|
Author
|
Topic: IS ID theory scientific? What about the CTMU?
|
Passive_Observer2
Member
Member # 1853
|
posted 29. December 2005 12:54
I am not a heckler, nor am I trying to stir up trouble. I have a serious question about the CTMU and ID theories. I am new to this forum.
One implicit criticism of the CTMU, and intelligent design theories in general, is that while these models might appear to be logically consistent on the surface, logical consistency does not equate to "real world truth". Isn't this why the empirical method is so important, and why many scientists reject ID theory? We can't test the ideas directly. We must TEST a hypothesis or see unambiguous examples of it in the REAL WORLD before we make the mistake of filling in a void with a "God of the gaps".
Linus Pauling argued quite pursuasively that high doses of oral vitamin C could help prevent cancer. Although his arguments were internally consistent and creative, and sounded like they were probably true, they did not turn out to be valid in the real world.
Granted, you could argue that hard-nosed Darwinian evolutionists make their own unwarranted conjectures. However, aspects of Darwinian evolution can be observed in the natural world, in a multitude of ways, and hence drawing additional ideas from this model is based on actual empirical evidence. We aren't making a giant theoretical jump to fill in a gap. We are cautiously theorizing and waiting for more evidence. The theory isn't finalized, it is slowly "evolving".
This is what concerns me about the CTMU and ID theories. Trust me, I find ID a much more appealing alternative than pure reductionist materialism (which I find intellectually and emotionally depressing). But what I want to be true, and what IS true, are not the same thing.
Any thoughts or ideas on reframing my concerns will be appreciated. Am I missing something here? Is there really more to this than wishful thinking? Do you ever feel like you are deluding yourself because we all have a natural bias to find meaning and purpose in life (being that it is an emotionally stabilizing concept). Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
[ 29. December 2005, 13:06: Message edited by: Passive_Observer2 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 29. December 2005 15:35
quote:
Granted, you could argue that hard-nosed Darwinian evolutionists make their own unwarranted conjectures.
[...]
But what I want to be true, and what IS true, are not the same thing.
Yes, searching for the unambiguous truth appears to be the goal.
As far as the Darwinian hypothesis is concerned, it appears to boil down to a precise definition of randomness?
What exactly is randomness?
Here is one definition:
http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/ait8.html
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David Robertson
Member
Member # 1909
|
posted 12. March 2006 23:00
quote:
"...aspects of Darwinian evolution can be observed in the natural world, in a multitude of ways, and hence drawing additional ideas from this model is based on actual empirical evidence. We aren't making a giant theoretical jump to fill in a gap. We are cautiously theorizing and waiting for more evidence. The theory isn't finalized, it is slowly "evolving".
This is what concerns me about the CTMU and ID theories. Trust me, I find ID a much more appealing alternative than pure reductionist materialism (which I find intellectually and emotionally depressing). But what I want to be true, and what IS true, are not the same thing.
Any thoughts or ideas on reframing my concerns will be appreciated. Am I missing something here? Is there really more to this than wishful thinking? Do you ever feel like you are deluding yourself because we all have a natural bias to find meaning and purpose in life (being that it is an emotionally stabilizing concept). Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated."
May I suggest you reframe your concerns.
Yes, I for one do think you are missing a few things.
For starters, I know of no empirical evidence for macro-level evolution. Where is the new species mutated from another? Mutations we see are not usually improvements and often quite detrimental. Sometimes deadly. For me, it takes a giant theorectical leap to fill in that particular gap in Darwinian evolution.
I find ID to be much more than wishful thinking. It makes sense. ID thoroughly resonates with me.
While I have not completely read the current CTMU work, I have always found CML's work interesting and quite stimulating.
Regardless, you do find ID appealing. So, I challenge you to dig deeper in that direction. I think you will find what you seek.
IP: Logged
|
|
Krauze
Member
Member # 1119
|
posted 13. March 2006 12:45
Hi Passive Observer,
If you have the time, I have some links that you might find interesting. First, read the exchange following this post of mine. Next, read this post, following the links from it as necessary. Finally, read as many of these essays as you feel up to.
If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them as best as I can.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic