Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch. Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again.

Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction.

Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?).

I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[NuclearWarfare]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

[Doc glasgow]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?

[Sarcasticidealist]

It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?

By normal definition, a scientific theory is one that has emerged through the scientific method, broadly defined (evolution generally defies controlled hypothesis testing, but there can be more to science than that). Intelligent design is no such thing.

Of course, people might take the approach that you do, and adopt a widely used colloquial definition of "theory". But if you take that definition of "theory", isn't "scientific theory" redundant? Can you think of a "theory" under that definition that doesn't relate to science?

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

[RMHED]

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

Now that smacks of protectionism and self interest. Yeah lets allow the scientists to define what is scientific.

Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?

[Doc glasgow]

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

Now that smacks of protectionism and self interest. Yeah lets allow the scientists to define what is scientific.

Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science. It is the last bastion of naive modernism.

The equivalent would be me saying Mormons aren't Christians, because all true Christians agree Mormons aren't Christians. QED

[Sarcasticidealist]

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science.

In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific".

Of course, scientists, like the rest of humanity, are fallible, prejudiced, and at times intellectually dishonest. For that reason, they can refuse to accept as scientific theories and fields that are, by their own definition, scientific. But that is not an argument against the "scientific" definition of science.

Who determines the methodology, oh yeah other scientists! Hardly a level playing field.

It is a peculiar egalitarianism that demands that scientists and non-scientists be placed on a "level playing field" on scientific questions.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[Doc glasgow]

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science.

In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific".

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available. Of course, either may be completely wrong. There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

[Milton Roe]

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available. Of course, either may be completely wrong. There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Yes, but the problem is that there's no piece of evidence you can think of, that will cause the ID people to abandon their beliefs. Which, BTW, cannot be differentiated from the idea that everything was caused by a touch from the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster (FSM).

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg)

If we find that the protein sequence of lizards are closer to human than those of chimpanzees, that will deal Darwinism a blow that it will never recover from. POW!!, evolution by natural selection will be gone, and we'll have to start over. However, such screwed up relationships of living organisms in time and space and structure won't bother Pastafarianism (see above) at all. They'll simply say that the FSM choose to design lizard DNA and proteins to be close to humans, for His own sticky, marinarified pleasure. And for reasons Man Cannot Know™. A theory that explains everything and anything by saying the "FSM did it," is not falsifiable. And produces no predictions.

That is why most of us want Pastafarianism taught in schools, if ANY type of ID is. Just because you don't like noodles, doesn't mean you have the right to be prejudiced against my belief in their supernatural powers. You see those two meatballs? They are two parts of my trinity. With the rest of it different in substance, but the same in essense.

There's really no reason in ID, why the tree-of-life as inferred from DNA and protein sequences, should match the evolution of life as we see it from the strata of the fossil record, which in turn matches the dating we get from radioisotope decay studies. That matching must happen in Darwin's view, but not if it all creation was the result of a Higher Al Dente Power. The FSM could have mixed all this stuff up totally, so that there would be no relationship between ANY of this (dating, strata, DNA, protein, morphology), and it could all be random. Except, it clearly isn't. Scientists had most of the sequence of life on Earth worked out even before we could read protein sequences and DNA sequences (which only happened in the last couple of decades for DNA). And now that we can read genes, they show the pretty much the same story as amino acids showed before them, and strata and fossils and radiodating did before THAT. There are a few surprises, but small, not big ones.

ID allows for surprises of any magnitude. So if you're going to go with it, I demand you pay respect to MY version of it. Above. With the sauce.

[Cla68]

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available. Of course, either may be completely wrong. There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Yes, but the problem is that there's no piece of evidence you can think of, that will cause the ID people to abandon their beliefs. Which, BTW, cannot be differentiated from the idea that everything was caused by a touch from the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster (FSM).

That's one reason why I think the ID theory is so ridiculously silly. If the ID proponents seriously believed in ID, then they should be taking it even farther, as in attempting to define, based on the evidence they collect, exactly what the Creator looks like, its/his/her attributes, desires, motivations, goals, location, habits, and history. Of course if they tried to do so, they would alienate every Christian sect that believes differently from whatever they came up with.

Anyway, you all are making good points about what defines science. The problem is, as far as I can find, Wikipedia has no official policy or even guideline defining what it considers to be science. The fringe theories and scientific citation guidelines don't get into it. So, since Wikipedia can't define what is considered science, it has to categorize any theory under science if someone says so in a reliable, verifiable source. We let the reader decide if it is one or not based on the sources.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[EricBarbour]

Anyway, you all are making good points about what defines science. The problem is, as far as I can find, Wikipedia has no official policy or even guideline defining what it considers to be science. The fringe theories and scientific citation guidelines don't get into it. So, since Wikipedia can't define what is considered science, it has to categorize any theory under science if someone says so in a reliable, verifiable source. We let the reader decide if it is one or not based on the sources.

That's not how they work---they let the successful wargamer decide, and everyone else (including the reader) can suck it.

Wikipedia is not "scientific" by even the weirdest, most open measurement criteria. Because they
have no standards, everything is up for grabs, and there is no "truth" except what a few interested
crackpots and Aspie college boys say it is.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: