you do? How do you look for patterns? How do you distinguish gibberish and noise from valuable information? These are key questions in both signal analysis and bioinformatics. And bioniformatics is about the only thing that keeps evolutionary biology honest.

[Atheist37]

If either side puts their head on the chopping block, folks are right to take a swing!

Naturally, though in my experience the Christian side does a little better job at correcting their own than the atheist side does. It would be nice to hear more criticism of folks like Dawkins coming from atheists.

One pleasant exception to this was this article by skeptic Theodore Dalrymple:

What the New Atheists Don’t See

Aaacchhh. I read the whole, long, rambling article. The guy just does not get it. All of his complaints about Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens are just plain misunderstandings or misinterpretation of the message. He complained about the so-called atheist commandment, "question everything". Just because I question everything does not mean that I deny everything. His example was the date of George Washington's death. Okay, I'm 99.99999% sure that the generally accepted date is correct. But if clear evidence came up that the accepted date is wrong, I would be willing to change my mind.

Big deal.

That's just one example. I sense a lot of jealousy in this guy Dalrymple. The modern atheist philosophers have written books that are extremely popular, and the call for rational thinking is being heard. And nobody is listening to Dalrymple, or almost nobody. He brags and brags about how much philosophy he had read and understood by age 14. Oh Teddy, you are so very smart. What a whiner.

The reason that atheists are not "reining in" the excesses of Dawkins is because Dawkins is not a loose canon or otherwise in need of restraining. He's an articulate and smart academic that most of us admire a great deal. Same goes for Harris and even Hitchens. I'm reading Dennet's book right now and boy does he drone on and on and on. He's making good points but he could easily do it in 100 pages instead of hundreds and hundreds. Funny, Dalrymple somehow likes Dennet the best.

[OzAnt]

Just to add to A37's assessment of Theo

I too read the whole article. I should have stopped reading after ...oh, lemmee see:

Charles Bradlaugh, would stride into public meetings in the 1880s, take out his pocket watch, and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds. God bided his time, but got Bradlaugh in the end.

That's just straight out nonsensical, especially coming from an alleged non-believer.

However much philosophers tell us that it is illogical to fear death, and that at worst it is only the process of dying that we should fear, people still fear death as much as ever.

What sort of a statement is that? How does he know people fear death? Death served me well for 4+ billion years. I don't appear scarred or dysfunctional because of it (I have Christianity to thank for that, but I'm slowly working through it ). Why should anything change when I return to it? Sure, everyone fears the dying part. Apart from the potential pain, there's the confusion at being unable to let go what it is that we've set out to achieve, based on what life means to us. But if he's afraid of the post-mortem, I suggest he's not as much of a non-believer as he'd like to believe he is.

And Jean-Paul Sartre* came up with a memorable line: “God doesn’t exist—the bastard!” Sartre’s

(it turns out it's Samuel Beckett's in fact)

wonderful outburst of disappointed rage suggests that it is not as easy as one might suppose to rid oneself of the notion of God.

Or, it could mean that Sam has a wicked sense of humour and is cleverly and succinctly telling us how he wishes God had never been invented in the minds of believers and used through fear to garner power and commit deeds that we hide in our history books.

I'll stop here. I'm thinking of another word to describe Theo. Not unlike A37's word, it too starts with a W and ends in an E R and contains just as many letters in-between.

Regards,
Ant

[wondersforoyarsa]

Bah - I'm not going to get in an argument about Dawkins' brilliance any more than I'm going to debate Mother Theresa's diabolical evil. It wouldn't be good for the atmosphere of the forum.

Sorry I brought it up.

[Rian]

I seem to have to correct you a great deal, yes.

In yo' dreams, man, in yo' dreams!

[Rian]

What sort of a statement is that? How does he know people fear death?

I've seen many atheists make the claim that man "invented" God because of fear of death.

I guess if you make that claim to support your point, it's valid, otherwise it's not ... *headdesk*

I'll stop here. I'm thinking of another word to describe Theo. Not unlike A37's word, it too starts with a W and ends in an E R and contains just as many letters in-between.

Second letter "A", right? (having been around lots of Brit-types)

[OzAnt]

I've seen many atheists make the claim that man "invented" God because of fear of death.

I guess if you make that claim to support your point, it's valid, otherwise it's not ... *headdesk*

I wouldn't challenge the blanket statement that people fear death. It's simplistic, but acceptable. If I was surveyed:
Question: Do you fear death?

My answer, would equally simplistically be 'yes'.

However… Theo makes the statement AFTER making the distinction between death and dying. Once this distinction is made, the questionnaire would have to look more like:
1) Do you fear dying?
2) Do you fear death?

I, for one, would be answering 'yes' to the first question and 'no' to the second one. Given that I'm sure I'm not the only person that thinks this way, I have to disagree with Theo's blanket statement as being accurate or true.

Regards,
Ant

[spongebob]

I seem to have to correct you a great deal, yes.

In yo' dreams, man, in yo' dreams!

I suppose you think this kind of remark explains how you made a truthful or correct statement? A real explaination would work much better. I'm still not sure I see how your personal experience qualifies you to make the assertions regarding information and Evolution. It seemed like a very basic and general statement with little relevance to the subject at hand. Kind of a "hit and run" comment.

[Rian]

y'know, I'm just trying to keep yet another yucky conflict from starting between us, so I responded with a joke. Get a SOH, man!

[Rian]

I've seen many atheists make the claim that man "invented" God because of fear of death.

I guess if you make that claim to support your point, it's valid, otherwise it's not ... *headdesk*

I wouldn't challenge the blanket statement that people fear death. It's simplistic, but acceptable. If I was surveyed:
Question: Do you fear death?

My answer, would equally simplistically be 'yes'.

However… Theo makes the statement AFTER making the distinction between death and dying. Once this distinction is made, the questionnaire would have to look more like:
1) Do you fear dying?
2) Do you fear death?

I, for one, would be answering 'yes' to the first question and 'no' to the second one. Given that I'm sure I'm not the only person that thinks this way, I have to disagree with Theo's blanket statement as being accurate or true.

Regards,
Ant

Yeah, that "death" word could be taken both ways - unfortunate! The way that I've seen that statement used seems to be typically your #2 statement, but maybe it's kinda both 1 and 2. I certainly know that I've seen that statement a lot, whichever one (or both) it means.

Death served me well for 4+ billion years.

Now that's an interesting statement - could you elaborate, please?

[whoosanightowl]

OzAnt wrote:
Death served me well for 4+ billion years.

Rian wrote:

Now that's an interesting statement - could you elaborate, please?

Rian, I think Ant was referring to the state of nonexistance, which is how most nonbelievers view what occurs at death. There is no spirit realm or afterlife, it's just over and we no longer exist. Our existence relies on our physical bodies, while awareness of that existance is dependent on our minds via our physical brains. Once our bodies major organs cease to function, we simply are no longer, period, just it was prior to our conception.

[Atheist37]

Bah - I'm not going to get in an argument about Dawkins' brilliance any more than I'm going to debate Mother Theresa's diabolical evil. It wouldn't be good for the atmosphere of the forum.

Sorry I brought it up.

Well, Dawkins is no dimwit and that is for sure. The word I would use is "accessible". His writing is clear and well-organized and he does a great job of clearing up the confusion that many religious leaders are pusposefully injecting into the public discourse. There is a good reason why his books are so successful, and I don't think it's becuase of vitriol against religion. Instead, I think it's just human nature to look for answers. A lot of people are finding their answers in atheistic philosophy these days.