Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Cyberman]

Awe, thanks. I feel the need to mention it every time because I have twice been accused of cherry picking, censoring and taking things out of context.

I see it as a conversation, except you can't interject before you can respond to the other person's points; you have to wait for them to finish what they're saying. So it makes sense to include the relevant parts, for context and so other people can play along.

Repeating everything that's just been said merely to reply to one or two bits is just plain annoying; especially if it's an essay and all you want to say is "OK" or something. I can't be the only one whose eyes glaze over.

[Asmodee]

ID does not make a supernatural claim. Intelligence needs not be supernatural. I would agree with you that trying to identify the designer is not a scientific endeavor.

That is a cop-out and, once again, not quite honest.  ID absolutely makes a supernatural claim.  As I have pointed out, ID IS creationism.  This is indisputable fact.  If you care to dispute it I'm sure I can link you to the transcript for the Dover v Kitzmiller case where they prove, beyond any doubt, that the flagship book created to introduce ID, the book that introduced the very concept for the first time, the book which was designed to be the initial introduction to ID, started out as a creationist book which changed because the courts ruled that creationism couldn't be taught in schools.  And that ID does not identify the designer is yet another lie.  They never outright say God did it, but that is absolutely the implication and that was absolutely the motivation behind the inception of intelligent design.  This IS Christian creationism and Christian creationism DOES name the designer.

Moreover, science can be defined as appealing to only undirected processes for answers, but that would render anthropology, archaeology, forensic science, and the search for extraterrestrial inteliigence (SETI) unscientific as well (the ideas for this sentence were largely from Meyer's book so as not to plagiarize). Similarly, you must ask if you want science to truly seek truth. If you do, then why should you start off with the notion that certain ideas cannot be considered, even if they are soundly based in the method of comparing competing hypothesis (which is not merely a Sherlock Holmes approach).

Science does not "seek truth".  There are no "truths" in science.  Science seeks to explain things, but never claims to have "the" answer.

This whole paragraph is riddled with deception.  Who says science has anything to do with "only undirected processes"?  Nobody made that claim.  That's not part of the definition of science.  Science is the study of "the natural", not "the undirected".  I'm not sure what book you're talking about

Also, it's not that the supernatural "cannot be considered".  That is a completely dishonest assessment.  It's that science has to give "only natural explanations".  Scientists can and have investigated, thus "considered", supernatural claims.  There have been many tests of psychic, haunting and other supernatural claims.  Supernatural claims can be considered, but supernatural explanations cannot be given.

And the Holmes reference was for the notion that, if you dismiss the impossible (evolution) then whatever is left, however improbable, is your answer.  You can prove evolution wrong all day long.  That only proves ID correct if you're Sherlock Holmes.  It doesn't work that way in the real world.  Thus "irreducible complexity", even if it were a real thing, does not "show design", it just disputes evolution.

And I've already addressed the fact that religious scientists have a bias, but so do nonreligious scientists. But that doesn't present us from understanding biological systems or doing good science. In fact, because we have such an obvious bias, we must be more careful. Appealing to those statistics is a good way to avoid the actual arguments though.

Another dishonesty.  "It's a problem for both sides".  Those words were actually spoken at the Dover trial.  And perhaps it's true, to an extent.  But all of science doesn't fall apart of God is real.  All of literal creationism does fall apart of evolution is real.  This is an attempt to put science and religion on equal ground.  A process of discovery that takes us where the data says to go is not "equal" to a rigid set of beliefs which must be held at any cost when it comes to "bias".  And there are more religious scientists who accept evolution than there are religious scientists who do not, and almost no nonreligious scientists who do not.  In this case the "bias" is clearly much stronger with the side which has to throw out their belief system if they're wrong.  Any given scientist, religious or not, would LOVE to be the guy who shoots down evolution, not because they care one way or another about evolution, but because they would instantly gain rock star status in the science world.

And I don't think that you can just dismiss the arguments that ID proponents make by asserting that it is a conspiracy theory set up by the religious to corrupt science.

That was not an assertion, it was a fact.  I have already identified the evidence for you, but if you're too afraid to look for it yourself you have but to ask and I will spoon feed it to you.  But it sure sounds a lot better for your argument if you call it an "assertion".  Again, not an entirely honest statement.

And, yes, if you can show that something someone is claiming is scientific is rooted in "not science", and then go on to have actual scientists examine it and dismiss it en-mass, you can absolutely dismiss the arguments.  

