Binary Intelligent Design poll

[Walt Starr]

Simply choose one or the other. Is intelligent design science or not?

[rabid_nerd]

1. Hehe...

(elected official from county next to york county ducking head)

[trotsky]

2. Darn binary.

Should be able to pick "Fairy Tale".

[Walt Starr]

3. Fairy Tales and Mythology will still fall under the heading of

philosophy.

:evilgrin:

[trotsky]

7. Ha, yeah, just like

"McDonald's" still falls under the heading of "food."

[Walt Starr]

12. Now you're getting it!

It's all about the marketing angle! Think about it. If McDonald's has a burger that has 100 grams of fat in it, and they reduce that fat content to 95 grams of fat, they can now sell it as "Reduced Fat".

Marketing 101.

:evilgrin:

[DrWeird]

4. Neither.

Unless you consider seedy propaganda to be "philosophy."

[Walt Starr]

6. Yep, seedy propoganda would also fall under the heading of philosophy

Seedy propogandists have been selling religion for centuries and gullible people have been accepting it as philosophy for centuries.

:evilgrin:

[DrWeird]

9. Yikes, I don't like that at all.

Regardless of ones opinion on organized religion, I think, at least for the sake of this argument, it'd be prudent to keep religion, seedy propaganda, and philosophy three distinct words.

[Walt Starr]

11. But there's so much overlap!

Look at the seedy propogandists, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robem$ome. Both are selling their seedy propoganda as religion to the masses and the masses lap it up as their philosophy!

[DrWeird]

13. Sure there is.

There's also very good, honest people who are pious and philosophical who wouldn't want to be lumped in with Falwell and bin Laden.

[Walt Starr]

16. And their philosophy may hold to an intelligent designer

but that still doesn't make it science.

[DrWeird]

18. No, that doesn't make it seedy propaganda either.

Or "Intelligent Design" in the context we're discussing it.

[Walt Starr]

20. True enough, but in a binary poll the limitation is two choices

It is or it ain't Science.

:shrug:

In hindsight, perhaps I should have worded it that way, but all philosophies regardless of validity or tautological arguments in favor or against must be categorized together in a binary poll.

Hey, it wasn't too late! Now the Poll is Science or Not Science.

[DrWeird]

29. Sure.

It's not science, obviously. I'm just saying it's hardly science either.

[old blue]

5. I voted philosophy, but

I hesitate to call it philosophy too. Mythology and philosophy are distinct. Academic philosophy, like science, obeys fairly rigid methodologies.

That said, ID sure ain't science.

[Walt Starr]

8. Religion is also philosophy

and it doesn't follow academic philisophical princilples in most cases.

[immoderate]

21. ID is not philosophy, it's BULLSHIT.

Old Blue has it right. Philosophy obeys methodologies. The rigors of science are rooted in the Philosophy of Science.

Religion is not Philosophy, it is Divinity. The methods of determining classification of religious knowledge is Theology. There is a reason schools mention these as seperate subjects.

On edit: The dictionary has a dozen definitions for philosophy, ranging from the rigorous one above, to fairly well anything you want it to mean.

--IMM

[old blue]

10. The point made by IDers that deserves an honest response, however,

is their assertion that science is no more than a "religion" itself. The central "doctrines" of which are objectivity, empericism, and repeatability. Do these aspects place science on a plane separate from the World's religions?

I believe so, but it's not trivial to justify that position.

[BrainRants]

17. That is pretty thought provoking

but one could counter that any shared thought among people could then be described as religion. Invoking NASCAR as a religion would probably be appropriate to use with the ID person you're debating. :)

I'm not a deep thinker on this subject, but I'm strongly against ID in my kids science classes. Philosophy? OK. But the US is far enough behind the rest of the world in math & science that to introduce a debate that the rest of the civilized world has settled does nothing but put us further behind.

Not trying to start a flame war, just a little passionate about the topic. Your question merits discussion.

[ChairOne]

19. You really can't come up with a good answer to that on your own?

sheesh.

I can tell you where a cannonball will fall with science, not with religion. I can tell you that your unborn child will have muscular dystrophy with science, and not with religion. I can tell you how many prime numbers there are between 100 and 100000 with science but not with religion. I can tell you.... I trust the point has been made.

There are other good answers to give, but I find the one above to be the most powerful.

It's rumored that Abe Lincoln was once asked how many legs would a horse have if we decided to call the tail a leg. He responded "Four - because you can't change how many legs a horse has by changing the English language".

Similarly, you can fiddle with English all you want, and *call* science a religion. Only a fool would be fooled by this, and think that they are therefore on the same "plane" together...

IDers make no good points that deserve anything but a derisive response. It is completely 100% bankrupt, and wass so from its unfortunate inception.

[old blue]

22. I would have used examples similar to yours

I'm supposed to be working though, so didn't want to give it the time. The real feature that sets science apart is its objectivity--the fact that it communicates in the language of mathematics, which is accessible to all cultures and purportedly universal.

But even this *could* be doubted by someone committed enough to calling science a religion. I believe it was David Hume who produced a sound philosophical argument that one cannot demonstrate it to be a certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow without resorting to a circular argument (short summary: one must invoke the principle that scientific observations are repeatable--i.e., that the laws of physics do not change. But that's basically what we're trying to prove in the first place).

So a real hard-ass skeptic can say that scientists invoke a type of "faith"--namely, that the laws of physics do not change on a whim.

The proper response to such a person, of course, is ask them to step off a cliff.

Well, that's the best I could do without neglecting my work too much.

[ChairOne]

25. That wasn't Hume's point *at all*.....

.... though it's the world most popularly held misconception about him....

But this isn't the place to do philosophical exigesis... Especially when I have the "advantage" of being jobless... LOL...

[old blue]

27. it needn't have been Hume's point

to be hijacked by the desperate

[ChairOne]

28. Fair enuff...

I wrote a big paper about it a long time ago... I can be a bit trigger-happy on the subject... LOL

[old blue]

35. Cool,

I'll defer to your sharper Hume knowledge.

That said, I do think that this point (science considered as a "religion") is what prevents any meaningful dialogue between scientists and IDers. While I submit that it usually indicates nothing more than scientific ignorance on the part of the IDer, we must clarify the distinction in a way the masses can understand if we want to prevent ID in the science classroom.

[ChairOne]

38. It's just deceptive marketing on the part of the IDers....

They know damn well how idiotic the idea is... the only way they can convince stupid-but-well-meaning people to hop on board is to tag it with the respect-garnering word "science"...

But they know thtey're just making shit up. Kinda like the WMDs... It's all marketing aimed at getting idiots to get on board...

Relevance to your comment: It's not the conflation per se that prevents meaningful dialogue between the two camps. It's the fact that the two camps share approximately no values in common. It's just another front in the science wars....

There's no "misunderstanding", there's only deliberate lying on the IDers' parts.

[Lexingtonian]

47. oh, please

The distinction is something called "rigor". Rigor is the willingness to test all substantive hypotheses to an equal and sufficiently high standard that only one proper answer remains, and to do so as severely as the proper evidence will bear. Rigor is the ability to overcome one's biasedness (or that of the authorities on the subject) and testify: "This result or answer disagrees with what I desired it to be, and the authorities have asserted, but it's the only one that fits the evidence."

Science demands rigor to the argument being made.

Religions are not anti-rigorous. But some people, notably Creationists, attempt to use creation myths to take the place of what is know by science. This is fundamentally wrong because creation myths do not by origin reflect a theorem of the material coming-into-existence of the world. Creation myths explain/organize the psychological experience of the world, social as well as Nature as well as proposed supernatural or spiritual entities.

Theologically, Creationists are people who commit what is called 'the materialist fallacy' in their interpretation of the relevant part of the Book of Genesis. The explanation for the persistence of Creationism is that the people who champion it are invested in a systematic effort to keep the materialist fallacy a part of (mis)understanding of the Bible. The theology that is predicately and dogmaticly materialist (believes that the material is the real, there is no 'spiritual' or distinguishable 'psychological' reality, though the Supernatural might exist) is Nature theism. Aka Heathenism, or Paganism, in the medieval world. In short, Creationists are people who are trying to propagate Heathen theology/ideology via a Christian cover.

[KitchenWitch]

14. Damn ones and zeros! n/t

[Walt Starr]

23. Yeah, and somebody hit 1 instead of 0

[LuminousX]

15. all I know

is it ain't science

[Baconfoot]

24. "Philosophy" is not coextensive with "Not science" n/t

[Walt Starr]

26. Poll has been corrected

[Walt Starr]

30. Well, I think this shows how DU approaches the ID argument

and this poll is not dissimilar to the polls that asked which you wanted for President, Bush or Not Bush.

[Swamp Rat]

31. I'd like to see a thread by those that voted ID *is* science

I want to see a rational defense... or at least the hilarious attempt. :D

C'mon IDers! Have FAITH in your "science!" You can do it!

[Walt Starr]

32. Hey, maybe I'll start it!

$10 says it sinks like a rock.

[Swamp Rat]

33. Please do!

It will sink like a "Led Zeppelin." I won't bet you because it may get locked after the knuckle-draggers start posting. This could be entertaining! :D

[Walt Starr]

34. Hey, those five people who say it's science

sure haven't said a word about it in the thread where they can explain precisely HOW ID is science!

[Swamp Rat]

36. 5 Gutless Wonders

[Walt Starr]

37. Yup n/t

[renegade000]

39. my intelligent design theory:

Hyper-advanced space aliens created God

God then created man.

on edit: i wonder if i can get this taught anywhere...

[DjTj]

40. For legal purposes, the question is whether or not it is religion.

If it is religion, it can not be taught as truth in public schools.

[sweetheart]

41. 101001111010111100010100010

Where's the binary? I believe that intelligent design is better than
stupid design. That is why i don't drive american cars anymore.

Is science mutually exclusive with intelligent design? Methinks not.

As for stories of the creation of human kind, monkeys, amino acids
binding randomly in to proteins in pools, and all that conjecture,
a theory is just that.

So, in the binary sense, my answer is "1110101" :-)

[Ediacara]

42. It is the opposite of science

Science proceeds from the observed world and creates testable ideas explaining what is seen.

IDism, creationism, and other religious "sciences" take an opisthoscientific route. They start with an idea and search for things in the observed world that proves what they already believe to be true.

It isn't science, it isn't scientific.

[charlie]

43. More than that

The original premise is inviolate. Data that might weaken it will never see the light of day.

[Ediacara]

44. well yes

upon re-reading what I posted I saw that I omitted that point, but you posted too fast for me to edit :-)

[fujiyama]

45. Intelligent Design:

Creationism by another name - It's a Trojan Horse.

These idiots don't realize that the whole purpose of science is about verifying by empirical means and deduction. It's about moving AWAY from superstition.

They are so desperate to put God into the mix somehow.

[Lone Pawn]

46. Intelligent design is nonfalsifiable

and is therefore nonscientific.