Intelligent Design is NOT the same as Creationism, page 2

Originally posted by Astyanax
This way out of the paper bag

I see no evidence for a paper bag.

Originally posted by JPhish
Nothing can ever be measured with certainty because of human error

We have measuring devices that are accurate to margins of error many orders of magnitude below the human threshold of perceptibility: electron microscopes, atomic clocks. We have devices to look at these devices, report their findings back to us and even analyze those findings: recording media of all kinds, computers. You don't need a flesh-and-blood scientist peering through a microscope and making calculations with a slide rule."

Who interprets these devices? Who made these devices? Who imagined these devices?

Oh . . . right . . .

only things trialled countless times can be "predicted. This is called induction, and it is something humans, and many animals besides, apply intuitively. It is a perfectly acceptable way of making predictions about the world, though it is not particularly scientific.

However, these are mere side issues. Let's move on, shall we?

It’s not a side issue because it relates directly to science; most specifically physics.

If you’re saying that induction is not scientific, then there’s a problem, because it is applied in math . . . It’s applied in everything.

you apply knowledge retrieved through inference and experimentation, to your logic

No, you do not. You apply logic to knowledge retrieved through experiment or arrived at through induction. But no doubt that is what you intended to say - you just got the words a bit mixed up - so never mind.

No, to say that the knowledge or data was arrived at through induction is superfluous. I said “1 2 3” you said “ah ha! ZERO 1 2 3!” everyone knows the zero is there . . . let’s grow up?

Originally posted by JPhish
our logic is not perfect. (according to evolution)

Originally posted by Astyanax
You mean to say our logic is not perfect because we are evolving.

No, if I wanted to say that I would have.

The rules of logic have nothing to do with human evolution. They are an inevitable outcome of the principle of causality. Human beings did not invent them; we merely discovered and articulated them. However much and in whichever direction humans evolve, the principles of logic will remain unchanged, as they have since the beginning of time.

That’s like saying computers have been around since the beginning of the universe because all of the atoms that make up a computer and the laws which govern its processes have always existed. You’re being absolutely absurd.

If there were no conscious entities to put trust and confidence in logic . . . it would cease to exist. Therefore it was not always there. We not only articulate logic, but we created it. Because we created it, it is flawed.

This statement still holds

Originally posted by JPhish
Evolution says that everything is constantly adapting and evolving, even us. If we are subject to "change" . . . our minds and logic are as well. This implies that our logic is either near "perfect" and declining, or not even close, yet still progressing.

Originally posted by Astyanax
We may evolve in a direction that deprives us of our ability to understand the rules of logic (doubtless with creationists and intelligent-design advocates leading the way) or we may not. But how we evolve has no effect on the rules of logic, which are universal.

I’ve already showed that your line of reasoning in this regard is wrong.

Originally posted by Astyanax in the thread he linked
science has shown us how our brains and senses operate, and in what ways they sometimes play us false.

Thank you for conceding to my argument even though it was under the guise of resistance.

This assertion still stands aswell.

Even though evolution pretty much mocks the very reason(logic) that supports it; it still may be correct occasionally. But according to evolution, only through random chance. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[edit on 6/23/2008 by JPhish]