That would be like me claiming that Darwin devised his theory because he was mad at God and wanted to instill a natural worldview into society. When you actually read the ID literature (instead of reading about ID from a biased website, which I presume you did), you will see a clear outline of the theory.

I do not get my science information from web sites.  I listen to scientists whose job it is to understand the science.  You see, I am fully aware that I am not qualified to decide if a scientific theory is valid or not.  So I listen to what scientists have to say.  By the 2009 poll I mentioned earlier, I get my information from "97% of scientists in a related field".

And no, my argument is nothing like you just pulling a claim out of your ass.  You keep ignoring the fact that there is incontrovertible evidence that ID IS creationism.  They are one in the same.  ID IS CREATIONISM REBRANDED!  Sorry for the bold and caps, but you keep utterly ignoring this simple fact.  ID is not science because creationism is not science.  There are some scientists who back it, and they are very good at making bullshit sound "scientific".  The ID literature is biased!  Literature put out by ID proponents is, by its very nature, "pro ID", thus, biased.  And it's written by smart people who are paid to make it sound good.  So again, I refer to 97% of scientists in a related field BECAUSE THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS!  It's called "scientific consensus" and it is reached, I believe, at an astounding 95%.  Evolution is 2% past that, ID is 2% TOTAL.

I watched a documentary a few years back, as I often do, about space.  In particular, it was about the solar wind.  I saw a scientist on it, I forget who now (Parker, maybe?), who was saying that he had been claiming the solar wind existed for years, but every time he brought it up he was laughed out of the room.  What did he do about it?  Did he argue it in forums?  Did he try to force it into schools?  Did whine like a little bitch that people weren't taking his science seriously?  No.  He waited.  He continued his work and he waited.  Then, lo and behold, the solar wind was detected and his theory was vindicated because THAT is how science works.  You take your science to SCIENTISTS, not to 9th graders.  Who takes their "science" directly to the people?  I'll give you a hint.  It's one of the hallmarks of a pseudoscience to take it directly to the people and try to bypass scientists.  Science works slowly by nature.  Many, many brilliant scientists never live to see their work vindicated.  Einstein died thinking his "cosmological constant" to be his biggest blunder, but it is integral to science today.  If it's science then take it to scientists and it will come out as scientific.  That's how the process works.

So if ID is so scientific, why are you arguing with me about it?  Take your awesome discoveries to the scientists, show them what you have and work diligently on your "theory" until the data catches up with the science and it WILL BE vindicated, not by 9th graders, but by scientists.  THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS!!!  But ID proponents don't want to take it to scientists.  Of Pandas and People was not a scientific paper.  ID was introduced to high school children FIRST, bypassing scientists altogether and going straight to the schools.  I have no idea how you can maintain the belief that this is science.  Evolution went through over 100 years of testing before it even began to trickle into schools.  Yet the very first ID papers went, hot off the presses, directly into high schools as quickly as possible.  It didn't even bother to pretend to be science to scientists until AFTER it was ruled to not be science for school children.  THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!

They address why it fits within the parameters of science, they use scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions, and they defend against common attacks like those that you have thrown out. The difference between ID and creationism is that creationism uses the Bible as a starting point and works to fit all data into that. ID merely supports the statement that some aspects of life and the universe are best explained as the product of intelligence.

ID IS CREATIONISM!  THE TWO ARE ONE AND THE SAME!  THE FIRST EVERY BOOK WRITTEN TO INTRODUCE ID ORIGINALLY SAID "CREATIONISTS" WHERE IT NOW SAYS "INTELLIGENT DESIGN PROPONENTS"!!!!!  You keep pretending this isn't true.  You keep completely ignoring that ID was designed by creationists salvaging a creation "science" book in the making to introduce it.  ID IS creationism.  The definition of "creation" and "intelligent design" in early and later drafts of the book which introduced ID IS THE SAME!  They used THE EXACT SAME definition for "intelligent design" that they had previously used for "creationism", WORD FOR WORD!  There IS NO difference between ID and creationism.  The book that introduce ID started out as a creationist book and IMMEDIATELY changed direction when creationism became outlawed in schools.  ID IS CREATIONISM!  It's a simple fucking concept and it is absolutely, undeniably true if you just bother to fucking think about it honestly for 20 damned seconds.

