For SteveK: Same sex marriage and ID as science...

[Hermes]

SteveK said …

I’d like to hear your thick reasons for legally recognizing same sex marriage but not allowing Intelligent Design Theory to be legally recognized as Science.

Source: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=249#comment-15622

[Hermes]

This is a stub for a potential conversation.  If SteveK shows up, I'll continue addressing his initial comment.

[SteveK]

OK, go ahead. For the record I'm not advocating that ID be legally recognized as science. Just want to understand your thinking.

[Goodkat]

I don't understand the point of the question, what does legal same sex marriage have to do with the pseudo-scientific nature of ID?

[Hermes]

Steve, please specify in your own words what a theory is (in the sciences) and how this differs from the common use of the word theory.

[SteveK]

Steve, please specify in your own words what a theory is (in the sciences) and how this differs from the common use of the word theory.

I don't understand the purpose of this step so I guess my response is go ahead and use whatever definition you'd like and continue.

[SteveK]

I don't understand the point of the question, what does legal same sex marriage have to do with the pseudo-scientific nature of ID?

This is probably a good time to explain. Should save us pages of cyber ink. One of the points to discuss is why (or why not) legally change the definition of something when there is nothing preventing someone from participating in that thing/activity/belief/whatever prior to the change? The other points are about rights and discrimination. I'm sure there are others but those are the main points.

[spider]

Edited post:  Nah,  I think I should leave this to Hermes and not butt in on his fun. 

[Hermes]

Steve, please specify in your own words what a theory is (in the sciences) and how this differs from the common use of the word theory.

I don't understand the purpose of this step so I guess my response is go ahead and use whatever definition you'd like and continue.

Unless I know what you think a theory is in science and how it differs from a theory in common usage, the answer I give to your comment may not make any sense to you.  As you mentioned ...

Just want to understand your thinking.

This is a two way street. 

If you do not know the difference, or haven't considered that there is a difference, say so and we can go from there.

[SteveK]

This is a two way street. 

If you do not know the difference, or haven't considered that there is a difference, say so and we can go from there.

I know there is an accepted and inherently perceived difference. This is one of my points regarding same sex relationships vs. hetero relationships. Is there an accepted and perceived difference? I think the answer is clearly yes, hence the useage of different words.  Why then call two different things the same thing, as in why call same sex couples 'married' couples when the term 'married' has always referred to hetero?

[Hermes]

Let's stick with one thing at a time; ID as science.

[SteveK]

Let's stick with one thing at a time; ID as science.

Fine. Explain why we can't change the definition of 'theory' or 'science' to include ID just as Prop 8 opponents want to change the definition of 'marriage'?

[Hermes]

Let's stick with one thing at a time; ID as science.

Fine. Explain why we can't change the definition of 'theory' or 'science' to include ID just as Prop 8 opponents want to change the definition of 'marriage'?

Erm...that's 2 things.  If you want to come back to this later, that's OK with me.

[SteveK]

OK, ID as science...go ahead.

Edit: added definitions of the word 'theory' from Wikipedia.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis.

[SteveK]

are we good now?

[Hermes]

Sorry, got pulled away on family business.  Will have time this evening.

[Hermes]

OK, ID as science...go ahead.

Edit: added definitions of the word 'theory' from Wikipedia.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis.

Steve, I want us both to come to a concesus on the issues you've raised.  I realize that is unlikely, but it's what I'm aiming at.

Unlike the blog, I don't see this current discussion hedged in the words of conflict.  While I think my position is correct, and I disagree with your position, there may be something that we can agree on in the end.

I realize that each of the issues you've raised are both intelectually and emotionally charged.  I feel that too, and you've shown yourself a sharp proponent for the positions you've voiced so far.

Unlike many people who reject Wikipedia out of hand, I don't.  It is great as a superficial reference and I'd trust it as much as I'd trust any other encyclopaedia; a good simple guide with pointers toward additional research. 

While I have not verified it, the Wikipedia ('theory') has the following quote;

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

    Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,

Do you see anything that you consider objectionable in this quote?

Do you see anything in the parts you mentioned from Wikipedia that you would see as not accurate?

[SteveK]

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

    Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,

Do you see anything that you consider objectionable in this quote?

Do you see anything in the parts you mentioned from Wikipedia that you would see as not accurate?

Appreciate the charitable introduction. As for my introduction, I'm not pinning my entire argument on the example I picked, which is ID. I've since thought of several better ones. Generally speaking, my position is that any argument against redefining the current definition of a word (in this case, 'science' or 'theory') can be equally applied to redefining 'marriage'.

At this point I don't see anything objectionable or inaccurate in either definition. My agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the point I'm making so....yes, yes I'm getting ahead of myself so please continue.

[Hermes]

Steve, glad to hear it.  For my part, I'm not going to be making sweeping statements but specific ones.

