Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

reply to post by Outlawstar

Wait are you talkin about the sphinxs supposed age in relation to John Anthony Wests theory?
And yep that is what happens to the sphinx, and the desert sand and heat erosion as you refer to it, is not the culprit in any substantial way on the sphinx.

lol, so who built the sphinx?

Obviously the Egyptians have looked after it during their time, and evn fixed certain parts of it, however yes there is no reason why the sphinx wouldint be covered in sand for such large periods of time.

They dug it out to fix it? The only reason it was still around when we dug it out was because it was covered by sand. Even today without rain that thing is falling apart due to sand and heat lol.

Originally posted by sirnexSince the day we discovered fire, flint knapping, spear making, agriculture, domestication of animals, that was all the start of science. There was no philosophy in any of that, it was sheer trial and error. Philosophy is more like a different branch of science in itself than it is the father of science. Without evidence of anything that is not mechanically described *as you put it*, I see no reason to readily and blindly believe it to exist.

Dude.. really.. Don't be ridiculous. Discovery of fire is not science. That would be like saying that a monkey discovering how to peel a banana is science.. If that's the case, every existing being does science.. I'm sorry but, it's still a fact that science was born from philosophy.. Just get into your history books, and read it. I'll even give you a small quote:


Forms of science historically developed out of philosophy or more specifically natural philosophy.
Scope of natural philosophy In what is thought to be one of Plato's earliest dialogues, Charmides, the distinction is drawn between sciences or bodies of knowledge which produce a physical result, and those which do not. Natural philosophy has been categorized as a theoretical rather than a practical branch of philosophy (like ethics). Sciences that guide arts and which draw upon the philosophical knowledge of nature can of course produce many practical results, but these subsidiary sciences (e.g. architecture or medicine) are considered to go beyond natural philosophy.

Link: en.wikipedia.org...

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

Most scientific investigations use some form of the scientific method. You can find out more about the scientific method here.

www.sciencemadesimple.com...

Intelligent Design is mostly an untested hypothesis with little to no observation and experimentation to back it up. There may be a few instances where this is not true (As there are different Intelligent Design Theories) but for the most there is no use of the scientific method to test the theory and back it up. That is NOT science. It is a Belief. Just because you believe something and come up with a rationale as to why it is true does not make it Science or Scientific.

reply to post by vasaga

Dude.. really.. Don't be ridiculous. Discovery of fire is not science. That would be like saying that a monkey discovering how to peel a banana is science.. If that's the case, every existing being does science.. I'm sorry but, it's still a fact that science was born from philosophy.. Just get into your history books, and read it. I'll even give you a small quote:

If you notice the wiki quote, it says 'forms of', not, 'all of'. Considering that learning how to make a fire by different various methods unnaturally is inherently different than simply peeling a banana, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Unless you can show a form of making fire that is as simple as peeling a banana. Personally, I would even disagree with the wiki quote itself as it more or less discusses natural philosophy as it existed and was invented by civilizations that were already in existence as if to say that any art, architectural or medicinal discoveries prior to natural philosophies conception weren't worthy of being considered scientific discoveries.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by vasaga

 

Dude.. really.. Don't be ridiculous. Discovery of fire is not science. That would be like saying that a monkey discovering how to peel a banana is science.. If that's the case, every existing being does science.. I'm sorry but, it's still a fact that science was born from philosophy.. Just get into your history books, and read it. I'll even give you a small quote:

If you notice the wiki quote, it says 'forms of', not, 'all of'. Considering that learning how to make a fire by different various methods unnaturally is inherently different than simply peeling a banana, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Unless you can show a form of making fire that is as simple as peeling a banana. Personally, I would even disagree with the wiki quote itself as it more or less discusses natural philosophy as it existed and was invented by civilizations that were already in existence as if to say that any art, architectural or medicinal discoveries prior to natural philosophies conception weren't worthy of being considered scientific discoveries.