That being said, 97% of scientists address why ID DOES NOT fit within the parameters of science.  Science is very much a democracy.  My 97% beats your 2%.  That is how science works.  You see, you are getting your information from "ID literature", which is, "literature created in support of ID by people paid to make it sound plausible, including some scientists".  And you believe that you are qualified to make a determination whether it is or is not scientific.  You don't get to make that determination.  Neither do I.  Neither does any individual scientist, or even and group of scientists comprised of anything less than 95%, which is scientific consensus.  97% said it is not science, so it is not science.  You are the weakest link.  You've been voted off the island.  Hand in your apron and go home.  It's over and done with until you convince SCIENTISTS, not me, but SCIENTISTS that you're right.

And I'm glad that you are so far above the delusion that I clearly suffer from. And you're right, It goes both ways. I could sit back and say that you deny the scientific viability of the arguments because you don't want to acknowledge the implications. I could even go as far as to say that you are mad at God, that you fear His judgement, and that you would rather live in a world without being held morally accountable. How do you know it isn't you who has deceived yourself? You might have even deceived yourself to the point that you are willing to believe that everyone else has deceived themselves so that you can feel a personal sense of cognitive superiority. You said that you were not trying to be offensive, but I think that you have displayed a remarkable level of arrogance by implying that I am willingly ignorant of science.

Lol.  You have no idea how very funny this paragraph is.  Read your first 3 sentences, then read this last bit you wrote.  Let it sink in what's going on here.  Don't see it?  Your opening statement is a claim that ID does not identify the designer and has nothing to do with God, your closing statement is a suggestion that I don't accept ID because I don't like God, that accepting ID would somehow make me morally accountable to the very God that ID supposedly does not identify.

It's not arrogance and I am not implying that you are willingly ignorant.  I am outright stating that you are willingly ignorant, not because I'm being arrogant about it, but because you can't even keep your own deceptions straight from beginning to end of a single response.  But it's not me you're lying to, it's yourself.  You start out all high and mighty, trying to separate your "science" from your belief system, claiming they are utterly separate things, but by the end you forgot you needed to keep them separate and they merged back together again into the single thing that they have really always been, a way to lie to yourself.  That's where the "willful ignorance" part comes in.  You "willfully ignore" the fact that "ID", to you, absolutely means "creationism".  That's because ID is very much creationism.  I can prove that.  I'm not sure I mentioned that.[/b]

[LadyForCamus]

*popcorn*

[Esquilax]

It isn't an argument from ignorance. How do you not understand how our repeated experience of the cause and effect relationship of information coupled with the presence of large amounts of information necessary for life is positive evidence of design?

Because, again, information does not have a cause. It is the product of minds extrapolating from identified patterns. Even a book, an actually intelligently designed object, does not contain information: the human mind that wrote it understood the commonly agreed upon patterns of language, and transcribed symbols through which others with an understanding of that same pattern might come to obtain the same message the author wished to impart. The pattern itself is merely an intermediary, it has information content only in the sense that minds can extrapolate from it. If the mind that beheld it had no concept of the language it was written in, the book is simply gibberish. Information is reliant on minds to exist.

But minds don't just obtain information from intelligent sources, to head off what I suspect to be your next rhetorical trick, since I used an example that was intelligently designed. Just look up pareidolia if you want an example of that.

Pay attention closely, because it's about the 23243234th time it's been said: the conclusion that design is the only known cause for sequential information is based on WHAT WE DO KNOW about the origin of information.

And if you were to portray that conclusion honestly, it would look like this: "design is the only cause of information I know/am willing to consider, therefore it's the only one." In other words, precisely the argument from ignorance that you've insisted it isn't.

All that you people do is shout that things are arguments from ignorance. let's get this settled now, so I don't have to keep addressing it. It's not "I don't know how it got there, therefore God". It's "despite a thorough search over the course of more than half a century by the world's brightest minds, not a single person has ever been able to propose another possible explanation to explain the origin of the sequential information contained within DNA other than that it was the product of intelligence. Intelligence is repeatedly shown to be capable of producing the phenomenon, therefore it is the best current explanation." 

So, first of all: your explanation does not simply get to be the default simply because you have it. I've shown that your conclusion is untenable on its own- it either leads to an infinite regress or naturally occurring information somewhere- so even though it might be the only conclusion you're willing to entertain, since it doesn't work, it doesn't get to just be the thing you assume. Having an answer and having an answer that's possible are two different things. The fact that you only reach that conclusion through a deep, deep misunderstanding of the nature of information, and an unwillingness to relinquish the answer you want to be true, just makes this worse.