Initial overview
Before we really get started, I am granting for the sake of this conversation that there is a difference between ID and creationism.^^  I am in agreement with Behe on the statement that ID will stand or fall based on it's own merits and that ID does not address the existence or non-existence of any deity only a "designer" (of undetermined characteristics) and that ID promotes that Irreducible Complexity (IC) points toward a "designer" at some point and not a natural process.  The designer itself -- alien, deity, or extradimensional entity -- is not addressed by ID.

This is not my position on ID or IC, but I think it Behe and other proponents of ID/IC would not object strongly if at all.

If you have any disagreements (small or large) or questions on what I've mentioned above, please comment now.



^^. Personally, I do not think that is true mainly because of the evidence shown at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial covering the book Of Pandas and People.  Note that I am not referring to the legal verdict as evidence, but the evidence presented in the trial, precursor versions of the Pandas book, and the search and replace mistakes showing that Pandas was not a new effort but an updated version of a current Creationist book; http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/images/slide69.jpg  ("cdesign proponentsists")



Edit: Added clarification of my position as it differs from Behe's.

[SteveK]

I'm good.

[bartly]

The whole anti - gay christian thing REALY pisses me off. The reason is the root of homosexuality is in the womb, its unassaillably biological. The reason is simple. A baby is ALWAYS female when first conceived, then after about 6 weeks there is a process of the brain being marinated in testostorone if the baby is destined to be male. If this doesnt occur properly, then the male will have a female brain in the sexual attraction part; thus you have a man who likes to bang men -rather - than women. Im NOT gay but i have gay friends, and it offends me when christians insult gays. No straight man, and i mean NO straight man, can understand the anguish shirtlifters go through. The disproportionate rate of suicide of these beautifull people, is the results of them living in a cruel, intolerant socitey, thats not helped by christians making them feel worse. So if you - christians, have any disparaging comments to make about gays - i would suggest you walk a mile in there shoes. All you christian homophobes, are just jealous you CANT be fabulous.............................Oh, yesssssssssss.

[SteveK]

I appreciate your comments but they have nothing to do with anything here.

[Hermes]

Steve, here are the beginning basic questions;

Q. Does ID/IC provide any predictive power?

Q. If yes, what specific predictions has ID/IC made that have lead to new knowledge not known before ID/IC?

The reason why I ask is that I do not know of any non-abstract predictions that ID has made.  There have been arguments from implausibility of specific structures, but that doesn't promote ID to the level of a theory.  The ability to predict is one of the requirements for a theory as opposed to an untested hypothesis.




Edit: Clarification of one sentence.

[SteveK]

Q. Does ID/IC provide any predictive power?

Q. If yes, what specific predictions has ID/IC made that have lead to new knowledge not known before ID/IC?

I've heard some claim that ID has predictive power, but honestly I don't really know one way or the other. Let's say it has none so we don't get sidetracked by that.

[Hermes]

Q. Does ID/IC provide any predictive power?

Q. If yes, what specific predictions has ID/IC made that have lead to new knowledge not known before ID/IC?

I've heard some claim that ID has predictive power, but honestly I don't really know one way or the other. Let's say it has none so we don't get sidetracked by that.

Then, by definition, ID is not a scientific theory;

SteveK said …

I’d like to hear your thick reasons for legally recognizing same sex marriage but not allowing Intelligent Design Theory to be legally recognized as Science.

Source: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=249#comment-15622

[SteveK]

Then, by definition, ID is not a scientific theory;

But ID can be a scientific theory if only you stop the hate, embrace tolerance and equal rights and allow ID to be legally recognized as a valid scientific theory. That, in a nutshell, is the equivalent argument being made by the proponents of same sex 'marriage'.

I maintain that the reasons you give for preventing ID to be recognized as a scientific theory will be no different than the reasons I give for preventing same sex couples from being recognized as married. My reasons are supposedly the epitome of hate, bigotry and the limitation of equal rights - which is complete nonsense. I've put that lie to rest in the Prop 8 thread.

I won’t make you defend your position because it’s obviously a silly exercise. There’s no legal right for ID to be recognized as science just as there is no right for same sex couples to be recognized as married.

[Deus ex Machina]

Am I right in thinking that the objection to same sex marriage is in some way based on a definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman?

[Azdgari]

I think the critical difference is this:

Science to include ID:  If one changes the definition of science to include such things as ID, then the definition of science entirely ceases to be useful.
Marriage to include homosexuality:  If one changes the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, it still retains much of its usefulness.

[SteveK]

I think the critical difference is this:

Science to include ID:  If one changes the definition of science to include such things as ID, then the definition of science entirely ceases to be useful.
Marriage to include homosexuality:  If one changes the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, it still retains much of its usefulness.

How does letting ID become valid science prevent valid science from marching forward? Is science suddenly going to stop making advancements and discoveries simply because ID is now doing 'research'? The fact is ID is doing 'research' right now - today !

See how the argument goes?