Omg.. Dude.. Knowing how to do something does not make it scientific.. If you know how to build a sand castle, it does not make it scientific. A civilization already being there does not mean that that civilization was scientific. If someone knows how to make a shoe, it does not mean he's scientific. If you discover that a fruit cures a disease, it's not scientific. It's scientific when you ask the why. THEN something is starting to become scientific. Did people ask why there's fire in the beginning? No, they did not. They simply used it. And the first people to actually start asking those questions are philosophers.. You can't have science without philosophy because without philosophy there is no why

In any case, if you disagree again with what I just posted, fine. Whatever. Keep your closed-mindedness and be as stubborn as you want. I'm not going to waste my energy to convince you of something that's true but you simply want to refuse to acknowledge because you are too arrogant to do so. Your attitude is exactly what's wrong in current science and exactly what's wrong in the world today. You're simply making excuses to go against it. You clearly have everything already sorted out, so I have no use of being here. Bye.

reply to post by vasaga

Omg.. Dude.. Knowing how to do something does not make it scientific.. If you know how to build a sand castle, it does not make it scientific.

Again relegating the complex process of discovering how to make a fire with something more simplistic. Why do that? That's like saying the discovery of analog computers isn't scientific at all. Hell, by your particular definition, nothing *but* philosophy is scientific.

A civilization already being there does not mean that that civilization was scientific. If someone knows how to make a shoe, it does not mean he's scientific. If you discover that a fruit cures a disease, it's not scientific.

So, no amount of discovery or process of trial and error to do something that doesn't naturally occur is in no way shape or form scientific in the slightest?

It's scientific when you ask the why. THEN something is starting to become scientific. Did people ask why there's fire in the beginning? No, they did not. They simply used it.

I'm calling BS on that one. Before philosophy people relegated natural phenomena to various different Gods. Why does it rain? The God of rain causes rain when we perform a certain ritual. Why do we have fire? The God of fire gave us this gift. That in itself isn't inherently philosophy, but an attempt to explain a natural phenomena without applying any form of real logic into it.

And the first people to actually start asking those questions are philosophers.. You can't have science without philosophy because without philosophy there is no why

Again, calling BS on that.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[3] Philosophy comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία [philosophia], which literally translates to "love of wisdom".

Discovery of different thing's don't all get bunched under the category of philosophy at all. Even your own link alluded to this fact by stating 'forms of' and in that effect those forms of that only applied to natural philosophy, again not all discoveries fall under natural philosophy in itself.

In any case, if you disagree again with what I just posted, fine. Whatever. Keep your closed-mindedness and be as stubborn as you want. I'm not going to waste my energy to convince you of something that's true but you simply want to refuse to acknowledge because you are too arrogant to do so. Your attitude is exactly what's wrong in current science and exactly what's wrong in the world today. You're simply making excuses to go against it. You clearly have everything already sorted out, so I have no use of being here. Bye.

Hey, if you want to cherry pick and call me closed minded and stubborn, fine by me. Your still cherry picking and redefining to prove your own argument, which is just plain ridiculous if you really think about it. I find it very dubious that you can sit there and claim that ancient man never asked why and just stupidly used fire or stupidly built things as if it were so damn simple as peeling a banana or piling sand into a sand castle. You people amaze me. Let's get this straight, ancient modern man was *not* stupid, they were just like you and me today and capable of the same complex thoughts as you and me today and there is no reason to sit there and claim they didn't ask why. This isn't a retarded state mental institute we live in today, so stop acting like your in one.

reply to post by sirnex


Whatever suits you

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
René Descartes

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
Immanuel Kant

All sciences were a branch within philosophy, not the other way around.

This is my last post. Bye closed-minded person.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by vasaga]

reply to post by sirnex


It's nice to see everyone is still arguing...

I have to agree with both of you two on this one. I think a form of science began earlier then philosophy. But it was much different then it is today. Science took well over 2500 years to become what it is today. And I think it is still somewhat evolving today. But Philosophy was pretty much was laid out 2500 years ago. Where as science(method) was still evolving. I think modern science originated with philosophy but that doesn't mean that in its whole it came from philosophy. Because remember that science was around before philosophy. So around the ancient period science as we now know of it was the in the realm of philosophers. The modern scientific method was adopted much later. It then later branched off from philosophy to become what modern science is. But don't get me wrong a form of science existed way before philosophy. It was probably much more vague, and existed before the cradle of civilizations. But I agree that modern scientific scrutinization came later around kepler and galileo. So I think both of you are correct. Modern science was born from philosophy but philosophy probably arose from early sciences.

reply to post by vasaga


Two things.

One, monkeys don't peel bananas. They just chow down peel and all. Fiber of the highest sort, that.

Two, learning to create fire and do so consistently is science, in exactly the same way that putting a lot of metal around it and calling it a Lamborghini is.

And three, there are apes who have mastered tool use - they still don't peel their bananas, but they crack their nuts! And not just by sitting on them.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


HAHA Good One Walking Fox!!! lol... I have to somewhat agree with you...

[edit on 10/15/2009 by Key2life]

reply to post by Key2life


Science started the day we looked up at the stars and wondered where it all came from. He would rather have us believe that no amount of discovery prior to the invention of philosophy or philosophical arguments was science at all. No, instead the very complex task and process of learning to bang two sticks or rocks together is just as simple as peeling a banana or building a sandcastle. Clearly he has lost all grips of reality. I understand he enjoys his philosophy, but to the point of calling someone else closed minded while making banana and sandcastle comments is just ... Just not healthy at all.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by vasaga

 

Two things.

One, monkeys don't peel bananas. They just chow down peel and all. Fiber of the highest sort, that.

Two, learning to create fire and do so consistently is science, in exactly the same way that putting a lot of metal around it and calling it a Lamborghini is.

And three, there are apes who have mastered tool use - they still don't peel their bananas, but they crack their nuts! And not just by sitting on them.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

Maybe they don't, but if they discover how to do it, it does not mean they are scientific. Learning how to create fire is not science. Learning how to crack nuts is also not science..

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Key2life

 

Science started the day we looked up at the stars and wondered where it all came from. He would rather have us believe that no amount of discovery prior to the invention of philosophy or philosophical arguments was science at all. No, instead the very complex task and process of learning to bang two sticks or rocks together is just as simple as peeling a banana or building a sandcastle. Clearly he has lost all grips of reality. I understand he enjoys his philosophy, but to the point of calling someone else closed minded while making banana and sandcastle comments is just ... Just not healthy at all.

@ Bold part: Wrong. Wondering something is called philosophy. I think you simply have a wrong idea of what philosophy is.

Both of you, First, tell me, what do you think philosophy is? How would you define it? And second, answer this simple question. Would there be a scientific method without philosophy?

And I know I said I wouldn't post here anymore, but it's painful seeing people being so ignorant at times..

reply to post by vasaga

Maybe they don't, but if they discover how to do it, it does not mean they are scientific. Learning how to create fire is not science. Learning how to crack nuts is also not science..

Right, by your definition, only philosophy is science and no amount of trial and error or experimentation will ever lead up to something being called scientific. We get that already, we understand your narrow minded view.

@ Bold part: Wrong. Wondering something is called philosophy. I think you simply have a wrong idea of what philosophy is.

So, my view of philosophy as a school of thought is wrong despite numerous articles and definition alluding to that view?

Both of you, First, tell me, what do you think philosophy is? How would you define it? And second, answer this simple question. Would there be a scientific method without philosophy?

I already posted earlier what philosophy itself was. Not natural philosophy, but general philosophy. I think your mistake here is generalizing questioning and inquiry as all inherently being philosophical despite the clear definition of what philosophy is. Yes, the scientific method does have some foundational characteristics of philosophy as a background, but to argue that this method can not exist without philosophy is erroneous on your part.