And secondly, no matter how thorough the search, if the basis for you accepting one answer is that nobody has been able to come up with another one, that's an argument from ignorance. Sorry, I know you don't like that, but that's not the same thing as it being untrue.

And again, we aren't talking about temperature/positional information. We are talking about information in the form of a sequence of characters that is read to accomplish a desired function. You clearly haven't read Meyer's book. He goes to great lengths to describe the type of information in DNA. Information does not have to be read by minds. I know no biologist who disagrees with the proposition that DNA contains information. Titles of chapters in my textbooks about the DNA and RNA use words like "informational macromolecules". It's not something that the ID community just made up. And we've already talked about how information is hard to quantify, but that it is not necessary to quantify it to draw conclusions based on the qualitative nature.

I'm not disagreeing that DNA contains information. I'm disagreeing with your notions of what information is and how it works, something you've proceeded to both misunderstand and just dismiss out of hand here. Do you have any actual support for your bald, fiat assertion that information doesn't have to be read by minds, or that information in genes is somehow basally different from temperature or positional information, or is your argument there truly just "nuh uh!"?

As for the articles, don't even worry about distinguishing between speculation and empiricism if you don't want to. Just read them. I put them there because they use words in ways that you say were made up by the ID community. And yeah, I think we ought to have our own interpretation of the results. Why do you not?

Why do I not? Well, for one, it's because I harbor no illusions as to my area of expertise. I'm a writer, if you want a novel written, come to me, I'm good with a turn of phrase. But I'm not a biologist, and you shouldn't come to me for conclusions of a biological nature, as I don't have the education to interpret the results accurately. For the same reason, you shouldn't put me in charge of a nuclear submarine, or a factory that makes cars. Not my field of study.

You're free to interpret the data any way you wish, but don't pretend for a second that all interpretations are created equal. You're asking that I accept the interpretation of some random, uneducated internet commenter over that of a series of trained scientists, and I don't know why you would ever ask anyone to do that. You're also, by the way, still running up against this problem where you're asking that we take the information these papers produce as accurate, up until the point it diverges from your design idea.

Seems to me that the yardstick you're using for whether a conclusion is good here is how much that conclusion aligns with your presupposed ID ideas, and has nothing to do with empiricism or evidence, no matter your pretenses to intellectual rigor.

[robvalue]

<snipping the nonsense>

I see you're too chicken to tackle anything I've posted in this thread. Maybe you are learning after all.

Yup, he's been very carefully ignoring some of my questions even while replying to others.

It's very telling. Part of him knows his own position would not survive the slightest scrutiny. He's applying infinite scepticism to evolution, while refusing to apply any at all to his own ideas.

[Mister Agenda]

So we have what humans make, which is a product of intelligent design. And we have some other things, not made by humans, which have some similarities to things humans make. And the argument boils down to 'if things humans make are the product of intelligent design, these other things MUST also be a product of intelligent design.'

Without knowing anything at all about the 'other things' being talked about, we've got a hasty generalization fallacy.

Not really. We have a feature in something that humans did not make. We humans have produced this feature repeatedly with the input of intelligence. No other cause has stood up to scrutiny, which leaves intelligence as the only known cause for the feature. It also isn't that they MUST be the product of design. That was never part of the argument. We may find a better explanation tomorrow.

Really. And that's before even getting into the 'other things' being living organisms.

That the 'other cause' (evolution by heritable variation and natural selection) hasn't stood up to scrutiny is false given any reasonable assessment of scrutiny, given 150 years of people trying to prove it wrong and that there's a Nobel waiting for anyone who can find a better explanation that's going unclaimed. Intelligent Design on the other hand has fallen apart at every point where proponents have claimed 'irreducible complexity'. I'll give them this: they proposed a testable hypothesis. Too bad for them that the hypothesis fails every time it's tested. And at this point, any 'better explanation' that may turn up tomorrow will have to explain all the evidence that led us to conclude that natural selection acting on heritable variation is the explanation.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think it's called the "Wow, look at that" principle.

Wait... Ed Bassmaster is God?

[robvalue]

Natural selection isn't just the best scientific explanation.... once you understand it, it just seems incredibly obvious. At least to me. I'm not sure how else things could have possibly happened. But of course I'm always open to any ideas (backed by evidence).

AAA continues to conflate it with abiogenesis of course, because even he doesn't know what his actual objection is, nor where the "design" is supposed to have taken place in the proceedings.

[Asmodee]

I've been giving this some long thought, the idea that intelligent design is a science, and I have a definitive answer to that.

