Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It assumes something not in evidence.  Objection over-ruled

Again you're missing a central point of the ID movement, which is that the evidence may in fact be there.  You won't find it if you don't look.  Because of the advances in our understanding at the molecular level of biology, and the advancement in mathematics and information theory, we now be in a position to uncover that evidence.  Evolutionary theory itself lacks evidence to prove many of its own assertions.  Every time a weakness is found, an evoltionary scientist comes up with a modification hypothesis (patches on the damn, as it were).  Yet, while that hypothosis may make sense, it has by no means been tested (if it is testable at all).  So I believe my original comments are still applicable.  You are of course free to disagree.  That's what scientific discourse is about, is it not?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Sabre
(patches on the damn*, as it were)

*Freudian slip?

I am not missing the central point.

The complexity of the eye, which Darwin himself noted concern, could be created by pixie dust**.  This has as much scientific evidence as an Intellegent Designer.

Just because we do not understand something is not the evidence required to jump to ID.

** I apologise for using that analogy, I do not mean to demean anyones theology,  it is the first thing that came to mind that was unexplainable and had no supporting evidence.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by Sabre
Some may argue that CETI is a non-scientific endeavor, because we have little to no irrefutable evidence that there is in fact life elsewhere in the galaxy.  Nonetheless, the exact same scientific principles are used in CETI's search as are used in the other sciences I mention above.  Saying, "It's not science" does not make something unscientific.  

Actually, Sabre, I would bet that most scientists - including many folks (not necessarily scientists) involved in the SETI project - would state uncategorically that SETI is not a scientific endeavor. It's a hopefull search. Note the name - "Search for Extra Terestrial Intelligence".  It's not "The science of extablishing the truth of the existence of intelligent life beyond Earth." There no real cause to believe that there's intelligent life to be discovered, other than some overly simplistic arguments in statistics and probability that may or may not actually hold water (there's no way of knowing without further knowledge of how the universe works).

Rather than seeking equal footing with evolution theory, ID should be establishing itself as an equal to the pseudo-science that is SETI. ID is a hopefull search for concrete evidence of a Creator, based on a concept ("complexity") that may or may not actually provide sound basis for performing such a search.

Like SETI, the search itself may be quite scientific, but the actual science behind it is, frankly, suspect.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Sabre
Now you, and not ID, are straying into the realm of the philisophical.  ID makes no claims about either the identity or the motives of the designer.  Archeologists, stumbling upon a collection of ancient ruins, cannot always ascertain the function of every structure, or understand why the site was laid out in the way it was.  They can make inferences, educated guesses based on their own experiences, but only the fact that those ruins were designed can be stated with any degree of certainty.  Just as some ID scientists believe they know the "who" and "why" of the designer, based on their own world view.

Archeology, forensic sciences, and cryptology are all example of the scientific application of design theory, and no one calls them psuedo-science.  Some may argue that CETI is a non-scientific endeavor, because we have little to no irrefutable evidence that there is in fact life elsewhere in the galaxy.  Nonetheless, the exact same scientific principles are used in CETI's search as are used in the other sciences I mention above.  Saying, "It's not science" does not make something unscientific.  ID may not fit into the somewhat narrow interpretation of the "scientific method", as applied to biology.  It is nonetheless a scientific endeavor.  I can only encourage you to read the Smithsonian article that sparked this whole thread, and also look at the other peer-reviewed work of ID theorists.  Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" is an excellant first example.  If you're into mathematics, Dembski's work is also pretty compelling, if somewhat harder to get through.

1) You missed my point completely. How could there be flaws in our world if God (being a perfect being) created it?

2)I assume no more than ID does. Only difference is I don't tout my claim to be "scientific proof" that God doesn't exist.

3)ID is as philosophical as it gets. Why should it be God that created things. How about aliens. I dont see any proof that points to a God more than pointing to aliens.

4)What it comes down to is if proof eventually arrives that says the universe was created randomly, Guess who has to re-write their books? Big religion is so scared of having one of their defining "truths" about God being proven wrong, they will make up anything, including that ID is science. lmao

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Silat
I will listen to his point of view but disagree completely.

From my point of view he wants the world to live by his definition of the bible.

And that is just plain wrong.

Silat, look at what Seagoon has said -- I dont remember ever seeing him favor forcibly exporting his beliefs.

He HAS said that he believes some things are true and some are not true. He has explained why he believes, but has not forced anything on anyone.


Realtivism has so deeply penetrated our cultural psyche that many are entirely comfortable "believing" mututally contradictory things. Seagoon  (and many other believers) are bold enough to make their belief consisitant throughout their lives.

If a Christian really believes that Jesus was God becoming man, that the Bible is God's message to man, and that both told christians to tell others -- what do you expect him to do?

[Simaril]

Originally posted by cpxxx

...snip...
   I can accept and respect your view that all of the bible is true to a fault but how can you really be sure the bible you read today is precisely as was written originally?

The fact of the matter is that if either Peter or Paul or any of the biblical chroniclers were in the least bit economical with the truth or employed the least bit of spin then the whole edifice crumbles. Quoting Christ is fine except for one problem. His words are reported by humans. Humans have always had a penchant for leaving out the bits they don't like and expanding the bits they do.

....snip....
 

Certainly valid points, but they are based on a (likey unconscious) assumption that God does not actively intervene.


Play it like a thought experiment. Grant me, for argument's sake only, that a trans-dimensional God exists and that he wants to communicate with us lower dimensional human beings.


Now, he needs to take ideas from his higher reality, translate them into concepts we can understand, and communicate to humanity in a way that can reach humans in whatever millenium they inhabit. It seems to me that message could like much like the Bible. The Bible claims to be the direct expression of God's message, and specifically says that the writers were "carried along" by God's spirit working through them. The concept would be similar to the in-breathing (in greek roots: "In-spiration") the Greek Muses supposedly gave their artistic acolytes.

In other words, the Bible claims to be a direct transcription of God's message to man.



Now, if you assume that there is no God, the whole idea is laughably stupid (and may likely be a cover designed by clever power grabbing priests).

If you allow that God exists, it would be laughably stupid to say that he couldnt do things that way. If he did, it would certainly be in his interest to intervene in human affairs to be sure the message doesnt get damaged thru serial transcriotion. It just seems internally consistant, if you grant the foundational assumption.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Simaril
Silat, look at what Seagoon has said -- I dont remember ever seeing him favor forcibly exporting his beliefs.

He HAS said that he believes some things are true and some are not true. He has explained why he believes, but has not forced anything on anyone.

Realtivism has so deeply penetrated our cultural psyche that many are entirely comfortable "believing" mututally contradictory things. Seagoon  (and many other believers) are bold enough to make their belief consisitant throughout their lives.

If a Christian really believes that Jesus was God becoming man, that the Bible is God's message to man, and that both told christians to tell others -- what do you expect him to do?

He does it in a very passive way I grant you that. None the less he wants the world to live by a book that was written by men. I dont agree.
But as Ive discussed with him personally we disagree greatly.

[bustr]

Silat,

Seagoon does not do other than live and speak his christianity. He does not passivly attempt to influence anyone. He openly lives his life as an example to anyone who would take the moment to see the continuity. His words are his deeds. You sound as if any speaking of the gospel  by a true beleiver is anathma to your freedom, and seem to have decided to judge for all of us, and toll the gate bell that an evil is loose amungst us for his speaking of his tenaments in a public place.............

Are you so fearful of the spoken gospel that you would label any christian diaolog in public an evil attempt to coherce the unaware because you disagree???????

Please qualify your statement for it is almost a condemnation or even a persicution of christians speaking in a public arena.........

Silat said:
He does it in a very passive way I grant you that. None the less he wants the world to live by a book that was written by men.


There is nothing passive in his beleif, and in his profound choice to direct his life in a christian manner. Very few of us on this board can claim our lives are other than lived at the most conveinient for ourselves. Seagoon has given up much of what we take easialy for granted to give his life in service to his fellow man. Walk in his shoes for a year. I know I would be a coward and beg off. He is very much the real deal.

Do all of this boards antitheists practice shooting the messanger?? I thought tollerance was a universal virtue practiced by educated civilised men as a badge of their cultural accomplishment. I have only seen snipers and lynch parties chasing this man for openly speaking his faith. Whats next, you guys gonna visit the address on his signature and burn his church? I notice non of you after taking a swing at him post your real name and address for meetin him at sunrise........whats happened to the men in this world?

Sorry I forgot..the Internet has made all of you supermen by virtue of anonnymnity.

Keith Davis
178 Vernon Terrace
Oakland CA. 94610
keith.h.davis@sbcglobal.net
510-444-2070

I prefer gym shorts and broad swords at sunrise.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by bustr

Do all of this boards antitheists practice shooting the messanger?? I thought tollerance was a universal virtue practiced by educated civilised men as a badge of their cultural accomplishment. I have only seen snipers and lynch parties chasing this man for openly speaking his faith. Whats next, you guys gonna visit the address on his signature and burn his church? I notice non of you after taking a swing at him post your real name and address for meetin him at sunrise........whats happened to the men in this world?

Sorry I forgot..the Internet has made all of you supermen by virtue of anonnymnity.

Keith Davis
178 Vernon Terrace
Oakland CA. 94610
keith.h.davis@sbcglobal.net
510-444-2070

I prefer gym shorts and broad swords at sunrise.

You can't be serious......

[cpxxx]

Simaril, that is interesting and as I would see it, leads to three possibilities.

1. God exists and the bible is his word.

2. God exists but the bible is an interpretation of his word by men, largely in good faith, who claim that it was entirely written by God.

3. God does not exist and the bible while largely true is used as a basis for religion by people who believe either 1 or 2.

Only one of them can  be true. I know which one I believe.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by cpxxx
Simaril, that is interesting and as I would see it, leads to three possibilities.

1. God exists and the bible is his word.

2. God exists but the bible is an interpretation of his word by men, largely in good faith, who claim that it was entirely written by God.

3. God does not exist and the bible while largely true is used as a basis for religion by people who believe either 1 or 2.

Only one of them can  be true. I know which one I believe.

Thanks for taking the time to think about it, and I think you've summed the situation up fairly. With these cards on the table, we each face the choice of what we will believe.



For me, the internal consistancy of christian teachings, the external evidence of good in the lives WHO ACTUALLY LIVE THE TEACHING (capitalized to ward off the mandatory citation of the Crusades), and the personal experience of my life (it just goes better overall when I walk the path) all point to Jesus being the real deal.







It's way easy for us humans to justify our beliefs as "the only reasonable conclusion" without understanding the assumptions we make a priori; as a christian, it drives me nuts when people base their "proofs" against god with logic that assumes there is no god to begin with. (I.E.: "miracles are unbelievable, so there can be no God." Of course, IF there was a God, miracles would be no big deal -- but some folks cant see the logical error of disproving a statement by first assuming it to be false.)

[g00b]

Originally posted by Lazerus
This reminded me of an article I read a few weeks ago. In short, it states that quantum physics and the theory of relativity can not co-exist, and that quantum physics is based on an assumption that a certain particle, the penta-quark, exists. There is no proof that it does, other than the theory of quantum physics, and it is taken as a leap of faith that it does. This means that a scientific theory that is well respected and believed in the scientific community is nothing more than a faith based theory, similar to ID.

Everyone here should read The God Particle by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385312113/103-7518642-5018239?v=glance

It's surprisingly funny and readable and esentially lays out the foundation of our reality as we know it.

What this comes down to is the Higgs boson (God Particle). You do believe in gravity don't you? Guess what, no one has ever found the cause, particle, wave or whatever. This is why it's called the God Particle. We know there must be something because we can observe the effects. Thank God (snicker) the ID folks haven't latched on to this one yet.

I guess one of my biggest problems believing in any other "higher intelligence" is simply, well where did it come from then? A never ending hierarchy of "higher intelligences"? That's why I like primordial soups and evolution, no external unproveable entities needed. Occam's Razor states "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". I'm definately agnostic, god, aliens or whatever "could" exist, they are just an unescessary complication.

g00b

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Raider179
1) You missed my point completely. How could there be flaws in our world if God (being a perfect being) created it?

And you missed mine.  ID makes no claims about the designer or his/her/its motives.

2)I assume no more than ID does. Only difference is I don't tout my claim to be "scientific proof" that God doesn't exist.

Again, you brought up God, the ID scientists didn't.  I'll repeat: ID looks at the evidence of the complexity of life and diversity of life, of how current evolutionary theory is inadequate (in their opinion) to explain it, and hypothesize that an intelligence was necessary to produce it.  They are now in the process of determining if it is possible to prove that intelligence was in fact involved.

3)ID is as philosophical as it gets. Why should it be God that created things. How about aliens. I dont see any proof that points to a God more than pointing to aliens.

Again, ID makes no claim to be able to prove who the designer was, or the motive behind the design.  Only that they believe it possible find the evidence.  They are currently doing the research.  You're the one who keeps assigning the label "God" to the designer, and it's you who is attributing this "God" with charactoristics, such as infallibility.

4)What it comes down to is if proof eventually arrives that says the universe was created randomly, Guess who has to re-write their books? Big religion is so scared of having one of their defining "truths" about God being proven wrong, they will make up anything, including that ID is science. lmao [/B]

No.  There are many scientists who are religous yet still accept evolution.  That's because they have faith that transcends the physical, I suppose.  I doubt you'll be able to say the same for the "non-believing" evolutionists, if ID research succeeds in proving a designer was in fact involved in the creation of life on this world.

[Sparks]

Seagoon,  I noticed you didn't pose a reply to my question as to why we need an answer now. I will use your own words to illustrate my question.

It would be rather like digging up a pocketwatch and then being forced to exert all one's energy on creating hypotheses for the creation of the pocket watch, but never being allowed to even consider that it was the product of a watchmaker (because watchmakers are impossible).

[/b]

Why do you need to know today how the pocket watch was made ? Couldn't it be enough to use your life to find out exactly how one part works in tiny detail and just enjoy it's form, it's beauty, it's existance.  then to pass the watch with the information you have to your children.  This is how I see Einsteins view.

None of us debating this have one millionth part of a percentage point of the intelligence needed to find the answer to how we got here.  For me the idea that the answer lies in a book - any book - written by humans is absurd but if that is your belief and it doesn't affect me then that is your choice. Equally the idea that science today can answer the question is equally absurd with the gaping holes in our knowledge base.  ID is simply another attempt at the quick answer but one that threatens the advancement of our quest for new knowledge in the future.

I still fail to understand why you as a christian or indeed others as Muslim, Hindu, Darwinists or ID'ists have the need to believe you have the answer.  We just don't - the beauty of the world isn't lessened because of it.

[Booz]

Originally posted by Sabre
Now you, and not ID, are straying into the realm of the philisophical.  ID makes no claims about either the identity or the motives of the designer...
...  If you're into mathematics, Dembski's work is also pretty compelling, if somewhat harder to get through.

  "My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in
Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ."


        --William Dembski, 'Intelligent Design', p 206



oops