Your attempt to trivialize scientific knowledge by demanding the inclusion of philosophy is just childish. Attempting to state that no amount of discovery can ever lead up to something being called science is ridiculous. By your definition, nothing is scientific. Genetic engineering, television, rockets. None of the most wondrous scientific discoveries ever made by mankind can ever be considered as scientific achievements because they simply do not include philosophical trains of though in order to discover and achieve these feats. We don't simply turn to a philosopher to understand the mechanics behind thing's. If we stuck with just pure philosophy as a methodology of discovery and knowledge, we can kiss everything we take for granted today, goodbye. Philosophy is a nice tool for thinking, but as a mode of scientific discovery, it's essentially useless.

reply to post by sirnex


I think what we call modern science came from philosophy but I think philosophy came from what we would consider primitive sciences. The overall modern scientific method came partly from philosophy. But even without the method, scientific thought existed way before the philosophical method was created. Now the philosophical method didn't really come into being until the greeks. It can be said that philosophy is the study of existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It studies these through Reason and Logic. But I think a primitive form of philosophy existed prior to its rise in the Graeco-Roman age. When man first had understanding he looked to the stars and probably wondered about where he came from. He might have pondered on his existence. I would consider that a primitive philosophy. Just like the primitive science of making fire it probably existed around the same period.
So really I think they existed in primitive forms thousands and thousands of years ago. So I think both of you two are correct on this one!

Originally posted by sirnex

Right, by your definition, only philosophy is science and no amount of trial and error or experimentation will ever lead up to something being called scientific. We get that already, we understand your narrow minded view.

You're completely wrong on my view. It's not my fault that you don't get it.

So, my view of philosophy as a school of thought is wrong despite numerous articles and definition alluding to that view?

I don't know. You didn't give me a clear definition.

I already posted earlier what philosophy itself was. Not natural philosophy, but general philosophy. I think your mistake here is generalizing questioning and inquiry as all inherently being philosophical despite the clear definition of what philosophy is. Yes, the scientific method does have some foundational characteristics of philosophy as a background, but to argue that this method can not exist without philosophy is erroneous on your part..

Your attempt to trivialize scientific knowledge by demanding the inclusion of philosophy is just childish. Attempting to state that no amount of discovery can ever lead up to something being called science is ridiculous. By your definition, nothing is scientific. Genetic engineering, television, rockets. None of the most wondrous scientific discoveries ever made by mankind can ever be considered as scientific achievements because they simply do not include philosophical trains of though in order to discover and achieve these feats. We don't simply turn to a philosopher to understand the mechanics behind thing's. If we stuck with just pure philosophy as a methodology of discovery and knowledge, we can kiss everything we take for granted today, goodbye. Philosophy is a nice tool for thinking, but as a mode of scientific discovery, it's essentially useless.

It's only logical.. Something can be called science when it has been researched. If you happen to discover fire, that's hardly research and that's hardly science, because, for something to be science, you need a hypothesis, a goal, a testing method, or something along those lines. And all that, comes from philosophy. Philosophy used to include all kinds of education - including science, mathematics and music theory. In fact, philosophy literally means the love of knowledge. Later on they were divided into different topics and philosophy started meaning one branch alone. But you refuse to acknowledge that.

Philosophy is the thinking part, science is the evidence part. If you have something scientific, but don't think about it, it can never be acknowledged as evidence and therefore can also not be acknowledge as a scientific phenomenon, and therefore science literally relies on philosophy, whether you are aware of it or not, and whether you like it or not. Humanity needed to think, before he could order this thought into material testing. It's only logical, but you refuse to listen to logic. Let me rephrase that again in different words.. Someone had to ask the question so science could seek the answer. And asking the question, is plain philosophy. Until the question is not asked, the science is not present..

And all your babbling about natural philosophy, you seem to forget that natural philosophy was what could be called knowledge of nature, which is basically science, and was a branch within philosophy as a whole.. So I really don't get where you get the notion from that science was first.. That claim goes against all reason.

Here's another logical question. Why is there a growing consenses in this country back to saying evolution is not scientific. Why not teach both. I don't think that it'll confuse kids anymore than the internet already does. We are already in an information overload. Why not just lay all the cards on the table and let the school kids decide. Tell them the truth that evidence points to both. It's the logical thing to do.