First of all, they want to prove evolution "wrong".  They have no idea how ludicrous that is.  General relativity is "wrong".  That's why we also need quantum mechanics, which is also "wrong".  Quantum mechanics works only on the quantum level, general relativity only on the non-quantum level.  Both theories are "wrong".  We know this.  It is a fact.  But we still use both.  Why are we using theories which we know to be wrong?  Because they work.  General relativity allows us to predict where a space vehicle will be at a given time YEARS before its launch, accurate to within about 1 second.  We know it's wrong, but it still works.  And that pretty much sums up scientific theory.  It's not about getting "the right answer", it's about a useful mechanic for explaining the universe.  So it's wrong, but we still use it because its answers are right, just not at the quantum level.

So what does that tell us about proving evolution to be "wrong"?  It tells us you've got your work cut out for you.  EVEN IF you proved design were real evolution would STILL be a useful, working theory.  You would have only proved 1 part, that at least some things were designed.  You would not have proved that evolution doesn't happen at all and you certainly wouldn't have proved that the entire theory was useless.  Evolution makes predictions which are useful.  It gives us mechanisms for designing plant strains, breeding animals, developing medicines, predicting which strain of the flu we need to inoculate people against this year, genetic engineering, even weapons research.

So what happens if you throw out evolution altogether and you replace it with intelligent design?  What happens if the people who currently use the theory of evolution to further their work now have to rely on intelligent design in their work?  Basically, all work stops.  Intelligent design tells us NOTHING!  It makes no predictions for how genes will change over time.  Its in-depth "like begets like" research may be on the cutting edge <snicker>, but it won't help you produce "not-like" new plant strains.  In fact the ONLY prediction ID makes is that if you look for evidence of design you will find it.  What use is that in science?  If you look for evidence of the word "penis" in the Bible you will find it.  Try taking the first letter of every third word.  If that doesn't work, try taking the 5th letter of one word, then the 3rd letter of the first word of the next book, then...whatever.  Eventually if you look for it you WILL find it.  Is this now the penile theory of Biblical dickishness, a new, cutting edge scientific theory?  It does make any useful predictions.  It doesn't give any explanations for why this is true.  It only makes a single prediction, just like ID, that if you look for it, you'll find it.  That is useless garbage, not science.

THE BEST ID proponents can hope for is to integrate design into evolution.  Evolution isn't going anywhere and ID is certainly no "replacement" for evolution because it's completely useless, scientifically speaking.  It does not further science in any way.  In fact, it actually seeks to take science backward, going from a useful, working theory which aids in many branches of research and development to a useless mess, its only prediction being that it's "right".  And that right there is a red flag, a "theory" claiming to be "right".  Replace evolution with ID today and the result would be a 21st century dark ages where genetic and biological sciences screech to a halt because ID is simply not science.  Even if it were, it wouldn't be useful science.  But that's not really surprising, given that its target audience was originally 9th grade biology class, not the scientific community.

So if ID is science, what would happen if we throw out evolution and replace it outright with ID?  That IS what ID proponents want.  So do tell me about all the great genetic advancements ID has brought us.  Or how "like begets like" helps to breed winning race horses.  I can just imagine that research.  "ID tells us that if I breed this horse with that horse...I'll get a third horse!  With this information we'll breed a winner for sure!!!"  Can it help you make herbicide resistant corn?  Bigger tomatoes?  Insect resistant potatoes?  What part of the "theory" of intelligent design do researchers use to develop new medicines or determine which flu strain to inoculate against?  The answers are no genetic advancements, it can't help in animal breeding, it can't help make herbicide resistant corn, bigger tomatoes or insect resistant potatoes, it can't help medical researchers and it has no mechanism for predicting which strain of the flu will be most prevalent this year.  It's only prediction is that its own prediction is true.

[Esquilax]

And I don't think that you can just dismiss the arguments that ID proponents make by asserting that it is a conspiracy theory set up by the religious to corrupt science. That would be like me claiming that Darwin devised his theory because he was mad at God and wanted to instill a natural worldview into society. When you actually read the ID literature (instead of reading about ID from a biased website, which I presume you did), you will see a clear outline of the theory.

Okay, so I was skimming this thread with the intent of adding some thoughts, but this really irritated me: why would you "presume" the source someone else had was biased? Aside from the fact that you disagree with what was said, what basis do you have for that presumption? Is disagreeing with something reason enough for you to declare bias? Or can we agree that it's simply a thought-stopper you threw out because you didn't have the wherewithal to address the issue?