Originally posted by theEXxman
Here's another logical question. Why is there a growing consenses in this country back to saying evolution is not scientific. Why not teach both. I don't think that it'll confuse kids anymore than the internet already does. We are already in an information overload. Why not just lay all the cards on the table and let the school kids decide. Tell them the truth that evidence points to both. It's the logical thing to do.

Well, the problem with your idea is that there is no evidence pointing to ID at all. The ID camp has never provided a shred of evidence ever since the religious creationists coined the term. They're wedge documented laid out a clear plan to redefine creation by God with the term Intelligent Design in order to get God taught in public schools. There is no evidence against evolution at all, it's an observed trait we see occurring in nature and in labs the world over. The reason we have so many religious nutters claiming that evolution doesn't occur is because now they have a better medium to voice their opinion, such as the internet, television and radio. With these new mediums of communication they now no longer have to rely on churches or door to door sales tactics to spread the good word. Until the creationists start treating their religion in a more scientific manner it will never be taught in public schools. There are plenty of religious run private schools where they are more than able to teach ID.

reply to post by vasaga

You're completely wrong on my view. It's not my fault that you don't get it.

Wait, but didn't you just say that the complex discovery and learning of the different processes of how to make fire is not scientific and never will be considered scientific because they may or may not have asked the philosophical question of why?

I don't know. You didn't give me a clear definition.

Looking back, it does seem I've given at the very least, two posts discussing what I think of philosophy.

It's only logical.. Something can be called science when it has been researched.

Such as researching which materials makes fire and which don't?

If you happen to discover fire, that's hardly research and that's hardly science, because, for something to be science, you need a hypothesis, a goal, a testing method, or something along those lines.

AH, there you go again stomping your feet. It's not science without philosophy.

And all that, comes from philosophy. Philosophy used to include all kinds of education - including science, mathematics and music theory. In fact, philosophy literally means the love of knowledge.

Philosophy: the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics

General philosophy need not apply, nor do we need to generalize science as existing only if it includes the modern scientific method. The method that we developed in modern times was more or less developed to keep thing's in check. Sort of like a check and balance so certain thing's that there is no evidence for still can't be claimed to be true or exist, like a God. One could use philosophy in attempt to 'logically prove' the existence of some deity, but that isn't going to be considered science at all.

Later on they were divided into different topics and philosophy started meaning one branch alone. But you refuse to acknowledge that.

I did acknowledge it and I went a step further to point out that even your wiki link on natural philosophy says 'forms of', not all of. If anything, it's you refusing to acknowledge what your very own link alludes to.

Philosophy is the thinking part, science is the evidence part. If you have something scientific, but don't think about it, it can never be acknowledged as evidence and therefore can also not be acknowledge as a scientific phenomenon, and therefore science literally relies on philosophy, whether you are aware of it or not, and whether you like it or not. Humanity needed to think, before he could order this thought into material testing. It's only logical, but you refuse to listen to logic. Let me rephrase that again in different words.. Someone had to ask the question so science could seek the answer. And asking the question, is plain philosophy. Until the question is not asked, the science is not present..

If there was any logic in there I would most certainly listen to it, as yet I failed to find it. Not all thinking is considered philosophy.

And all your babbling about natural philosophy, you seem to forget that natural philosophy was what could be called knowledge of nature, which is basically science, and was a branch within philosophy as a whole.. So I really don't get where you get the notion from that science was first.. That claim goes against all reason.

Really? I've never met a disbeliever of prehistoric astronomical observations that predate schools of philosophy. That's really amazing to meet someone like you! As you'll notice with that one example, astronomy is considered part of natural philosophy and yet astronomy predates philosophy. That's just one example of a science predating your philosophy.



[edit on 14-11-2009 by sirnex]

My logical conclusion is that this is really really really reallyyyyyyyyyyy pointless. I won't waste my breath.

How bout some DNA evidence.
Would that qualify as being scientific?
www.abovetopsecret.com...